and lay claim to the 2004 MNC since it looks like usc will have to vacate the title? We did finish 2nd in the BCS, the NC game not withstanding. Anyone feel that the penalty was a little light in the pants for what had happened? I mean it's not like they were BCS ready with Kiffin this year, or maybe even next. Although I don't like penalizing the kids that are there now for something they had nothing to do with, I do feel this punishment is little more than a wrist slap.
NO! If we did not win it on the field, I do not want it. 2yr bowl ban, pulling 20 schollies, pulling Heisman and the BCS will rescind the championship, ****! All this work for nothing?? So much for making an example out of 'em. That should have been a 5yr bowl ban, and the addition that if further issues are found in the athletic department, that a death penalty would not be out of the question since they flagrantly waved the finger at the NCAA saying WE ARE UNTOUCHABLE!
I am assuming that the group responsible for awarding it will ask for it back, making that year vacant.
Maybe we should ask they guys who actually played in the game. I doubt they would want it but I'm just sayin...
DO.NOT.WANT.IT! Does this also mean that Cal would get the PAC-10 title that year, since their only loss was to SUC? Light? I think it was about right. You have to look at the ripple effect for this. The loss of 20 schollies while we and * are entering the league, and the post-season ban hitting them in the pocket (while we and * are going to BCS bowls), could put them in a hole similar to what we went through in the 90s. We also don't know how further sanctions would effect them. Kiffin and Orgeron don't seem like the sharpest knives in the drawer, and recruited the offensive players during that time-period. It's hard for folks who have played dirty for that long to change their tactics. It will be only a matter of time before SUC steps on it again, and they get hammered even harder.
Why? It would get an automatic * next to it, why bother? I'm sure if Texas played SC then they would be screaming for the title about now.
After some thought, yeah the hammer was about right, just enough to keep Lane and Ed scratching their collective heads and asses for the next 2yrs. And with the two of them, it will only be a matter of time before the NCAA comes sniffing around SC's back door again.
we could claim 16 titles (or 17 now). we choose to claim 7, because those are the ones that see, legit and fair to claim. 2004 is not #8. it's simply #17, among the ones we will not claim, but could
the trickle down form this could be pretty effective Iron, I see what you mean. Add in the reduced schollies, the fact that no bowl games for two years, and that they will lose several recruits that want bowl games....it could turn into a 4-5 years effect since with the scholly limit they should be pretty thin as well. after further review, I guess it was more severe than I thought, but it's USC so I'm not sure anything short of death penalty would have made me happy. If i'm not mistaken, I think there's an NCAA rule that might allow current players to xfer as well since there's no bowl possibilities for them.
They didn't pull Usuc off tv like they did us in the 80's....that was a big part of the debacle of the 90's for us. suc will be fine.
I personally think it's about time we got something for the 2004 season besides the Big XII trophy, seeing as we didn't play in a bowl game that year.
