Vince Young Says He Still Won’t Take the 2005 Heisman Trophy, Pointing to What Happened After Reggie Bush’s Stripping

Vince Young said he still will not accept the 2005 Heisman Trophy, maintaining a long-held refusal even after the award was made available to him. Young, the former Texas quarterback, finished second to Reggie Bush in the 2005 Heisman voting. After the NCAA stripped Bush of the trophy amid violations, the Heisman Trust later offered Young the award, but Young has continued to decline it.

In the latest comments carried by Yahoo Sports, Young framed his refusal as a matter of principle rather than procedure. He described his position as rooted in the circumstances that led to the trophy being removed from Bush, and he characterized taking the award now as something he does not believe should happen under those conditions.

Young’s stance places him inside a rare kind of college football history, where individual hardware can change hands after compliance rulings. The 2005 Heisman situation became a case study for the sport’s evolving relationship with eligibility, institutional responsibility, and how the Heisman Trust administers changes tied to NCAA outcomes.

For Texas, Young’s name remains inseparable from the 2005 season in the program’s modern narrative, even though the Heisman moment ended with Bush initially taking the trophy. Young finished as the runner-up that year, and the subsequent years have kept the conversation alive about what the award represents, and what it should mean when it is adjusted long after the ceremony.

The Heisman Trust’s offer to Young reflects how the organization handles scenarios in which the original winner is stripped. Young’s refusal, according to Yahoo Sports, underscores how even when the rules produce an alternate path for the trophy, the recipient is not required to take it.

What to watch next is whether Young’s comments prompt renewed discussion about the Heisman Trust’s process for reassigning awards and the way former finalists view those altered outcomes. For now, Young’s position remains that the 2005 trophy story is not simply a paperwork correction, but a decision with moral and reputational implications.

If more details emerge from Young’s own explanation, they could add clarity to what he views as the key distinction between an official redistribution and an endorsement of the underlying events. Until then, his decision continues to stand as a high-profile refusal in a decades-old title picture that still echoes in college football’s compliance era.