LA Times:USC football: It's official, BCS strips Trojans of 2004 title

[tr1]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2011/06/its-official-bcs-strips-usc-of-2004-football-title.html
June 6, 2011 | 2:02 pm


The Bowl Championship Series on Monday officially stripped USC of its 2004 championship as a result of major infractions involving star running back Reggie Bush.

The BCS title will be vacated for that season. The Associated Press previously announced USC would remain its 2004 champion.

"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 in a statement. "This was not an unexpected outcome. We will comply with all requirements mandated by the result of this BCS vote."

The ruling came less than two weeks after the NCAA denied USC's appeal to have some of the sanctions reduced. The Trojans were slapped with a two-year ban on postseason play and the loss of 30 scholarships.

USC, however, effectively forfeited its 2004 title last year when it admitted Bush was an ineligible player during the Trojans' run to the title. USC claimed the crystal trophy with a 55-19 victory over Oklahoma in the 2005 Orange Bowl.

The BCS was only waiting for the appeal process to be completed. USC would have lost its title even if the NCAA had ruled in the school's favor because the Trojans' appeal was asking only for the sanctions to be reduced.

The official ruling came after a meeting of the NCAA's Presidential Oversight Committee.

"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.

"This action reflects the scope of the BCS arrangement and is consistent with the NCAA's approach when it subsequently discovers infractions by institutions whose teams have played in NCAA championship events."

The title trophy is awarded by the American Football Coaches Assn. USC will lose 10 scholarships a year for the next three years and will be bowl ineligible next year and not allowed to compete for the first Pac-12 championship.

---------- Post added June-6th-2011 at 05:45 PM ----------

Why, you ask, is this important?



In 2004, the California Golden Bears posted a 10–2 record under Tedford and quarterback Aaron Rodgers, with their only regular season loss coming against the eventual national champion, USC.

I'm still not over that season.

:(

Thanks, in advance, for indulging me.

[Hitman21ST]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2011/06/its-official-bcs-strips-usc-of-2004-football-title.html
June 6, 2011 | 2:02 pm


The Bowl Championship Series on Monday officially stripped USC of its 2004 championship as a result of major infractions involving star running back Reggie Bush.

The BCS title will be vacated for that season. The Associated Press previously announced USC would remain its 2004 champion.

"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 in a statement. "This was not an unexpected outcome. We will comply with all requirements mandated by the result of this BCS vote."

The ruling came less than two weeks after the NCAA denied USC's appeal to have some of the sanctions reduced. The Trojans were slapped with a two-year ban on postseason play and the loss of 30 scholarships.

USC, however, effectively forfeited its 2004 title last year when it admitted Bush was an ineligible player during the Trojans' run to the title. USC claimed the crystal trophy with a 55-19 victory over Oklahoma in the 2005 Orange Bowl.

The BCS was only waiting for the appeal process to be completed. USC would have lost its title even if the NCAA had ruled in the school's favor because the Trojans' appeal was asking only for the sanctions to be reduced.

The official ruling came after a meeting of the NCAA's Presidential Oversight Committee.

"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.

"This action reflects the scope of the BCS arrangement and is consistent with the NCAA's approach when it subsequently discovers infractions by institutions whose teams have played in NCAA championship events."

The title trophy is awarded by the American Football Coaches Assn. USC will lose 10 scholarships a year for the next three years and will be bowl ineligible next year and not allowed to compete for the first Pac-12 championship.

---------- Post added June-6th-2011 at 05:45 PM ----------

Why, you ask, is this important?



I'm still not over that season.

:(

Thanks, in advance, for indulging me.

So, who gets the title, or is it voided?

[f_trizzy]

So, who gets the title, or is it voided?

It will just be vacant. It should go to Auburn though.

[Hitman21ST]

It will just be vacant. It should go to Auburn though.

Was 2004 the split year?

[GhostofSparta]

I'm sure this somehow stings to die-hard alums, but how exactly is stripping a title from 7 years ago a punishment? Is this simply a case of "It's too late to do anything serious, so here's a token gesture that stings from a PR standpoint"?

[Goingforburgundy]

Was 2004 the split year?

yeah JCs senior year

[tr1]

I'm sure this somehow stings to die-hard alums, but how exactly is stripping a title from 7 years ago a punishment? Is this simply a case of "It's too late to do anything serious, so here's a token gesture that stings from a PR standpoint"?

The loss of scholarships is the punishment, but they should be banished from the PAC-12 for a dozen years.

Cheaters.

[KDawg]

I guarantee you every D1 school is cheating. Every single major D1 school.

Some coaches honestly probably have no idea if its going on. But I bet they all have some kind of cheating occuring.

[tr1]

I guarantee you every D1 school is cheating. Every single major D1 school.

Some coaches honestly probably have no idea if its going on. But I bet they all have some kind of cheating occuring.

It's still wrong.

Unfortunately, in this day and age, humiliation is no longer effective in keeping people within the rules.

I'd like to see the USC program get the death penalty.

[Goingforburgundy]

It's still wrong.

Unfortunately, in this day and age, humiliation is no longer effective in keeping people within the rules.

I'd like to see the USC program get the death penalty.

Is SMUs death penalty still going?

[KDawg]

It's still wrong.

Unfortunately, in this day and age, humiliation is no longer effective in keeping people within the rules.

I'd like to see the USC program get the death penalty.

Never said it was right.

[f_trizzy]

Was 2004 the split year?

The title wasn't split but Auburn went 13-0 and beat Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl.

The AP has said they will still recognize USC as the champions that year.

[ouvan59]

I'm sure this somehow stings to die-hard alums, but how exactly is stripping a title from 7 years ago a punishment? Is this simply a case of "It's too late to do anything serious, so here's a token gesture that stings from a PR standpoint"?

Plus they aren't taking the AP National Championship away so they can still claim that they were NC in 2004.

[KDawg]

Plus they aren't taking the AP National Championship away so they can still claim that they were NC in 2004.

They could technically claim it anyways. "The title was vacated due to one man's actions, however, we feel we earned the national title on the field in 2004, and the hunger this team feels to get back to that point and earn even more national titles is immense. You can't strip pride and hard work. Two qualities we exhibited during that season. One man doesn't make a team, and his actions were extremely inappropriate. But we won as a team. You can't take that away."

[HailGreen28]

They could technically claim it anyways. "The title was vacated due to one man's actions, however, we feel we earned the national title on the field in 2004, and the hunger this team feels to get back to that point and earn even more national titles is immense. You can't strip pride and hard work. Two qualities we exhibited during that season. One man doesn't make a team, and his actions were extremely inappropriate. But we won as a team. You can't take that away." - signed USC Booster Club

[KDawg]

- signed USC Booster Club

Exactly. So what good is stripping the national title?

[HailGreen28]

Exactly. So what good is stripping the national title?Going after the people who actually front the money to pay players would be nice. But considering Booster Clubs support their team in part for prestige, having a championship school, I think it should remain part of a school's punishment.

[Hitman21ST]

Is SMUs death penalty still going?

I think so. ESPN ran a 30 for 30 on it, I didn't get to watch the whole thing though. They still have a program, but I think they're banned from any BCS game or something like that.

[ouvan59]

I think so. ESPN ran a 30 for 30 on it, I didn't get to watch the whole thing though. They still have a program, but I think they're banned from any BCS game or something like that.

I don't think they are under any penalties any further. They aren't going to be playing in any BCS bowls anytime soon however because they aren't in a BCS conference.

[doncherry]

SMU's death penalty was enforced for the '87 and '88 seasons.

[Spartacus87]

I don't think they are under any penalties any further. They aren't going to be playing in any BCS bowls anytime soon however because they aren't in a BCS conference.

SMU's death penalty was enforced for the '87 and '88 seasons.
These.

SMU's been clear of the NCAA sanctions for years now. The problem is that the death penalty wiped out their entire program in a worse way than the NCAA intended.

SMU could still make a BCS bowl in theory, you don't need to be in a BCS conference to play in one. SMU won't be good enough to make one for a long, long time however, considering they just made their first bowl since the death penalty just last year.

SMU's death penalty also was a major factor in the end of the Southwest Conference, which is another reason why another program will never receive the death penalty.


I guarantee you every D1 school is cheating. Every single major D1 school.

Some coaches honestly probably have no idea if its going on. But I bet they all have some kind of cheating occuring.
Also this.

Whatever your favorite program is, just be aware that they're cheating somehow.

The only thing that changes is the degree to which they're cheating. But everyone is guilty of something.

[Paulie Walnuts]

The NCAA has said they would never institute another "death penalty" to any school. And that is probably wise.

There isn't a school out there that doesn't cheat, or a coach that doesn't know about it. Anyone who thinks differently lives in fantasy land.

[ouvan59]

These.SMU could still make a BCS bowl in theory, you don't need to be in a BCS conference to play in one. SMU won't be good enough to make one for a long, long time however, considering they just made their first bowl since the death penalty just last year.


You may not technically need to be in a BCS conference to play for the BCS Championship, but it ain't happening unless all the stars align perfectly.

[Spartacus87]

You may not technically need to be in a BCS conference to play for the BCS Championship, but it ain't happening unless all the stars align perfectly.
Which is really also true for teams in BCS conferences.

[tr1]

Also this.

Whatever your favorite program is, just be aware that they're cheating somehow.

The only thing that changes is the degree to which they're cheating. But everyone is guilty of something.

Really?

This is some weak sauce excuse for being a fan/booster of a cheating program.

Nice rationalization.

:rolleyes:

---------- Post added June-8th-2011 at 08:48 PM ----------


The NCAA has said they would never institute another "death penalty" to any school. And that is probably wise.

There isn't a school out there that doesn't cheat, or a coach that doesn't know about it. Anyone who thinks differently lives in fantasy land.

Wonderful.

Another rationalization for bad behavior.

Whatever happened to integrity and good sportsmanship?

We're in a general decline because of attitudes such as this.

[pjfootballer]

I know this is off topic and probably not that big of a deal, but how does USC fall into the Around The NFL forum?

[tr1]

I know this is off topic and probably not that big of a deal, but how does USC fall into the Around The NFL forum?

Because they pay their players as though they are professional athletes...

Bada...bing!

[anar-k21]

i think its stupid to punish them now..the ncaa shoulda reacted when it was happening..not many years later............its not the current players fault what happened with reggie bush

[Hitman21ST]

i think its stupid to punish them now..the ncaa shoulda reacted when it was happening..not many years later............its not the current players fault what happened with reggie bush

Doesn't matter to the NCAA...all that matters is


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTTVkh6NX50

Warning: language

[anar-k21]

lol very true there hitman!!!!! thats what it is...they freak out on ohio st. and usc but cam newton gets busted and its all good its rediculous

either punish EVERYONE or look the other way!

[HailToTheRedskins14]

Mark Richt doesn't cheat!

[Spartacus87]

lol very true there hitman!!!!! thats what it is...they freak out on ohio st. and usc but cam newton gets busted and its all good its rediculous

either punish EVERYONE or look the other way!
The Cam Newton/Auburn story isn't over yet.


Mark Richt doesn't cheat!
I usually don't use short, simple responses like this, but I don't know what else to say in this case other than:

"LOL"

[anar-k21]

yea i know they not done with auburn yet but its too late now..they let him play in the championship....if they wanted to punish him they shoulda did it then not years after hes gone....

and im a total SEC fan....i hate usc and ohio state but fair is fair

[dallasfan]

Is SMUs death penalty still going?

No, the 'death penalty' was a 1 year ban from participation in football (1987'). The next year (88'), they were only allowed to play 7 road games, no home games. The following year, they were allowed to play a full schedule, but just like the previous year, no games would be televised and there would be no bowl invite.

There were a bunch more sanctions, but I recomend watching the "30 for 30" on this called "the pony express." IMO, it was better than the "fab 5" one.

As bas as USC and Ohio St. are, I can't imagine any program being as bad as SMU and deserving that penalty

---------- Post added June-12th-2011 at 01:07 AM ----------


Really?

This is some weak sauce excuse for being a fan/booster of a cheating program.

Nice rationalization.

:rolleyes:

---------- Post added June-8th-2011 at 08:48 PM ----------



Wonderful.

Another rationalization for bad behavior.

Whatever happened to integrity and good sportsmanship?

We're in a general decline because of attitudes such as this.

The problem is the "death penalty" given to SMU, didn't scare programs clean, and doing it to USC, may scare a lot of schools from doing the same, but it would devestate the Pac 10 (or 12 or whatever they;re calling themselves). And all in all, how effective was the "death penalty" in detering other schools from cheating? We don't know, but it seems like very little. I think the best thing the NCAA can do is hit theses schools hard, while they're competing for National Championships. for example, Cam Newton should've been ruled ineligable, even if his father was acting w/o his knowledge (that would be unfortunate, but it's likely he knew).

[tr1]

---------- Post added June-12th-2011 at 01:07 AM ----------



The problem is the "death penalty" given to SMU, didn't scare programs clean, and doing it to USC, may scare a lot of schools from doing the same, but it would devestate the Pac 10 (or 12 or whatever they;re calling themselves). And all in all, how effective was the "death penalty" in detering other schools from cheating? We don't know, but it seems like very little. I think the best thing the NCAA can do is hit theses schools hard, while they're competing for National Championships. for example, Cam Newton should've been ruled ineligable, even if his father was acting w/o his knowledge (that would be unfortunate, but it's likely he knew).

The death penalty doesn't deter because everyone knows it'll never be used again....duh!

[Bubble Screen]

USC would have beaten OU that year, even without Reggie Bush. Probably by double digits. I don't care if it was stripped or not, they were still the best team that year. I think they made the right move by not awarding it to Auburn.

[Spartacus87]

Really?

This is some weak sauce excuse for being a fan/booster of a cheating program.

Nice rationalization.

:rolleyes:

The death penalty doesn't deter because everyone knows it'll never be used again....duh!

And what's your college athletics program of choice?

[dallasfan]

The death penalty doesn't deter because everyone knows it'll never be used again....duh!

I think everyone knows that now, but I don't think it was common knowledge that it would never be used again. Besides, the rule still exist, and I don't think the NCAA has ruled out it's future use, they have just said they are unlikely to use it again. One guy refered to it as an atom bomb. It destroys everything in it's way (not only the school for years to come, but the other schools in the conference as well) and it takes years to recover from, so they'll do anything to keep from using it, but it's still there.

[SteveFromYellowstone]

Why does it matter so much? I'm going to be honest and just say that I really don't care if players are finding a way to get money. I would do the same damn thing and I'm sure a lot of you would too. The schools are making millions off of the players and the players that are good enough to be able to sell their jerseys/whatever should be able to make some cash on the side. Them getting cash on the side in no way affects the way the game is played on the field. If Reggie Bush had taken no improper benefits, they still would have won the title. Again, why does it matter?

[tr1]

Why does it matter so much? I'm going to be honest and just say that I really don't care if players are finding a way to get money. I would do the same damn thing and I'm sure a lot of you would too. The schools are making millions off of the players and the players that are good enough to be able to sell their jerseys/whatever should be able to make some cash on the side. Them getting cash on the side in no way affects the way the game is played on the field. If Reggie Bush had taken no improper benefits, they still would have won the title. Again, why does it matter?

Because it will mean the end of amateur sports.

Let the NFL create a minor league and quit wasting valuable academic slots for athletes whose sole intention is to benefit monetarily during their college experience.

Going to college is to help enrich one AFTER their college experience...not during it.

For many of us, college football would lose its luster if it became 'professional.'

[Spartacus87]

Because it will mean the end of amateur sports.

Let the NFL create a minor league and quit wasting valuable academic slots for athletes whose sole intention is to benefit monetarily during their college experience.

Going to college is to help enrich one AFTER their college experience...not during it.

For many of us, college football would lose its luster if it became 'professional.'
Because these universities don't turn, in turn, benefit from these college athletes?

And you still haven't answered my last question to you: which school do you cheer for?