USC stripped of 2004 Championship

Saniflush · « **on:** June 07, 2011, 08:29:49 AM »

Bammer begins positioning themselves to claim it....

http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball/story/BCS-strips-Southern-California-of-2004-football-national-championship-060611

The Bowl Championship Series stripped Southern California of its 2004 title on Monday, leaving that season without a BCS champion.

The announcement was no surprise. BCS officials had said USC was in danger of having its championship vacated after the Trojans were hit with heavy NCAA sanctions last year for rules violations committed during the 2004 and '05 seasons.

REGGIE BUSH
USC LOSES NATIONAL TITLE

''The BCS alerted us today that their presidents have voted to vacate USC's 2005 BCS championship game victory,'' USC athletic director Pat Haden said. ''This was not an unexpected outcome. We will comply with all requirements mandated by the result of this BCS vote.''

The NCAA ruled star tailback Reggie Bush received improper extra benefits during those seasons and was ineligible when he played.

One of Haden's first moves when he took over as AD last year was to give back the school's copy of the Heisman Trophy that Bush won in 2005. Bush later relinquished his own Heisman and the trust in charge of handing out the award announced the '05 winner would be left vacant.

The BCS waited until USC appealed the NCAA sanctions, which included a two-year ban from postseason play and a loss of 30 scholarships over three seasons, to make a decision about its championship. The NCAA denied USC's appeal on May 26.

At that point, it was just a matter of time before the Trojans' 55-19 victory against Oklahoma in the 2005 Orange Bowl was wiped from the record books.

The dominant performance capped a perfect season by USC and left it ranked at the top of both the AP and coaches' polls. Auburn and Utah also finished that season undefeated.

The Trojans will not have to relinquish The Associated Press national championship.

''The BCS arrangement crowns a national champion, and the BCS games are showcase events for postseason football,'' BCS Executive Director Bill Hancock said in a statement. ''One of the best ways of ensuring that they remain so is for us to foster full compliance with NCAA rules. Accordingly, in keeping with the NCAA's recent action, USC's appearances are being vacated.''

The BCS also said the Trojans must vacate their participation in 2006 Rose Bowl. USC lost that game, 41-38, and the national championship to Texas.

AUJarhead · « **Reply #1 on:** June 07, 2011, 08:46:35 AM »

And Tubs is still saying we deserve the title...

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/06/tommy_tuberville_votes_for_aub.html

Quote

Tommy Tuberville votes for Auburn to be 2004 BCS champs after Southern California stripped of title

Former Auburn coach Tommy Tuberville told ESPN his 2004 Tigers should be declared the BCS national champs retroactively after Southern California was forced to vacate that title today.

The BCS stripped Southern California of the title because the NCAA put the Trojans on probation for wrongdoings involving Reggie Bush in 2004. The BCS said USC would vacate the title, but no one would be named as a replacement.

Auburn officials have not laid claim to the vacated championship.

Tuberville, now the coach at Texas Tech, said Auburn, which finished 13-0 and second nationally, should be declared the champs.

"Yes," Tuberville said. "Someone should be awarded (the) title. If not, the team that had to forfeit is not really punished."

Auburn has not made a push to claim the title since the potential loss of the title by USC first arose. Auburn coach Gene Chizik, who was the defensive coordinator in 2004, deflected any potential controversy last August. He said of the 2004 Tigers:

"That was a great team and a great year for us and it always will be here at Auburn. And I was blessed to be a part of that. That'll never be taken away," he said.

Auburn beat five Top 15 teams in 2004. The Tigers were denied a chance of playing for the BCS title because they finished third in the standings leading up to the bowl games. Instead, Southern Cal and Oklahoma played for the title. The Trojans won 55-19.

Auburn won the BCS title on the field last January, beating Oregon 22-19 to finish 14-0. The Tigers will be honored for that championship by President Obama at the White House on Wednesday afternoon.

JR4AU · « **Reply #2 on:** June 07, 2011, 08:49:28 AM »

Quote from: AUJarhead on June 07, 2011, 08:46:35 AM

And Tubs is still saying we deserve the title...

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/06/tommy_tuberville_votes_for_aub.html

Hey Tommy, shut the fuck up. Yeah, we deserved to play for it. I don't want it given retroactively. We ain't bammer.

Aubie16 · « **Reply #3 on:** June 07, 2011, 09:06:23 AM »

Quote from: JR4AU on June 07, 2011, 08:49:28 AM

Hey Tommy, shut the fuck up. Yeah, we deserved to play for it. I don't want it given retroactively. We ain't bammer.

It isn't retroactive if I've claimed it since I was celebrating on Bourbon St. on January 3rd, 2005. Always have, always will.

AUChizad · « **Reply #4 on:** June 07, 2011, 09:15:24 AM »

Not sure that I'd want Auburn to officially claim it, unless it was offically handed over to us by the BCS, however...

Pre-BCS, we would at the very least, split that title with USC. There was no BCS game. Only the Sugar Bowl, like days of old. USC is ineligible. Just sayin.

Buzz Killington · « **Reply #5 on:** June 07, 2011, 09:15:34 AM »

Quote from: Aubie16 on June 07, 2011, 09:06:23 AM

It isn't retroactive if I've claimed it since I was celebrating on Bourbon St. on January 3rd, 2005. Always have, always will.

^^^This^^^

Still have the Eufala Tribune poster as well.

Aubie16 · « **Reply #6 on:** June 07, 2011, 09:20:15 AM »

Quote from: Buzz Killington on June 07, 2011, 09:15:34 AM

^^^This^^^

Still have the Eufala Tribune poster as well.

I've actually got that newspaper framed next to my framed OA Newspaper from this year.

djsimp · « **Reply #7 on:** June 07, 2011, 10:44:37 AM »

Quote from: Buzz Killington on June 07, 2011, 09:15:34 AM

^^^This^^^

Still have the Eufala Tribune poster as well.

There are several here at this office that has this framed.

Token · « **Reply #8 on:** June 07, 2011, 10:55:29 AM »

Who gives a shit if the title was stripped? They already won it on the field. They already enjoyed the victory and the trophy presentation, and their fans already enjoyed the victory. What good does it do to go back and take it now?

War Eagle!!! · « **Reply #9 on:** June 07, 2011, 10:59:30 AM »

Quote from: Token on June 07, 2011, 10:55:29 AM

Who gives a shit if the title was stripped? They already won it on the field. They already enjoyed the victory and the trophy presentation, and their fans already enjoyed the victory. What good does it do to go back and take it now?

I will remember that...wait...what?

Snaggletiger · « **Reply #10 on:** June 07, 2011, 11:16:17 AM »

Quote from: Token on June 07, 2011, 10:55:29 AM

Who gives a shit if the title was stripped? They already won it on the field. They already enjoyed the victory and the trophy presentation, and their fans already enjoyed the victory. What good does it do to go back and take it now?

Word to your mutha...we out. Seriously, why almost 7 years later? I was just listening to Tim Brando and one of his guests was saying he told his wife about USC being stripped of the title and her reaction was...."So?" I laughed because that was about my reaction too.

wesfau2 · « **Reply #11 on:** June 07, 2011, 03:08:08 PM »

Quote from: Token on June 07, 2011, 10:55:29 AM

Who gives a shit if the title was stripped? They already won it on the field. They already enjoyed the victory and the trophy presentation, and their fans already enjoyed the victory. What good does it do to go back and take it now?

I understand what you're saying, and agree somewhat. However, they won it on the field using a player (Bush) that was not eligible to play, as he had forfeited his amateur status. Without Bush on the field, USC might never have made it to that game at all.

Snaggletiger · « **Reply #12 on:** June 07, 2011, 03:09:12 PM »

Hansel?

GH2001 · « **Reply #13 on:** June 07, 2011, 04:21:14 PM »

Quote from: wesfau2 on June 07, 2011, 03:08:08 PM

I understand what you're saying, and agree somewhat. However, they won it on the field using a player (Bush) that was not eligible to play, as he had forfeited his amateur status. Without Bush on the field, USC might never have made it to that game at all.

Oh...they surely would not have. See the Texas game - 2005. USC had 3-4 close calls that year. No way they go unscathed without the NFL Running Back starting.

Snaggletiger · « **Reply #14 on:** June 07, 2011, 04:29:38 PM »

I agree that a Bushless USC would mean a lot of cleanly shaven cheerleader cha-cha's. But I digress. I guess what I'm saying is technically, they took away the title...and rightfully so with Bush being illegal. But like Token said, what's the big deal now? The season was 7 years ago and everybody has celebrated it and moved on. So, they send the trophy back and Bush has to live with being the cause of it all.

GH2001 · « **Reply #15 on:** June 07, 2011, 04:32:18 PM »

Quote from: Snaggletiger on June 07, 2011, 04:29:38 PM

I agree that a Bushless USC would mean a lot of cleanly shaven cheerleader cha-cha's. But I digress. I guess what I'm saying is technically, they took away the title...and rightfully so with Bush being illegal. But like Token said, what's the big deal now? The season was 7 years ago and everybody has celebrated it and moved on. So, they send the trophy back and Bush has to live with being the cause of it all.

I agree with Token as well. What's done is done. They won the BCS NC game. No taking that back now. The trophy is mere hardware. In everyone's eyes (still) they are the juggernaut NC from 2004.

JR4AU · « **Reply #16 on:** June 07, 2011, 07:34:38 PM »

Quote from: wesfau2 on June 07, 2011, 03:08:08 PM

I understand what you're saying, and agree somewhat. However, they won it on the field using a player (Bush) that was not eligible to play, as he had forfeited his amateur status. Without Bush on the field, USC might never have made it to that game at all.

This is one of the lamest arguments of all. He played. What woulda, coulda happened isn't relevant. Ark fans whined about the NCAA letting the tat 5 play because "they should be ineligible". Ark fans would rather have beaten a hamstrung OSU squad, than play a full strength one because they traded gear for tats. Forfeiting wins, championships, etc. Bad as the Bush situation was, it didn't make him a better player, anymore than the $200K Auburn paid Cam made him be...wait, what?.

wesfau2 · « **Reply #17 on:** June 07, 2011, 07:38:30 PM »

Quote

Bad as the Bush situation was, it didn't make him a better player, anymore than the $200K Auburn paid Cam made him be...wait, what?.

Of course it didn't make Bush better. But having Bush made USC better.

I'm not advocating that we get the trophy, but they should fucking well take it from USC.

JR4AU · « **Reply #18 on:** June 07, 2011, 07:42:03 PM »

Quote from: wesfau2 on June 07, 2011, 07:38:30 PM

Of course it didn't make Bush better. But having Bush made USC better.

I'm not advocating that we get the trophy, but they should fucking well take it from USC.

He played for USC. He was good. They won it on the field. I don't give a shit if they take it from them or not. As stated, they still won it on the field. Can't change that.

Townhallsavoy · « **Reply #19 on:** June 07, 2011, 08:16:01 PM »

Why is no one questioning the pathetic excuse for rules enforcement that is the NCAA?

Why can't the NCAA do its due diligence and investigate compliance offices to extent that they catch this shit happening before it gets out of control?

In my opinion, each school should not have its own compliance office. It should be done by a separate party.

Reggie Bush should have been warned or suspended as soon as his parents moved into that condo. It's not that fucking difficult to keep an eye on people like that.