So, not much going on in college sports right now, huh? OK, maybe not. By tomorrow, the Big 10 might have 12 teams, the Big 12 might (temporarily) have 10 and conference Armageddon might be on the horizon, which really doesn't affect anything in the grander scheme of life other than some sports teams will have longer plane trips.
But then there's this story from Los Angeles about Southern California's NCAA penalties, which include a two-year postseason ban and, more important if you're an Auburn fan, forfeiture of wins from the 2004 season.
Yes, that's the season the Trojans went 13-0, beat Oklahoma 55-19 in the Orange Bowl and captured the national title, accomplishments that could be wiped clean by the NCAA in the next few hours. The question is: what to do with the 2004 national title?
College football has never had a vacated title before. And only recently did the BCS begin laying the groundwork for taking away any national title recognition of a team that is found of wrongdoing by the NCAA. The BCS's official position, according to the USA Today article, is this:
"When the NCAA or a conference makes a finding of violations … and imposes a sanction of forfeiture or vacation of contests in which an ineligible student-athlete participated, we will presume that vacation of participation in a BCS bowl game is warranted."
Assuming everything goes down like it's expected to, Reggie Bush will be ruled retroactively ineligible for the 2004 season, forcing USC to forfeit any game he played in the 2004 season, including the 2005 Orange Bowl, which was for the national championship. Looks like that crystal football won't reside in Los Angeles for much longer.
As you all know, here's where Auburn comes into the picture. The Tigers went 12-0 during the regular season but were passed up for a spot in the national title game for Oklahoma, which was also unbeaten. Auburn beat Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl to complete a perfect season. Oklahoma, as mentioned before, got hammered by USC.
So what now? Do any of these teams have a legitimate claim for the national championship that year?
It's a difficult question. Auburn finished No. 2 in the polls that year behind USC. One outgoing AP voter even voted the Tigers No. 1 in the final poll. Would it then make sense that Auburn, which ran the table in the SEC and won it bowl game, has a claim to the top spot? After all, it was next in line when the final polls were announced.
What about Utah? Nobody remember the Utes. This was when Urban Meyer burst on the scene, if you remember. Utah finished 12-0, including a Fiesta Bowl pounding of an extremely mediocre Pittsburgh, but finished fourth in the AP poll, behind USC, Auburn and Oklahoma, and fifth -- fifth! -- in the coaches poll, behind Texas.
And what about Oklahoma? The Sooners, after all, were the BCS's choice to play in the national championship game against what we would learn was an ineligible USC team. Do you take into account the fact that Oklahoma got run off the field 55-19 in that game or do you disregard it because USC shouldn't have been there in the first place? In 1993, Alabama was forced to vacate all of its wins because of improper benefits given to cornerback Antonio Langham. It is reflected in the standings for all the other teams, who were awarded a win if they played Alabama when Langham was on the field. Using that logic, would Oklahoma then be considered a 13-0 team in 2004 and worthy of the national championship?
Maybe the BCS can share the national title. It happens all the time in college football. In the 12 years of the BCS era, there have been five seasons after which there was at least some matter of debate, with a publication or poll offering dissension to the majority opinion. (Note: this does not include Auburn's mythical national title, as awarded by "Golf Digest" in 2004, although maybe it should.) Perhaps that's the most equitable way of resolving this mess.
Or maybe the BCS will just leave that year's national title vacant, which seems kind of hollow, considering somebody has a claim, however nebulous, to each year's national championship since 1869, when Princeton and Rutgers both went 1-1 and somebody figured that's good enough to call them the best in the land.
It's a sticky situation with no clear answer and no real precedent. What does everyone else think?
(UPDATE: The AP says it will stick by its voting of Southern Cal as No. 1. The BCS says if Southern Cal is forced to vacate the 2004 championship, no replacement champ will be named.)
10 comments:
I say we claim it!
Oh, and "first!"
I know that a lot of Auburn fans don't want to be awarded a national championship retroactively because it smacks of what Alabama did with five of its thirteen NCs. I get that. But this situation would be different. Here, we are talking about the actual NC-granting parties (BCS and AP)correcting the situation only a few years after the season ended. Perhaps the best solution would be for the BCS to award OU and the AP to award AU. There is precedent for such a split in the BCS era (In 2003, LSU won the BCS title and USC the AP title).
I like Luke's approach, but I don't really think it matters. Everyone knows USC was the top team that year, and Auburn didn't get the chance to play USC to prove otherwise. Forfeiture of games or not, an awarding of another champion more than five years later doesn't make it feel earned.
i want it BAD!!!!
Andy:
This makes the Tigers the de facto national champs.
Oklahoma was chosen over Auburn in part because the president of the BCS at that time was from Oklahoma.
Remember, the University of Oklahoma was chosen to go to the title game 2 years in a row, and both years they got pounded (USC and LSU had the honors).
USC was the top team BECAUSE THEY CHEATED. I never liked TT, but he ran a clean program.
Does being named national champs six years after the fact even matter? It doesn't change anything that the team accomplished on the field that year. It just looks better on paper, right?
It seems like a hollow gesture at this point.
It may be a hollow gesture, but no more than being awarded the title on the night of the national championship. Until we have a playoff, having the BCS and/or the AP acknowledge your accomplishments on the field is the best we have. It may not add to the team's accomplishments, but it at least gives them their due recognition.
I hope that they try to award the title to Auburn and Auburn tells them to SHOVE IT!
At best, IF the BCS takes away the win and trophy from USC, there should be NO National Champion for 2004....The fact that the BCS gives the opponent a "win" instead of the lose they actually had is disgusting at best. It is the mentality that someone has to pay because the losing team is obviously a victim, it has to be righted. This is a very sad and growing trend in this Country and it is tearing down the competitiveness in everything that gets competed on, everything....
Post a Comment