2004 BCS National Championship Question...

[AUChizad]

Back on topic:

http://blog.al.com/kevin-scarbinsky/2010/05/scarbinsky_if_elected_auburn_s.html

Scarbinsky: If elected, Auburn should serve as 2004 national champs
By Kevin Scarbinsky -- The Birmingham News
May 23, 2010, 5:30AM

Say the NCAA hammers USC, and the BCS and the AP take away the national titles they awarded the Trojans and their semi-pro tailback, Reggie Bush.

Say the BCS revisits its policy on the subject and the AP re-votes, and one or both of those organizations decides to correct the greatest injustice of the BCS era by crowning, as the rightful champs, the Auburn Tigers.

What should Auburn do six years later? Please. That’s easy. Accept it. Celebrate it. And never, ever apologize for it.

In other words, Auburn should follow Alabama’s lead. After all, the Crimson Tide has a lot more experience with the national championship thing.

Alabama hasn’t filled a trophy case and built a statue for every national title that everyone from the Dunkel Index to Dunkin’ Donuts has tried to throw at it, but the school has said yes more often than not.

And why not?

These things are decided, to a greater or lesser degree, on the hard drives of computers and in the thick skulls of voters as much as they are on the field. Unless and until there’s a bona fide playoff, if someone wants to give you a national championship, say thank you, take it and run with it.

USA Today first noticed last week that three years ago, with the USC investigation gaining speed, the BCS instituted a policy for just this kind of eventuality. A quick read of the BCS website reveals that the policy contains the following provisions:

You win a BCS game.

The NCAA Infractions Committee later finds you guilty of violations that provided a competitive advantage or involved an ineligible player.

One of your sanctions forces you to forfeit or vacate victories.

Those victories include games that allowed you to reach the BCS game or the BCS game itself.

In that case, the BCS will vacate your participation in its bowl game. If that game was for the national championship, the BCS will take away your national championship.

But that’s only half the equation. The BCS policy does not say if or how a new champion will be crowned.

If the NCAA blasts USC – and a ruling should be imminent; shouldn’t it? – the BCS won’t act until the appeal process is complete. At that point, it’ll be an interesting dilemma, whether to leave that 2004 championship vacant or to choose between unbeaten Auburn and Oklahoma, which was unbeaten itself until getting undressed by the Trojans.

Yes, I know, Utah finished without a loss too, but only Orrin Hatch thinks the Utes belong in this conversation.

If the BCS decides to pick a winner, with the Orange Bowl wiped from the record books, OU could argue that it was ranked ahead of Auburn in the final BCS standings after the regular season.

Auburn could argue that you can’t erase its Sugar Bowl victory over Virginia Tech.

Advantage: Auburn.

Someone at the BCS would have to make the call. It probably wouldn’t be executive director Bill Hancock, since he’s an administrator and not a policy-maker, and lucky for Auburn.

Hancock is an Oklahoma native and a 1972 journalism graduate of the University of Oklahoma, where he later worked as an assistant sports information director.

If the decision gets kicked upstairs to the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee, you’ll never guess who could have a voice in it.

Alabama president Robert Witt.

Something tells me Witt didn’t sign up for this kind of duty when he became one of the 12 members of that committee.

Of course, fairness would demand that he recuse himself. And then Oklahoma would demand that committee chairman Harvey Perlman recuse himself because he’s the chancellor at rival Nebraska.

Sooner or later, the title would have to be decided by a game of rock, paper, scissors between Bob Stoops and Tommy Tuberville.

Remember Tuberville’s defiant prediction after Jetgate, the year before ’04? ‘‘We are gonna win the national championship,” he vowed. ‘‘And you can write that.”

He might be right after all.

and

http://www.trackemtigers.com/2010/5/24/1484663/a-belated-national-championship

A Belated National Championship For Auburn?

by Jay Coulter on May 24, 2010 1:00 AM

Will Jason Campbell finally get his much deserved national title?

Is the end finally near for USC?  Is Reggie Bush finally going to be held accountable for making more money in his college years than most NFL tight-ends make in a career? It has taken twice as long for the NCAA to convict the Trojans as it did for the United States to invade Iraq, remove Saddam Hussein from office and have him executed. No wonder its approval rating is lower than Nancy Pelosi's.

With sanctions imminent for the Trojans, the talking heads at ESPN's College Football Live had a spirited discussion last Thursday on what should happen to USC's vacated title. It appears more and more likely that both the BCS and the Associate Press will strip the school of its 2004 National Championship once penalties are handed out. For Bush it also means a possible loss of his coveted Heisman Trophy.

In the case of the BCS, they have two simple options: force USC to vacate the title and not have a 2004 champion or award the title to either Auburn or Oklahoma. How likely is the BCS to pick a new champion? I'd put it somewhere between slim and none. USC will almost surely be forced to vacate, but a new champion will not be crowned.

The Associate Press is an entirely different story.

Many believe the writers will crown a new champion. ESPN analysts Craig James and Ed Cunningham clearly favor giving the title to Auburn.  An undefeated season in the SEC coupled with the throttling Oklahoma took from USC in the championship game, makes it a no brainer - at least according to those two.

James believes it's quite possible the AP will crown Auburn champions. "In my mind, if USC is stripped of the title, Auburn becomes the national champion," said James. "For what Auburn did that season, I have always thought it was an injustice."

Asked whether fans in Auburn should celebrate such an occurrence, Cunningham said, "Absolutely. There will be toilet paper everywhere at Toomer's Corner."

I couldn't agree more.

Auburn has every right to step in and accept it. When you consider the injustice Auburn was served along with the notion that USC's top player was a cheat, how can you not accept the trophy and be happy to get it? Had it happened to Alabama, they'd be planning a celebration already for next weekend. After all, they've never turned down a championship from anyone, regardless of whether fans have actually heard of the organization presenting it. At least the Associated Press is legitimate.

Would a better late than never title change things for the players and the fans? Not really. Most Auburn people I know feel quite comfortable believing Auburn was as much the champion of 2004 as USC. When you don't meet head-to-head how can you think otherwise? With four first round draft choices on that team, you have to believe Auburn would have had a shot.

Being formally recognized for something you plainly deserve is always nice. But let's not kid ourselves. A belated national title can never make up for the injustice. It's like the guy that serves 30 years in prison only to be released after new evidence is presented exonerating him. It's great when it happens, but it would have been a million times sweeter had it happened during the trial.

Personally, I won't be losing any sleep in the days to come waiting to see what the Associated Press does once sanctions are finally announced. If a belated title comes, I'll simply believe justice is served and a title is finally presented to the most deserving team.

More pressing for me is 2010. I'd gladly trade a belated national title for an SEC Championship this upcoming season. It's fun to look back and reflect, but there's nothing better than tomorrow!

This is pretty much where I'm at on all of this. The analogy in bold above is pretty much how I feel about it.