RT @slmandel: Suppose NCAA gives USC a 1-year bowl ban tomorrow. If SC goes 12-0, can’t play in BCS but everyone else has 1 loss, would AP still vote them No. 1?
RT @slmandel: Suppose NCAA gives USC a 1-year bowl ban tomorrow. If SC goes 12-0, can’t play in BCS but everyone else has 1 loss, would AP still vote them No. 1?
Now THAT, not USC’s 2003 AP title, should be disputed!
Mandel’s scenario, combined with the NCAA vacating the 2004-05 season and the BCS (but not the AP) taking away the ’04-’05 title — which appears to be the most likely way this plays out — would give the Trojans three AP-only titles in less than a decade.
That popping sound you hear is LSU fans’ heads exploding.
Also Auburn fans’ heads. And hell, let’s have one-loss Alabama or Florida or Georgia win the ’10-’11 BCS title under Mandel’s scenario, so practically the entire freakin’ SEC will be pissed off.
Actually the most likely way for this to play out is if USC is undefeated but bowl-ineligible, and the BCS title game is undefeated Boise State vs. a 1-loss team, ideally NOT an SEC team (since 1-loss SEC champs are generally regarded as ipso facto legit, without any further need to “prove” anything). Then the one-loss team beats Boise, proving exactly nothing in the eyes of conventional wisdom. And let’s say there’s another 1-loss team that just barely got beaten out by Boise for the title-game slot. Something like this, heading into the bowls:
1. USC (12-0)
2. Ohio State (11-1)
3. Boise State (12-0)
4. Oklahoma (11-1) (CURSES! foiled by Boise again!)
Oklahoma wallops somebody decent in the Fiesta Bowl, to go 12-1. So, after the bowls, USC is still 12-0, while tOSU, OU and Boise are all 12-1. The AP vote is split among USC, tOSU and OU. Trojans eke out another disputed title. Hahahaha.
Man, will I be glad when these results come out tomorrow. This speculation has really gone crazy. I know the NCAA can do whatever they want, which is scary, and maybe they have no brains at all, which is even scarier, but to suggest that they might put a bowl ban on USC to punish them for the behavior of players and coaches from 6 years ago, is palpably absurd. Furthermore, there isn’t any allegation of serious wrong-doing by the football program. The most serious allegation is that Reggie Bush’s family received free housing from an agent years AFTER Reggie was enrolled at USC. Is it really fair to punish an entire team and program because of the behavior of ONE athlete on the football team, that the Trojans didn’t even need in the first place?
Reggie Bush is an “athlete…the Trojans didn’t even need in the first place?” Whatever the merits of the rest of your comment, that’s a rather bold, not to say idiotic, statement. Maybe they go undefeated in 2004-05 without Reggie, but having personally witnessed both the Notre Dame and Fresno State games in 2005-06, I can tell you that USC doesn’t win either of those games without the dynamic presence that was Reggie Bush. They finish the regular season 10-2 and, with Texas facing either Notre Dame or Penn State in the Rose Bowl, USC goes to the Fiesta Bowl against either PSU or Ohio State, or possibly even the Irish (wow, USC-ND in the Fiesta Bowl a few days after Becky’s and my wedding in Arizona… we might have had to delay our honeymoon for that).
You might also want to ask LenDale White, a.k.a. Mr. Stuffed-on-4th-and-2-with-Reggie-on-the-Sidelines, about the theory that USC didn’t “need” Reggie Bush. Moreover, if the years since 4th and 2 have proved anything, it’s that the theory of USC’s athletes being basically interchangable pieces of the Unstoppable Poodle Pete Carroll Championship Machine is fatally flawed. Need I remind you that USC hasn’t actually been to a championship game, let alone won a title, since Bush and Leinart left?
Also, our record against Stanford since Reggie left is identical to Notre Dame’s record against Navy during the same time period.
Retroactively taking the titles/wins away from USC based solely on Reggies alleged off-field activities would be a tragedy. Like life imprisonment for shoplifting a pack of gum, the punishment would not fit the crime. It also provides little to no deterent for future behavior of a similar manner. Bush would still have his NFL career, his millions of dollars, his fame from then and now. Why would that stop someone from trying the same thing, knowing that they can get away with it in the future?
I realize its a long shot to expect the NCAA not to do something monumentally stupid, but here’s hoping.
A better system would involve a contract with financial penalties that all student athletes would sign for handling issues like this. Not sure if thats legal, but atleast then you could punish the person who broke the rules. Same with coaches, if a coach was involved, punish them financially in some way, or prohibit them from coaching for a few years, etc. Especially for off field activities that don’t directly affect the way the games were played. Its a stretch to claim that Bush’s on field performances would have suffered or were enhanced by his living situation. If he were on PED’s sure, but baring that, vacating wins is a stupid idea. Revisionist history is bad juju.
Reggie standing on the side-lines for 4th and 2 prove that Reggie wasn’t as valuable as you say he is. The other funny thing you failed to mention is that if Reggie hadn’t thrown a touchdown away in the first half USC blows out Texas going up 17-0.
I always hear these BS arguments about USC didn’t win a national championship without Norm Chow, or now Reggie Bush, come on. It was a lot more than Bush that won those games, and without him they had enough talent to beat everyone on their schedule. If USC wasn’t playing with all 2nd-4th string defensive players in 2005 none of their games would have been close, but their D was decimated with season ending injuries, and they still went undefeated. Lendale White scored more TD’s and was the go-to guy all the time. It’s widely accepted that Bush wasn’t even the best RB on the team when he won the Heisman.
I was under the impression that the benefits accrued to Bush’s family weren’t in effect until after the 2004 season, so perhaps the 2005 season (and Reggie’s Heisman) could be vacated, but not 2004. Can someone point me to a timeline of when Reggie supposedly was receiving these alleged benefits?
http://www.brendanloy.com/wp/2006/04/usc-could-lose-04-bcs-title.html
That doesn’t really answer your question about the timeline, but apparently it is believed that at least some portion of the 2004-05 season is in jeopardy. Maybe someone who knows/recalls more of the details can elaborate.
In any case, we’ll all find out soon enough.
Gah…a scenario where both USC and Georgia get to claim titles…make it stop! Make it stop!