Trust to take Bush’s Heisman

[pamtar]

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ys-bushheisman090710

Wonder if OJ is worried...

[SoCalDukeFan]

OJ has bigger problems and his issues, of which we are aware, had nothing to do with his college football performance.

Evidently USC regarded the NCAA investigation as adversarial which is not how the NCAA looks at it.

“A lot of times with attorneys, the NCAA administrative process is backwards...because they’re out to prove their client didn’t do anything wrong or to make the NCAA prove that they did,” Morgan said. “Well, with the NCAA, that’s just not how it works. Schools have an obligation as NCAA members to disclose all violations, to cooperate in any investigations and to be fully forthcoming.”

http://www.latimesmagazine.com/2010/09/the-fall-of-troy.html

SoCal

[A-Tex Devil]

This is interesting. They have also said they will just not award a Heisman for 2005. Ummmm... OK. Seems like it would be really easy to do so, and actually get it right.:p

How is this different than Vanessa Williams not fulfilling her duties as Ms. America :cool: and having the runner up step in. Of course I am biased, and I hope Vince and UT do absolutely ZERO to lobby for this other than to say, "sure it would be great if they decided to award it to VY."

[mph]

This is interesting. They have also said they will just not award a Heisman for 2005. Ummmm... OK. Seems like it would be really easy to do so, and actually get it right.:p

How is this different than Vanessa Williams not fulfilling her duties as Ms. America :cool: and having the runner up step in. Of course I am biased, and I hope Vince and UT do absolutely ZERO to lobby for this other than to say, "sure it would be great if they decided to award it to VY."

I say, why not. Vince Young already has the NFL career of a former Heisman Trophy winning QB. :p

[Jderf]

This is interesting. They have also said they will just not award a Heisman for 2005. Ummmm... OK. Seems like it would be really easy to do so, and actually get it right.:p

How is this different than Vanessa Williams not fulfilling her duties as Ms. America :cool: and having the runner up step in. Of course I am biased, and I hope Vince and UT do absolutely ZERO to lobby for this other than to say, "sure it would be great if they decided to award it to VY."

I agree here. Not redistributing the award will just further the sense that it really was Bush who won that year and that rescinding the award was just a formality. When people look and see a blank line on the list of winners, they'll still automatically remember, "Oh yeah, that was the year Bush won it."

I'm still not sure how I feel about whether or not the award should be rescinded in the first place, but I think that if you're going to do it, you might as well make sure somebody who deserves it, gets it.

[lmb]

I don't think they should take it away from Bush. He set the all-time record for the number of votes received. So we're just to forget about his great season? It's not like his violations were things that positively affected his on-field performance or gave him a competitive advantage. Had he taken PED's, I would feel differently.

[A-Tex Devil]

I don't think they should take it away from Bush. He set the all-time record for the number of votes received. So we're just to forget about his great season? It's not like his violations were things that positively affected his on-field performance or gave him a competitive advantage. Had he taken PED's, I would feel differently.

Actually -- I tend to agree with this generally. My point was that since they **ARE** taking it away....

I think that there may be some eligibility requirement in who the Heisman voters are allowed to vote for. (e.g. if a player is the clear frontrunner, then is arrested and suspended for remainder of season, can't vote for him). I am not sure that is true, but have heard more than one mention that criterium. Whether that works retroactively, I'm not sure.

[4decadedukie]

If the Bush's Heisman is actually vacated, that is WONDERFUL for college athletics, and especially the critical -- and far too frequently ignored -- ethical and character component of intercollegiate sports. With regard to, "He set the all-time record for the number of votes received. So we're just to forget about his great season? It's not like his violations were things that positively affected his on-field performance or gave him a competitive advantage," I must respectfully -- but vehemently -- disagree. The FACT is Bush was not a legitimate college athlete, as documented by the NCAA’s findings that indicated illicit conduct. Therefore, regardless of his on-field performance, he is ineligible for any honors that accrue ONLY to appropriately approved and fully sanctioned student-athletes.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I don't think they should take it away from Bush. He set the all-time record for the number of votes received. So we're just to forget about his great season? It's not like his violations were things that positively affected his on-field performance or gave him a competitive advantage. Had he taken PED's, I would feel differently.

He was a pro playing college football. Right now the ones being punished are the current USC players. He should have it taken away. I certainly don't feel sorry for him at all.

SoCal

[4decadedukie]

He was a pro playing college football. Right now the ones being punished are the current USC players. He should have it taken away. I certainly don't feel sorry for him at all.l

Absolutely right; the kids we should have sympathy for are the USC players who were always within NCAA and University -- not to mention statutory -- rules, and are now precluded from post-season play (among other sanctions). I respectfully suggest it would require an usually selfish individual to hurt his teammates in such a callous manner.

[roywhite]

I wonder if precedents about team and individual punishments are being watched nervously in Lexington, KY these days?

[SilkyJ]

Not so fast! Looks like the Trust has not made up their minds.

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/news/story?id=5542215



The Heisman Trophy Trust is denying a Yahoo! Sports report that the trust is expected to strip former USC running back Reggie Bush of his 2005 Heisman Trophy and leave the award vacant.

"I can tell you the Heisman Trophy Trust has made no decision regarding the Reggie Bush situation," Robert Whalen, executive director of the Heisman Trophy Trust, told The Associated Press on Tuesday.

Two sources close to the trust told Yahoo! Sports that the organization is completing its investigation and will agree with the NCAA's finding that Bush accepted improper benefits while at USC and was ineligible during the 2005 season, according to the report. The NCAA cited USC for "lack of institutional control" and handed the Trojans four years' probation, a two-year bowl ban and a reduction in football scholarships.

The president of the Heisman Trophy Trust, William J. Dockery, reiterated that the reports were inaccurate.

"The status of the USC/Bush matter remains unchanged. Any reports to the contrary are inaccurate," Dockery said.

[JasonEvans]

Here is a question--

Lets say Player X played the entire regular season and put up huge numbers making X a shoe-in for the Heisman. Then -- after the Heisman votes have been entered but before the results have been announced -- it is discovered that Player X was inelligible all semester long. He was taking huge payments from boosters and agents and his entire season has been nullified by the NCAA.

What should the Heisman folks do? I think it would be clear that they would invalidate all votes for that player. No way they would award X the trophy under those circumstances. I would imagine they would either re-vote (which may be logistically impossible) or just award the trophy to the guy who had the second most number of votes that year.

Right? Doesn't that make sense? Doesn't that seem like what they would do?

Well, I don't see this case as being all that different. The fact that Bush's cheating was revealed after he got the trophy does not matter all that much to me. He was ineligible to receive the award and they take it away. It is simple.

--Jason "and yes, I do think they should give it to Vince Young, who was easily the #2 vote-getter ahead of Matt Leinart" Evans

[lmb]

He was a pro playing college football. Right now the ones being punished are the current USC players. He should have it taken away. I certainly don't feel sorry for him at all.

SoCal

I don't feel sorry for him either. Not at all. I just feel that the horse is already way out of the barn on this thing. Yes, there will be some embarassment, and yes, history books will make no mention of him. But among his contemporaries, everyone knows the truth.

I agree with Jason that they wouldn't have awarded the Heisman to him if they had discovered this immediately before the presentation. Nor should they have. But years have passed.

It almost seems like a trivial punishment to me - not harsh enough. Maybe it's the only thing that can be done to him under the current rules. If so, the rules should be changed. I keep thinking, "Why can't Bush, and Carroll for that matter, be fined or asked to cover fines that USC must pay?". The current sitauation totally stinks! USC and current athletes who had no part in it are punished severely while Bush skates and Carroll takes an NFL head coaching job. Taking his trophy seems piddly in comparison.

As an aside, the main reason I have been a Duke fan for 25 years, despite having no connection to the university, is because Coach K teaches and upholds the values that are present in good citizens. So I do understand the Athletic Club's desire for their award to be given to a person who represents integrity and aligns himself with NCAA rules. I guess I'm just left saying, "So what?".

[4decadedukie]

Jason,

I agree, presuming the Committee's and/or the Foundation's policies and bylaws do not require some defined mathematical plurality to award the Heisman, which Young likely did not have achieve due to all the Bush votes. If their regulations require a plurality, then (IMHO) a re-vote would be the best option (which Young would probably -- and deservedly -- win).

My only real concern is that an illicit, dishonorable player (X or Bush, as you see fit) not be honored for his corrupt, duplicitous and perhaps illegal conduct.

Warm regards.

[moonpie23]

the simple fact is, he shouldn't have been on the field to DO those things.....and if he's not on the field, Vince takes that trophy home..


you can't just say, well, he did all that, and he's not there anymore, so go ahead and let him have it...

http://ui32.gamespot.com/479/702headbanginstick_2.gif

[Stray Gator]

... My only real concern is that an illicit, dishonorable player (X or Bush, as you see fit) not be honored for his corrupt, duplicitous and perhaps illegal conduct. ...

As an old-timer college football fan who still clings stubbornly to those antiquated, idealistic notions of good sportsmanship and fair play, I agree that the Heisman Trust should require Bush to forfeit his trophy. Indeed, the "mission statement" of the Heisman Trust would seem to mandate such action:

"The Heisman Memorial Trophy annually recognizes the outstanding college football player whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity. Winners epitomize great ability combined with diligence, perseverance, and hard work. The Heisman Trophy Trust ensures the continuation and integrity of this award."

The Heisman Trust cannot, IMO, be faithful to its mission of recognizing the player whose performance "best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity" if the recipient knowingly violated the most fundamental rule of amateur sport by accepting money and equivalent rewards while playing in college. While I don't entirely agree that it's unfair to visit some penalties on the current players and coaches and fans of USC, considering the benefits that the program reaped from Bush's improper participation which cannot now be rescinded, I certainly believe it would be reprehensible for Bush himself to not only escape with impunity, but continue to enjoy the exalted status of a Heisman Trophy winner.

Even more troubling to me in a broader sense, however, is the reaction of Vince Young's mother, who was quoted in the NYT article as having said, in response to a question about whether the trophy should now be awarded to her son:

"We're not interested in having no honor and no glory out of somebody else they are trying to tear down, no," Felicia Young said, according to the report. "I say to Reggie Bush today 'You keep your head up.' "

Here, in a nutshell, is an illustration of what I perceive as very serious problem that is leading to much ugliness: The complete absence of any sense of shame. If parents of "role models" don't discourage young people from engaging in selfish and dishonest behavior that violates the rules, but instead criticize those who try to enforce the rules for the purpose of promoting fairness and justice and a sense of responsibility, then what message does that send to other young people?

Shame on the Heisman Trust if they don't revoke the award to Reggie Bush. Moreover, shame on Reggie Bush for not having the common decency to return the award as a matter of personal conscience. And most of all, shame on Felicia Young for telling the world that it doesn't matter whether someone's conduct is right or wrong--just don't let anyone take away what you've got, even if you didn't comply with the rules in getting it.

[lmb]

Moreover, shame on Reggie Bush for not having the common decency to return the award as a matter of personal conscience.


That would have been the best resolution in this case. You're right. Too bad it didn't happen that way. :(

Just curious, does anyone know what Bush's reaction to this whole thing has been? Does he claim innocence or does he admit fault and have some sense of guilt?

[JasonEvans]

Here is a wrinkle to consider--

If voters could not have voted for Bush, it is quite likely many would have given their votes to Matt Leinart instead. I am not sure it would have been enough to beat VY, but recall that USC was a true offensive juggernaut that year and there was strong sentiment to reward them for their awesome on-field performance. Young and Texas were great, but were considered underdogs in the national title game, IIRC.

Had there been no Bush vote, I think the vote between VY and Leinart would have been quite close and I would not have been surprised to see it go to Leinart.

Now, if we had a re-vote today, I am sure VY would win going away. He has had a far better pro career than Leinart (which should not influence voters, but it would) and there is strong anti-USC sentiment because of the Bush fiasco.

Anyway, like I said earlier, I think awarding it to VY is appropriate and makes sense. I just throw this post out there to say that maybe he would not have won it if Bush had not been an option for voters.

--Jason "life is so much easier if you don't cheat and get caught ;) " Evans

[DukieBoy]

I don't agree if they do take it away

Reggie's on the field performance was not affected by payments he received off the field. There's no doubt he was the best player in college football that year

[Stray Gator]

I don't agree if they do take it away

Reggie's on the field performance was not affected by payments he received off the field. There's no doubt he was the best player in college football that year

But according to the Mission Statement of the Heisman Trust, the Heisman Trophy award isn't for "the best player in college football that year." It is supposed to be awarded to "the outstanding college football player whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity." Aside from the fact that Bush clearly did not satisfy the "with integrity" requirement, it could be reasonably contended that he shouldn't even be considered a legitimate "college" football player because he was, in fact, receiving pecuniary benefits that were not permitted and were not available to all other student-athletes.

[JasonEvans]

I don't agree if they do take it away

Reggie's on the field performance was not affected by payments he received off the field. There's no doubt he was the best player in college football that year

So, in the scenario I described above, where player X was the best player in college football but was declared ineligible by the NCAA prior to the Heisman being awarded, you think the award should still go to player X?

Lets say we found out in early March last spring that John Wall had been getting paid all year by a Kentucky booster and was banned from playing any more college ball, would you still think he would deserve to win various Player of the Year awards?

--Jason "I just picked Kentucky at random for this example ;) " Evans

[moonpie23]

I don't agree if they do take it away

Reggie's on the field performance was not affected by payments he received off the field. There's no doubt he was the best player in college football that year

he was the best player on the field, however what about the players we never saw because they didn't have an SAT score to get INTO college.....or what about a player that admitted already that he had taken money from an agent? or any OTHER player that wasn't eligible ? we don't know if there was someone else who would have been better than reggie because THEY WEREN'T ELIGIBLE to be on the field competing against reggie...

that's the whole point.....reggie shouldn't be on the field......period...

http://ui32.gamespot.com/479/702headbanginstick_2.gif

[Channing]

I don't agree if they do take it away

Reggie's on the field performance was not affected by payments he received off the field. There's no doubt he was the best player in college football that year

I am fairly certain that Adrian Peterson, were he to go back to college next year, would be the best player in college football. Its a ridiculous statement because he is a pro and would never be allowed to compete in the college game. Bush was a pro and shouldn't have been able to compete and win the award.

[Bay Area Duke Fan]

Here is a wrinkle to consider--

If voters could not have voted for Bush, it is quite likely many would have given their votes to Matt Leinart instead. I am not sure it would have been enough to beat VY, but recall that USC was a true offensive juggernaut that year and there was strong sentiment to reward them for their awesome on-field performance. Young and Texas were great, but were considered underdogs in the national title game, IIRC.

--Jason "life is so much easier if you don't cheat and get caught ;) " Evans


USC would not have been the same "true offensive juggernaut" that year without Bush, and Leinart would not have been as effective a quarterback that year without Bush.

[Jarhead]

I don't agree if they do take it away

Reggie's on the field performance was not affected by payments he received off the field. There's no doubt he was the best player in college football that year
Wrong answer. His record was achieved dishonorably. He does not deserve to be honored with the Heisman Trophy.

[COYS]

That would have been the best resolution in this case. You're right. Too bad it didn't happen that way. :(

Just curious, does anyone know what Bush's reaction to this whole thing has been? Does he claim innocence or does he admit fault and have some sense of guilt?

I don't think he's said anything at all. Honestly, why would he? He, like Derrick Rose, has nothing to gain by admitting anything and nothing to lose by keeping quiet. The Saints don't care that he took money. The Bulls couldn't care less what Rose's SAT score was. Heck, even Coach K isn't concerned with whether or not Rose cheated his way into Memphis right now. Once these athletes go pro, they're pretty much immune to any consequences, save for the possibility of some vacated wins, which may or may not have much effect on a player.

[Duvall]

Once these athletes go pro, they're pretty much immune to any consequences, save for the possibility of some vacated wins, which may or may not have much effect on a player.

It's only fair. It's not like Pete Carroll or John Calipari faced much in the way of consequences after moving on to more lucrative positions.

[4decadedukie]

I don't agree if they do take it away

Reggie's on the field performance was not affected by payments he received off the field. There's no doubt he was the best player in college football that year

With respect -- and without attempting to pile on -- I simply could not disagree more intensely.

The Heisman's criteria specifically emphasize INTEGRITY, not football prowess alone. Further, that is entirely appropriate, especially since "student - athletes" are NOT professionals; rather, they are young people who are still in the educational phase of their lives, which encompasses a great deal more than formal academic training. Specially, it includes developing wisdom in ethics, in values, in culture, in decency, and in character.

Moreover, were Bush to retain the Trophy, what message – leadership by example – would that send to future generations of student - athletes? The single plausible lesson would be that the ONLY on-field performance is pertinent; cheating, illicit payments, academic dishonesty, unauthorized agent dealings, felonious behavior, boorishness, and so forth are simply irrelevant.

Is that the message, DukieBoy, that you would like your children, your grandchildren, or your siblings to assimilate?

[4decadedukie]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100913/ap_on_sp_co_ne/fbc_heisman_bushhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100913/ap_on_sp_co_ne/fbc_heisman_bush

The Heisman Trust is scheduled to meet tomorrow to determine if Bush will retain his Trophy.

[Stray Gator]

Bush has voluntarily forfeited the Heisman Trophy.

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/news/story?id=5572827

[A-Tex Devil]

Even more troubling to me in a broader sense, however, is the reaction of Vince Young's mother, who was quoted in the NYT article as having said, in response to a question about whether the trophy should now be awarded to her son:

"We're not interested in having no honor and no glory out of somebody else they are trying to tear down, no," Felicia Young said, according to the report. "I say to Reggie Bush today 'You keep your head up.' "

Here, in a nutshell, is an illustration of what I perceive as very serious problem that is leading to much ugliness: The complete absence of any sense of shame. If parents of "role models" don't discourage young people from engaging in selfish and dishonest behavior that violates the rules, but instead criticize those who try to enforce the rules for the purpose of promoting fairness and justice and a sense of responsibility, then what message does that send to other young people?

Shame on the Heisman Trust if they don't revoke the award to Reggie Bush. Moreover, shame on Reggie Bush for not having the common decency to return the award as a matter of personal conscience. And most of all, shame on Felicia Young for telling the world that it doesn't matter whether someone's conduct is right or wrong--just don't let anyone take away what you've got, even if you didn't comply with the rules in getting it.

Wow, that is harsh on Felicia Young. I mean, wow. She has quite a checkered past, but I don't read that comment that way at all. It sounds like to me that she's simply past it, and she doesn't think VY needs to swoop in and take Reggie Bush's "glory." Put another way -- the Heisman is gonna do what it's gonna do with Reggie, but we don't need to be involved.

Reggie Bush is deservedly being raked through the coals right now, there is no shame in telling him to keep his chin up through the process, so long as he is also contrite.

[A-Tex Devil]

Bush has voluntarily forfeited the Heisman Trophy.

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/news/story?id=5572827

I liked this quote from Vince on the Heisman. It's basically the perfect answer.


"I definitely want it, I definitely want it," Young told ESPN "But he won it fair and square definitely, and it's much respect to Reggie, man. He had a great career and he's already won a Super Bowl before me. I'm already mad about that.

"But at the same time I am definitely happy for him, man, and he is definitely the Heisman Trophy winner for that year. But if they send it over to me I am not going to say no to it."

[CameronBornAndBred]

I liked this quote from Vince on the Heisman. It's basically the perfect answer.
I like that as well. I wonder if the best thing to do instead of awarding it to another person is to just leave it unawarded. It would be like teams that have to give up wins retroactively due to NCAA punishment. When FSU and Bobby Bowden had to give up a number of wins due to student infractions their past opponents didn't win those games. They kept the losses, and FSU's wins were merely vacated. I believe that's the common practice for all teams that suffer the NCAA's ire...didn't Memphis have to vacate their wins, and not forfeit them? I would treat the Heisman that year the same way.

[CameronBornAndBred]

http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball/story/Heisman-Trust-says-there-will-be-no-2005-winner-091510

Yay!

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Wow, that is harsh on Felicia Young. I mean, wow. She has quite a checkered past, but I don't read that comment that way at all. It sounds like to me that she's simply past it, and she doesn't think VY needs to swoop in and take Reggie Bush's "glory." Put another way -- the Heisman is gonna do what it's gonna do with Reggie, but we don't need to be involved.

Reggie Bush is deservedly being raked through the coals right now, there is no shame in telling him to keep his chin up through the process, so long as he is also contrite.

Tex - I don't agree with lots of your football related posts (particularly the BSU/VaTech thread recently) but I absolutely agree that both Vince Young and his mother have reacted quite honorably and honestly throughout this process.

The fact of the matter is, Vince has nothing at all to do with the un-ceremonious process of taking away Bush's Heisman. Some people are giving Bush undue credit for forfeiting the prize rather than having it taken from him - I don't see that he had any logical options.

Vince's mother trying to offer support to Reggie Bush strikes me as classy and unnecessarily kind; not many other people are rallying to his support, and she is in a unique position to do so without sounding like a ridiculous USC homer.

Vince's own comments are very honest and classy as well. He could have easily side-stepped the issue with a "no comment" or even a truthful "it doesn't pertain to me." Instead, he admitted that he would love to have won the award, and that he was honored to have been considered but would not want to receive it under these circumstances.

The behavior of pro athletes is by and large distasteful to me, and Vince doesn't generally strike me as a paragon of virtue, but I the statements by his mother and him have impressed me this week. It's a unique and unfortunate position for them.

Bush on the other hand will certainly hope that this is a way to put the whole mess behind him with a simple press conference, while his school and the current players will be dealing with it for a long, long time. What a legacy to leave behind.

I agree with the vacated award. Leave it there so that the next generation of sports fans ask the question "What happened?" It beats the heck out of asterisks.

[Stray Gator]

Tex - I don't agree with lots of your football related posts (particularly the BSU/VaTech thread recently) but I absolutely agree that both Vince Young and his mother have reacted quite honorably and honestly throughout this process.

The fact of the matter is, Vince has nothing at all to do with the un-ceremonious process of taking away Bush's Heisman. Some people are giving Bush undue credit for forfeiting the prize rather than having it taken from him - I don't see that he had any logical options.

Vince's mother trying to offer support to Reggie Bush strikes me as classy and unnecessarily kind; not many other people are rallying to his support, and she is in a unique position to do so without sounding like a ridiculous USC homer.

Vince's own comments are very honest and classy as well. He could have easily side-stepped the issue with a "no comment" or even a truthful "it doesn't pertain to me." Instead, he admitted that he would love to have won the award, and that he was honored to have been considered but would not want to receive it under these circumstances.

The behavior of pro athletes is by and large distasteful to me, and Vince doesn't generally strike me as a paragon of virtue, but I the statements by his mother and him have impressed me this week. It's a unique and unfortunate position for them.

Bush on the other hand will certainly hope that this is a way to put the whole mess behind him with a simple press conference, while his school and the current players will be dealing with it for a long, long time. What a legacy to leave behind.

I agree with the vacated award. Leave it there so that the next generation of sports fans ask the question "What happened?" It beats the heck out of asterisks.

First, I agree that the Heisman Trust made the right decision in simply vacating the award.

Second, I agree that Vince Young's statement was commendable for being both honest and honorable.

But I maintain that Felicia Young's statement--which clearly conveys her feeling that Reggie Bush should be allowed to continue enjoying all the benefits of being a Heisman Trophy winner, even though we now know that he violated rules that would have rendered him ineligible to play and unqualified (based on the "with integrity" criterion) for the Heisman Trophy, while those who seek to hold Bush accountable for cheating should be scorned for "trying to tear [him] down"--is at best unfortunate and misguided. Here we have a parent, from whom young fans of her son should be able to receive the kind of guidance that counsels a sense of responsibility, telling the cheater to "keep your head up," while castigating the people who merely want to assure that everyone competes fairly in accordance with the rules. What kind of distorted message does that send?

If she had simply said something like "we aren't interested in receiving the honor of this award as a result of the original recipient's forfeiture, and we feel badly for Reggie," I think that would have been fine. But going beyond that to defend and affirmatively encourage the person who did not legitimately earn the award, while casting aspersions on those who criticize Bush because they believe that, given what we now know about the previously undisclosed improprieties, he was awarded the trophy undeservedly, is IMO not just wrong, but harmful.

[A-Tex Devil]

Tex - I don't agree with lots of your football related posts (particularly the BSU/VaTech thread recently) but I absolutely agree that both Vince Young and his mother have reacted quite honorably and honestly throughout this process.


Thanks. My Boise takes are admittedly a bit over the top. You know when there is just something that GETS you? I understand why they are admired, but... they just get to me.

I am fine with the vacated award. Stray, I think you are reading way too much into Felicia Young's statement, but we'll agree to disagree there.