Yes if the winner is disqualified for cheating the runner up should get the prize. That is long established in sports. Of course, they should double check the next in line for cheating too. What a bunch of low life scum!

Reggie Bush should not keep his Heisman (since he's now surrendered it, this is not a concern). He was ineligible to play, and the Heisman guidelines clearly state that only eligible players can be considered. However, the Heisman Trust cannot rewrite history. Vince Young had an amazing football season that year, and does not need someone's secondhand award to prove it.

Seeing as the point spread between Vince Young and Matt Leinart (heisman.com) is 811, I'd say that Vince Young is the defacto best choice of the candidates remaining. Not only is he runner up, the traditional person to get awarded should the winner get stripped, but Vince Young left every other candidate in the dust!

The best answer here is the absolute worst. Reggie Bush was awarded the Heisman for his performance on the field since he gave it back the spot should be left vacant. He did nothing wrong as in steroid use or enhancement abuse. For those who think the runner up should get it, I don't think so, runner up should stay as runner up!!!!

I am of the belief that talent should be rewarded. While I agree Reggie "cheated," it in no way impacted the way he played, the way his team played, or the outcome of the Heisman race. Low life scum? Really?

I don't think it should be passed along as it is not a foot race with an obvious who came in second. Who knows where the trophy would have ended up if Bush didn't get to play.
As far as Colleges wasting money on football. Sorry but do you realize the amount of money sports bring into schools. Especially if you have a top team and get televised dollars and all the toys that the school sells around it. This helps to keep your tuition down and the people who play the game go onto professional sports. It also helps with donations to the Colleges. So it is far from a waste.

In this case, I really don’t think you can just give the award to Vince Young. Sure, Vince Young finished second, but how could you say that if Reggie Bush would have been made ineligible for the season that Matt Leinart wouldn’t have just garnered a bunch more votes and finished first (Leinart did win the award the year before and the USC offense probably would have still been dominant even without Bush)?

I actually think there are two types of situations in dealing with disqualification in a competition.

1. The case where the results of the competition are based on a ranking of what are mostly a bunch of individual results. Think of something like the 100m dash. In cases like that, it’s pretty clear to draw the conclusion that if the top finisher was not in the race, the second place finisher would have won (okay, you can make some twisted logic where that isn’t the case, but I think it is weak logic).

2. The case where the determination of finish is based on voting/relative ranking or based on a competition where only some teams play the disqualified party.
In the first case, if the first place finisher is disqualified, I think you can give the first place award to the second place finisher. In the second case, I really think you have to leave first place undetermined since there are too many factors to actually figure who would have won.

I think the Heisman clearly falls into the second case. So if they are going to go so far as to strip the award from Reggie Bush (which to me is a stupid decision, but that’s another topic altogether), then I don’t think you can give it to anyone else.