Report: BCS has power to strip USC's 2004 title

[JLEW1818]

If the NCAA finds USC guilty of major violations, the BCS has the power to take away the Trojans' 2004 national championship, according to a report in USA Today.

The issue is simple. If the NCAA finds former running back Reggie Bush guilty of taking extra benefits from a pair of would-be agents while he played for the Trojans, then he could be ruled retroactively ineligible. As a result, the NCAA could force USC to vacate wins in which Bush played in the record book, which includes the BCS championship game pounding of Oklahoma after the 2004 season.

Reports USA Today:

Quietly in early 2007, as the investigation into USC and alleged improprieties involving Bush and his family was unfolding, college football's Bowl Championship Series drew up a policy calling for teams' BCS appearances and BCS titles to be vacated when major rules violations subsequently are discovered and the institutions are sanctioned by the NCAA.

Current BCS executive director Bill Hancock also told the newspaper, "Nothing would happen until the very end of the NCAA process, including any appeals."

So there could be more intrigue even after the NCAA FINALLY issues its ruling.

Understand: USC could be forced to give up the 2004 title and yet not even get hammered for major violations.

The "allegedly" hangs loosely on whether Bush took money and gifts, see Bush finally -- and quietly -- settling a lawsuit against him. But the issue going forward for the football program is whether coaches or administrators knew -- or should have known -- what Bush was doing. While there has been much media and fan bluster about the case, there has been little published evidence that USC had knowledge of Bush's behind-the-scenes shenanigans.

This has always been the critical linchpin of the case in terms of how hard the Trojans' future -- as opposed to the record-book past -- could be hit by sanctions. The NCAA could find Bush took extra benefits but rule that it found no compelling evidence that USC folks knew about it. Of course, the NCAA also could rule that USC was so loosey-goosey with the monitoring of its athletes that not knowing is no excuse and only reflects a program that lacks institutional control.

At which point, there could be the dreaded bowl or TV bans as well as significant scholarship reductions.

Of course, you're wondering when the NCAA is going to rule. It has, after all, been 13 weeks since the infractions committee met with USC officials in Tempe, Ariz.

That's grounds for further scandal.

The Pac-10's blogger will be on vacation next week. The Pac-10 blog suspects that's when the ruling shall be announced because of this: NCAA Ruling > Pac-10 blog vacation.

And, yes, the Pac-10- blog suspects a conspiracy between my boss, Darth Duffey, and the NCAA.

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/22428/report-bcs-has-power-to-strip-uscs-2004-title

[rawlingsHOH]

It certainly sounds that way. Probably no champ for 04.

[Mad Dog Madsen]

I hate to burst you guys' bubble but NOTHING will happen to USC...

[goingoneight]

Maybe it's time Auburn took after big brother and claimed it?

[Scott D]

Maybe it's time Auburn took after big brother and claimed it?

Auburn can't claim the BCS title since it would have to be awarded. However, I had to laugh when (and it wouldn't surprise me) the AP would likely 'revote' and give their non existent title to Auburn retroactively.

[CaliBornSoonerBred]

I have to agree that nothing major will happen to SC. There will be the loophole of saying they can not prove the school knew about all the crap going on. If they did for some reason say that MNC belonged to us after stripping them.....I have to say I don't want go get #8 that way and we should say thanks but no thanks.

[Salt City Sooner]

Auburn can't claim the BCS title since it would have to be awarded. However, I had to laugh when (and it wouldn't surprise me) the AP would likely 'revote' and give their non existent title to Auburn retroactively.

On CFB Live today, both James (who is an AP voter) & Cunningham couldn't get it out of their collective mouths fast enough that they'd give it to Auburn if SC gets stripped.

[JLEW1818]

Yah giving the title to a team who didn't even play in the bcs title game... Great logic by James and his loser son.

[Leroy Lizard]

I think they were referring to the AP title, which doesn't have to go to a BCS title game participant.

[SoonerShark]

Yah giving the title to a team who didn't even play in the bcs title game... Great logic by James and his loser son.

I would give it to George W. Bush, another entity with fewer votes than its opponent who was placed into his pinnacle position by a questionable body's decision.

[Tigeman]

I would give it to George W. Bush, another entity with fewer votes than its opponent who was placed into his pinnacle position by a questionable body's decision.

let it go. Unlike SC the guy played by the rules and won fair and square

[JLEW1818]

I think they were referring to the AP title, which doesn't have to go to a BCS title game participant.

so Auburn gets the title because they finished 2nd? and they didn't have to play the number 1 team who cheated?

I'm not saying we deserve the 2004 title.


But the AP is just as worthless as the current BCS System. It's still part of an opinion. Even tho the AP use to be part of the BCS


The Huntsville, texas paper could declare a College football champion every year, if they wanted to. It's just would people claim it legit? Sure the BCS decides the top 2 teams to play each other. But the coaches poll, aka the USA Today Poll, awards a winner too. "they are suppose to vote the winner of the bcs title game "number 1" "

Nothing in college football championships relates to NCAA Championships.

simply the AP champ, BCS champ, Mcalester morning paper champ.

No college football team can say "we are NCAA champions"

u can say ur AP Champions

BCS champions

Tulsa Storm paper Champions

never NCAA Champions, ever

[Leroyt]

I'm pretty sure the power resides with this guy...
http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/thegeekfiles/hemandirect.jpg

[Leroy Lizard]

so Auburn gets the title because they finished 2nd? and they didn't have to play the number 1 team who cheated?

It wouldn't be the first time in the history of college football that the AP champion didn't play the #1 or #2 ranked team in a bowl game.

[Curly Bill]

I would give it to George W. Bush, another entity with fewer votes than its opponent who was placed into his pinnacle position by a questionable body's decision.

That electoral college thing eludes you huh?

[yermom]

i think that body is the Supreme Court ;)

seems i heard somewhere that if the recounts would have actually finished Gore would have won Florida

anyway, the BCS or the NCAA doesn't have pull with the AP (see our 1974 title)

the BCS may take the crystal ball, but that would just mean USC would have two AP titles...

[fossil]

I would give it to George W. Bush, another entity with fewer votes than its opponent who was placed into his pinnacle position by a questionable body's decision.

:rolleyes: Time for you to get over it!

[rawlingsHOH]

Auburn has ZERO claim for the BCS title. They finished 3rd in the final BCS poll. The top 2 play for the title and they don't vote for final standings afterwards/

They can claim AP. But AP doesn't like to change their votes when it comes to USC cheating. See Brian Cushing.

[Leroy Lizard]

i think that body is the Supreme Court ;)

seems i heard somewhere that if the recounts would have actually finished Gore would have won Florida

Depends on who you talk to. There are those who think Bush would have won. (In retrospect, I wish Gore would have won. We wouldn't have to be dealing with you-know-who right now.)

[Scott D]

Auburn has ZERO claim for the BCS title. They finished 3rd in the final BCS poll. The top 2 play for the title and they don't vote for final standings afterwards/

They can claim AP. But AP doesn't like to change their votes when it comes to USC cheating. See Brian Cushing.

two things..

1. Auburn finished 2nd in the final BCS poll, the final poll is released after the title game to make the winner of that game 'official'.

2. The AP screwed the pooch on the Cushing thing by deciding to have a 're-vote' the day after the story broke. There were something like 10% of the voters just not voting at all because of the confusion that went into the rushed vote. It has nothing to do with Cushing having attended USC, but everything to do with being a knee-jerk reaction.

[yermom]

the last BCS poll is before the title game. the last Coaches poll is after the title game and they are under contract to vote the winner #1

[Rickety_Syd]

If USC is stripped of the title, then it should remain vacant since that would mean no one technically won it.
I don't see how Auburn could feel any type of joy winning a title on a revote six years later. And I don't see how OU would proudly display 2004 as a championship year after a game they lost by 18 touchdowns.

If USC loses its title, great. Just leave it at that and move on.

[Lasagna]

I would give it to George W. Bush, another entity with fewer votes than its opponent who was placed into his pinnacle position by a questionable body's decision.

http://bombmatt.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg

[oudavid1]

If USC dosnt get rail roaded by the NCAA for wasteing an entire season in 04 since there is no champion now, than i give up. Lets start cheating too. Who cares about the title or the Heisman, they basically ruined it for everyone else.

[OKLA21FAN]

If USC dosnt get rail roaded by the NCAA for wasteing an entire season in 04 since there is no champion now, than i give up. Lets start cheating too. Who cares about the title or the Heisman, they basically ruined it for everyone else.

start? :gary:

Bud wrote the book on how to do that! :pop:

[JLEW1818]

so would LSU get to claim the entire 2003 title? lol since the AP gave it to USC.. (keep in mind the AP was 1/3 of the BCS at this time. )

[rawlingsHOH]

two things..

1. Auburn finished 2nd in the final BCS poll, the final poll is released after the title game to make the winner of that game 'official'.

2. The AP screwed the pooch on the Cushing thing by deciding to have a 're-vote' the day after the story broke. There were something like 10% of the voters just not voting at all because of the confusion that went into the rushed vote. It has nothing to do with Cushing having attended USC, but everything to do with being a knee-jerk reaction.

100% incorrect.

http://www.nationalchamps.net/NCAA/2004_final_polls.htm

The coaches poll has an agreement to vote the BCS title game winner #1.

[Dan Thompson]

How did USC think Bush got his car?

[JLEW1818]

100% incorrect.

http://www.nationalchamps.net/NCAA/2004_final_polls.htm

The coaches poll has an agreement to vote the BCS title game winner #1.

well i don't really think that means much. Utah coach voted Utah number 1 after the 2008 season, in the coaches poll aka USA Today Poll.

so its not like you get shot in the face, if you don't.

[diegosooner]

It's tomorrow already!

[rawlingsHOH]

well i don't really think that means much. Utah coach voted Utah number 1 after the 2008 season, in the coaches poll aka USA Today Poll.

so its not like you get shot in the face, if you don't.

Right on. Though immaterial to this argument.

[Jdog]

http://bombmatt.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg

OU won two or three non-BCS while on Probation. It was because they were defined by Polls and not computers and a game. I believe one of the polls (maybe UPI) didn't rank us back in 70's because of a probation - but we won in the other (AP).

[Scott D]

UPI poll morphed into the USA Today Coaches Poll...it's still the same poll as back then.