New allegations against Reggie Bush, which push his possible alleged ineligibility back to 2004, mean USC’s 2004 national championship could be in jeopardy, after all:
BCS officials told Yahoo! Sports on Friday that if Bush is ruled ineligible by either the Pacific 10 Conference or the NCAA for even one game during the 2004 season, the BCS will discuss amending its rules to allow it to force the Trojans to vacate the national championship.
“This is the type of thing the BCS might have to look into if other governing bodies, the conference and the NCAA, take action,” BCS administrator Bill Hancock said. …
Officials at New York’s Downtown Athletic Club, which award the Heisman Trophy, have said that they could take back Bush’s [2005] honor if he is deemed ineligible by the NCAA. Now the 2004 season, which USC went 13-0, is under question.
The NCAA itself does not crown a champion in Division I-A football. Officially, USC captured the 2004 BCS national championship, which is administered by a consortium of major football conferences. As a result, while the NCAA could strip the Trojans of all their victories in 2004, it could not force USC to vacate its title because the BCS championship is administered outside of NCAA jurisdiction.
The BCS currently has no policy on possibly forcing a school to give up its championship, according to Hancock.
“The BCS is not a governing body,” said BCS coordinator Mike Slive, who is also commissioner of the Southeastern Conference.
However, in the wake of the latest details involving Bush, discussion has occurred within the BCS that if the NCAA or the Pac-10 were to rule that USC must forfeit any or all games from the 2004 season – including its Orange Bowl victory over Oklahoma – the BCS could rewrite its bylaws and retroactively take away the Trojans’ championship.
Only seven times has the NCAA forced a school to vacate a national championship but never in any of its marquee sports. The most recent examples are 2002 with the Hawaii men’s volleyball team and 1995 with the UCLA softball team, both for using ineligible players.
Here are news stories about those Hawaii and UCLA teams.
I’ve already expressed my opinion about the Orwellian absurdism of these retroactive forfeits. I suppose I can see the logic behind it if the team knew at the time that it was using an ineligible player… but to declare a player ineligible long after the fact, because of conduct that the team knew nothing about, and then to change the results of the team’s games on that basis? That strikes me as totally ridiculous and lame. It would be a different situation if the allegations involved something that changed the competitive balance of the game(s) in question (e.g., performance-enhancing drugs, gambling on the outcome, etc.)… but if not, and if the team was itself innocent of any deliberate wrongdoing (or willful blindness), then I’d say the punishment doesn’t fit the crime… especially given that the punishment does violence to common sense by literally rewriting history. (And for the record: “Well, what else can we do?” is not a valid reason to impose an otherwise unsupportable punishment.)
On a lighter note, over at ND Nation, they’re recalling that the Irish’s 31-point loss to USC in 2004 was the “last straw” that got Ty Willingham fired, and hoping that if the Trojans are forced to forfeit that game, “the NCAA doesn’t make us rehire him retroactively.” Heh.
As for the other breaking-news story about Reggie Bush — the fact that he unexpectedly won’t be the #1 pick in the morning’s NFL Draft — ESPN Page 2’s Chuck Klosterman writes:
I have only been alive for 33 years, but I’ve spent 25 of them watching football, and I have never seen a better college player than Reggie Bush. When Marcus Allen was a senior, he was awesome — but Bush was more versatile. It’s possible that Barry Sanders was better as a junior, but Oklahoma State was on probation that year, so they were never on TV; as such, I can’t legitimately compare them. But I can’t imagine how Sanders (or anyone else) could have been any more electrifying and unhittable than Bush. In fact, ESPN Classic just rebroadcast the USC-Fresno State game this very afternoon, and it seems wholly impossible that anyone could be better at running away from people than this particular human. Moreover, everyone alive seems to know this: not only have I never met a Reggie Bush skeptic, I’ve never met anyone who didn’t consider Bush to be a transcendent superhuman. He possesses the kind of greatness that a child can see.
Yet the Texans have nonetheless convinced themselves that they will be better off selecting Mario Williams, the tall, speed-rushing defensive end from North Carolina State. I suspect Williams is potentially stellar. In time, he could be Pro Bowl caliber player. And the Texans’ reasoning (I assume) is that (a) you build a team around defense and pass rushing; (b) they already have a decent running back; (c) Bush might be hyper-expensive; and (d) Reggie’s parents appear to be living in a free house, which seems a tad sketchy. This is all fine and reasonable. The only problem is that Gary Kubiak has failed to weigh these points against the opposing argument, which is that REGGIE BUSH IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TACKLE. HE IS WAY, WAY BETTER THAN ALL OF THE OTHER DUDES WHO ARE ELIGIBLE TO BE DRAFTED. WHEN REGGIE BUSH IS RUNNING WITH THE FOOTBALL, THOSE ATTEMPTING TO KNOCK HIM TO THE GROUND CANNOT SEEM TO DO SO. THIS QUALITY IS ADVANTAGEOUS WITHIN THE GAME OF FOOTBALL, AS THAT IS PRETTY MUCH THE TOTALITY OF THE SPORT.
Obviously, this decision is wolf-face crazy. It’s the kind of decision you make when you are drunk, and on cocaine, and on deadline, and on fire. It’s going to define the future of the Houston franchise, and it will potentially wreck it (at least for a decade). … The Texans talked themselves into picking an inferior player; they created reasonable, intellectual reasons to make a terrible move. And I realize Houston needs help on defense, but remember — they had the first overall pick because they were the worst team in the league. They need everything. And while you can’t get everything at once, the closest singular equivalent is usually the single-best force. But they took the wrong guy.
Gee, tell us how you really feel, Chuck. :)
April 29th, 2006 at 3:09:51 am
Well, there’s a gut-punch.
I was under the impression that 03/04 were sacrosanct.
One must understand that the 2005 Orange Bowl was one of the greatest things in the history of the world.
April 29th, 2006 at 3:52:40 am
If the NCAA does that and if the BCS follows through with their threat they will have proven once and for all how utterly moronic and idiotic they are. And as for the Heisman, one then assumes that Bush no longer being eligible means they give it to Young as the next top vote getter, except, oh wait, he might not have been had the other voters not been able to vote for Bush, so what, do we have a revote? Do we replay the 2004 national championship? I mean you could grant it to Oklahoma but what about Auburn? Had they been in the game it might have turned out differently. If Reggie Bush did not do anything wrong and especially if it did not affect the play of the team I can not comprehend how something like that would even be remotely within the realm of fairness.
April 29th, 2006 at 6:19:18 am
Hi there! Volleyball fan here… I just wanted to mention that Lewis University’s men’s vball team was also forced to vacate their championship the year after Hawaii vacated theirs. UH’s infraction was classified as secondary, Lewis’ infraction was major. BYU almost joined them after being investigated for similar accusations.
So… never underestimate the stupidity of the NCAA!
April 29th, 2006 at 7:55:27 am
This would just plain suck!
April 29th, 2006 at 8:06:25 am
Question to everyone who dislikes the retro-active forfeit:
How would you propose punishing teams for teams and/or players in violation of the rules? Yes, they clearly ‘won’ the game, but these are ill-gotten gains. All you soon-to-be attorneys know you cannot benefit from ill-gotten gains. The NCAA has no recourse against Reggie Bush, he is no longer dependant on them for eligibility. What then, can they do? They cannot simply say, you fooled us long enough, I guess we are powerless. That would set a precedent that cheating is OK as long as you can pull it off for three years. If he is found guilty of these allegations by the Pac-10 / NCAA, then I think forfeiture of the benefits he created is a good starting point for punishment. One might ask, what if rather than Reggie Bush it was the nameless nickel back who committed the violations, should the punishment be the same? I say it is irrelevant, as Nameless is only a hero if he is Jet Li, and wouldn’t get a house for his mama deal.
As for Reggie Bush the pro, I think he will be a mediocre back. Granted I, having an east coast and big-10 bias, didn’t see much of him. In the games I did see, his game seemed to be highly dependant on using his speed to get the corner and turn the ball up field. That doesn’t happen so easily in the pros.
April 29th, 2006 at 9:46:22 am
well well well. this looks like bad news brendan =P
April 29th, 2006 at 10:13:28 am
Could be worse… your other running back could fail a drug test.
Woops! Already happened…
http://www.presstelegram.com/sports/ci_3764989
April 29th, 2006 at 10:29:35 am
Huh…interesting…this begs the question: does Ohio State still retain the MNC regardless of the Maurice Clarett stain?
April 29th, 2006 at 10:43:59 am
David, nope of course it is not “fair” the NCAA has never been “fair” neither has the BCS. There are so many reasons for this that one could postulate beyond just punishments not fitting the crimes that it is somewhat silly to get into. The very first of these is the insane assumption that football and basketball players in major conferences are “amateurs” if you believe that there is a bridge for sale in Brooklyn. If you go to a school like USC or Texas or Miami or OSU or Notre Dame etc. etc. etc. you are not just a football player, the school is giving you a free education free shoes free clothes free housing free massive publicity machine etc all of this moving you towards a push for a big pay day in the NFL or NBA… Or the Arena Football League or American Football Europe etc…
The only thing these athletes don’t get is a pay check and the right to have their own endorsement deals — they have to follow the Universities deals for which they do not get paid — except in sneakers. The NCAA does this, ostensibly, so that smaller schools are not completely run over by larger schools with deeper pockets (trying to allow for George Mason like moments). Which is fine. But it is not “fair” to the athletes at the larger schools who are in the elite who will be going in the early rounds of the NBA or NFL draft. These are guys that are making a lot of money and publicity for their schools of a higher value than their compensation so, you know, is that fair? It’s like the olympics 20 some years ago trying to make sure all the athletes were amateurs. Which was silly, and elitist (which was the reason for amateur status when the games began in the 19th century. It was games for blue bloods that could afford to train–tangent, sorry).
So, the point is David, it’s not so much if the system is fair or not, it is who you are trying to be fair to regardless of if the punishment happens to fit the crime or not. Which is a totally different argument. You cannot be fair to everyone in a system like the one the NCAA has. You have to pick how you are going to try and be fair and apply that evenly.
April 29th, 2006 at 11:53:31 am
Re the “obvious stupidity” of the Texans passing on Bush, I have two words:
Charles Rogers.
I’m not suggesting for a moment that Rogers is as good as Bush. What I am suggesting is that when a player is good, and hears how good he is all the time, and how he will be the savior of any team lucky to get him, it can go to the player’s head, and he can actually believe he’s entitled to something rather than having to earn it every moment on the field. Charles Rogers chose Michigan State over Michigan and other higher-caliber programs because (I believe I have the quote right) “it’s the fastest way for me to get to the NFL.” True, he rewrote the history books at MSU, but then again, virtually every play was designed for him. And of course the Lions drank the kool-aid, where he’s managed to do little more than break his collar bone twice, while “earning” vast sums.
Just as I’m not saying Rogers is/was as good as Bush, I’m also not declaring that Bush is as bad a seed as I’m convinced Rogers is. But given everything that’s going on right now, I don’t think it is foolish at all for the Texans to decide he’s not worth the risk. And the kind of hyperbole exemplified by “REGGIE BUSH IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TACKLE. HE IS WAY, WAY BETTER THAN ALL OF THE OTHER DUDES WHO ARE ELIGIBLE TO BE DRAFTED. WHEN REGGIE BUSH IS RUNNING WITH THE FOOTBALL, THOSE ATTEMPTING TO KNOCK HIM TO THE GROUND CANNOT SEEM TO DO SO” simply doesn’t help. (I’m quite sure I remember Bush getting tackled at least once or twice in the Rose Bowl.)
April 29th, 2006 at 12:18:28 pm
Well, THIS will throw those stupid “one-peat” people into a tizzy, as a “one-peat” may turn, in their mind, into a “no-peat”.
And yes, Auburn will be VERY unhappy too if this happens. This is going to open a whole new can of worms.
I disagree that this is the “only way” to punish a program. You can restrict scholarships, or generally do a lot of things. But I agree, this retro-active stripping of titles is a bit silly. I understand that there may be some circumstances where it may be appropriate (example: if a team was so rife with recruiting violations that say, half the team shouldn’t have even been there), but this whole bru-ha-ha is just stupid.
April 29th, 2006 at 12:20:47 pm
Oh, and ND fans may be glad to know that taking one national title away from USC puts USC two titles behind the Irish, instead of one (had they won this year, they would have been tied for most national titles ever).
April 29th, 2006 at 1:43:51 pm
Well Russell as Brendan has pointed out numerous times in the past, the punishment should fit the crime. How fair is it for the USC team and school to be punished for something they were not even aware of and which is, in fact something that Bush himself didn’t even do.
Frankly the only fair thing to do is fine his family if they did in fact benefit, of course the NCAA has no authority to do that.
April 29th, 2006 at 4:18:31 pm
I think it is ridiculous to punish a team or a school for the infractions of an individual player.
April 29th, 2006 at 4:19:25 pm
I think the only fair thing to do is strip him of the Heisman. That would send a message.
April 29th, 2006 at 5:15:59 pm
Max, what if he knew nothing about it? Why should he (or the team for that matter) be punsihed for his family being stupid/taking advantage of the situation. Honestly the NCAA needs to come up with some realistic standards and rules.
April 29th, 2006 at 10:27:30 pm
What I am suggesting is that when a player is good, and hears how good he is all the time, and how he will be the savior of any team lucky to get him, it can go to the player’s head, and he can actually believe he’s entitled to something rather than having to earn it every moment on the field.
Those are understandable concerns, but the fact is, Reggie Bush has been portrayed as God since he was in high school. He was certainly portrayed as God at USC. And the fact is, he was the hardest working guy on the team, day in and day out. Suffice it to say, I think whichever team gets Reggie is getting a great young man. (Except these other allegations are very unsettling indeed….)
I think it’d be quite amusing if we were stripped from our 2004 title because of Bush. I mean, you know, that Orange Bowl game was really close, Oklahoma probably would’ve won the game if it hadn’t have been for Reggie Bush…. [/sarcasm]
As for LenDale White, what a bunch of unsubstantiated crap. The fact is, only two players were on the sheet that was circulated after the NFL Combine as having tested positive for drugs, and White was not one of them.
In the games I did see, his game seemed to be highly dependant on using his speed to get the corner and turn the ball up field. That doesn’t happen so easily in the pros.
The closest thing I’ve seen to a valid criticism of Reggie Bush. I have no problem waiting patiently for him to prove you dead wrong.
May 1st, 2006 at 5:55:02 pm
Wow. This presents a horrible conflict for Longhorns like me - do we petition for the NCAA to go ahead and punish USC for not having the FBI run full CIA-style background checks on all of their players? On one hand, Vince Young could end up with a Heisman. On the other, a horrible Oklahoma team could end up with another national championship, even if it is Alabama-style rather than legit (shudder). Wait, who are we kidding? USC vs. the NCAA? That’s a slam-dunk!
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:36:00 am
yea you cant forget about auburn you know that if any team goes undefeated in the sec than they should play for the national and im a alabama fan too so yea. they should take the heismen away and give it to vince and take the national chapm and give it to the #2 team in the country witch was auburn