NCAAF  > General NCAAF  > USC has no BCS Championships
June 6, 2011, 04:41 PM
ESPN is reporting that the BCS has revoked USC's BCS Championship for 2004 due to Reggie Bush's ineligibility.
June 6, 2011  06:22 PM ET

Bush was not much of a factor in the title game against Oklahoma, but I think this is probably the right call for 2004. The 2003 rip-off still stings, though.

June 6, 2011  06:26 PM ET

Like this is a big suprise.

June 6, 2011  07:08 PM ET
QUOTE(#1):

Bush was not much of a factor in the title game against Oklahoma, but I think this is probably the right call for 2004. The 2003 rip-off still stings, though.

And hasnt been much of a factor anywhere else since then either---OVERPAID in College and in the NFL

June 6, 2011  08:02 PM ET

I'm sorry. SHould we be surprised?

June 6, 2011  08:07 PM ET
QUOTE(#3):

And hasnt been much of a factor anywhere else since then either---OVERPAID in College and in the NFL

I hope Bush burns in hell eternally, but he did have a pretty good year in 2005.

June 7, 2011  12:49 AM ET

A fairly big nail in the Auburn coffin here, but we will obviously have to wait until 2019 or so to see it.

June 7, 2011  01:07 AM ET

So much for all of that 3-Pete crapolla!

So they have to give up the 04' BCS
They want so badly to share the Title with LSU for the 03 season (No crystal ball for the AP brother)
and then they lost to Texas.

Add this to the 30 scholly's and the bowl band and it's pretty depressing for the Trojans.

June 7, 2011  01:16 AM ET
QUOTE(#6):

A fairly big nail in the Auburn coffin here, but we will obviously have to wait until 2019 or so to see it.

I'm not following. The NCAA knew that Rogers and Cecil Newton had shopped Cam at Miss. State and still declared him eligible at Auburn.

To my knowledge, no one has ever claimed that Cecil shopped his son at Auburn.

Is there something I am missing? What scenario do you see where Auburn could still lose their NC?

June 7, 2011  01:30 AM ET
QUOTE(#7):

They want so badly to share the Title with LSU for the 03 season

Share, hell. The Trojans just wanted a chance to play ya for it. But instead of the #1 team in both polls, the BCS selected a team that just lost its CCG by 4 TD's.

June 7, 2011  02:01 AM ET
QUOTE(#8):

I'm not following. The NCAA knew that Rogers and Cecil Newton had shopped Cam at Miss. State and still declared him eligible at Auburn. To my knowledge, no one has ever claimed that Cecil shopped his son at Auburn.Is there something I am missing? What scenario do you see where Auburn could still lose their NC?

Took until years after Bush left for all the details to come out. 200k of details will come out for CN sooner or later. My guess is later and after a SI, ESPN, or Yahoo sports reporter goes a digging.

June 7, 2011  02:03 AM ET

Or to put it another way, USC got the hammer, it looks like UNC and tOSU will as well, so its only a matter of time unti Auburn does. Or do you think CN is smart enough to cover his tracks. What did the kid get on his wonderlick, a 16 or so?

June 7, 2011  02:14 AM ET
QUOTE(#8):

I'm not following. The NCAA knew that Rogers and Cecil Newton had shopped Cam at Miss. State and still declared him eligible at Auburn. To my knowledge, no one has ever claimed that Cecil shopped his son at Auburn.Is there something I am missing? What scenario do you see where Auburn could still lose their NC?

All we know about the NCAA's investigation at Auburn is what the scribes have figured out. To speculate on a couple of those reports, you have to wonder if there's any merit to Cam's alleged statement to someone at MSST that the money at Auburn was too good to pass up, and also how the Rev. Newton paid for the new church roof. But there may be other alleged violations under investigation we don't know about yet that could be troublesome for AU.

From what I've seen the longer the investigation takes, the lower the chance the university will be exonerated.

June 7, 2011  02:25 AM ET
QUOTE(#8):

The NCAA knew that Rogers and Cecil Newton had shopped Cam at Miss. State and still declared him eligible at Auburn.

In its investigation, the NCAA could be finding out that the reports they based Cam's eligibility on are about as reliable as the reports they used to make the Tat5 eligible.

June 7, 2011  04:27 AM ET

To be honest, I don't think USC fans are too upset/dissapointed/surprised by this. Everybody knows the best team in the country in 2004 was USC. The BCS may not say so, but the BCS is the same crappy system that picked Oklahoma to play in the National Title game against LSU the year before.

June 7, 2011  06:37 AM ET
QUOTE(#14):

To be honest, I don't think USC fans are too upset/dissapointed/surprised by this. Everybody knows the best team in the country in 2004 was USC. The BCS may not say so, but the BCS is the same crappy system that picked Oklahoma to play in the National Title game against LSU the year before.

Auburn was a pretty good team that year. In hindsight, one could make the argument that Auburn had more talent that year than USC.

June 7, 2011  07:56 AM ET
QUOTE(#9):

Share, hell. The Trojans just wanted a chance to play ya for it. But instead of the #1 team in both polls, the BCS selected a team that just lost its CCG by 4 TD's.

LMAO!!!!!

First it is said that the polls are just popularity contests and shouldn't count at all....

Now, since USC was #1 in the AP, it should count as the NC.

Come on guys...can't have it both ways. But then I always thought that if YOUR team was caught up in the issue, your views would change about the polls.

And the really funny thing...BCS is comprised of multiple polls while the AP is just one set. (And, I still think there are better ways, but the BCS is one ALL teams are playing under for now)

ROFLMAO

June 7, 2011  08:50 AM ET

Still the champs in my book, off field money didnt help them win those games on the field. I bet non of the players accept that either...

June 7, 2011  10:52 AM ET

Off field money put some of those players at your school and thus on the field to play, so yeah, off field money DOES matter.

June 7, 2011  11:06 AM ET
QUOTE(#15):

Auburn was a pretty good team that year. In hindsight, one could make the argument that Auburn had more talent that year than USC.

Yep, the only thing that works against Auburn is that USC had beaten them fairly soundly two years in a row. Auburn should have played Utah...

 
June 7, 2011  11:08 AM ET
QUOTE(#16):

LMAO!!!!!First it is said that the polls are just popularity contests and shouldn't count at all....Now, since USC was #1 in the AP, it should count as the NC.Come on guys...can't have it both ways. But then I always thought that if YOUR team was caught up in the issue, your views would change about the polls.And the really funny thing...BCS is comprised of multiple polls while the AP is just one set. (And, I still think there are better ways, but the BCS is one ALL teams are playing under for now)ROFLMAO

His view is not mine. Mine is that until there is a playoff no claim to a title of any sort is clean. All polls are simply old dudes and subjective nonsense, with the BCS having the added bonus of computerized subjective nonsense.

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Kerr 'absolutely expects' Knicks offer
    Views
    1224
    Comments
    1301
  2. 2
    Bryant headed back to Germany
    Views
    4217
    Comments
    930
  3. 3
    Shakeup looms for White Sox
    Views
    5956
    Comments
    336
  4. 4
    Yankees, Mets, Red Sox among Hanrahan hopefuls
    Views
    968
    Comments
    167
  5. 5
    Lightning may be swept aside
    Views
    1331
    Comments
    100

SI.com

SI Photos