Answer Sunday! (Part 2)

Does the BCS have the power to strip USC of a football title? That is addressed in this segment.

Q: June 21, 2010 3:37 PM
Zovoz said:
Scott, humor me. I’m trying to get my head around the political aspects of this whole thing. Politics appear to be more of what the NCAA really cares about.

First, why couldn’t USC simply reject the sanctions AND the appeals process, too. Instead, why shouldn’t USC aggressively sue the NCAA? Their protracted 4-year investigation (a penalty in and of itself) appears reckless.

From what I’ve read, Rick Neuheisel did some bad things, but he also took some unfair attacks (throwing UCLA a bone). As Neuheisel said, “I didn’t feel the story was fair or right. I had to stand up.”

He ultimately won his case and made the NCAA look like bumblers.

So why doesn’t USC do the same? I think some transparency on the process and people involved would be enlightening and helpful to the University. To me, the NCAA looks about as competent as BP’s management.

A: USC could file a lawsuit and might feel compelled to do so if the appeal is rejected. One potential sticking point is that USC is a member of the NCAA while Neuheisel was an individual. But USC’s spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees already so it might think it has little to lose with a lawsuit. Wouldn’t it make sense with all the drama that’s already surrounded this case?
Off topic, if Reggie Bush had just settled with Lloyd Lake right when this all came out, how different would the NCAA’s case have been? It seems to me a lot of USC fans are ignoring just how damaging Bush’s behavior was on many levels.

Q: Edward said:
If the NCAA does not have the power to take away the BCS championship, how can they make USC vacate the victory? Who runs that game…NCAA or BCS? I realize the eventual ruling would be the same, but hypothetically, if USC would have beaten Texas, they would have been punished for four post-season games. In reality, three.

A: The NCAA can force a victory to be vacated but it is the BCS’s title.
But does the BCS have the power to strip a team of a title?
The coaches poll contractually bound to vote for 2005 Orange Bowl winner. But now, there is none. Will there be a re-vote? And, who is in a position to decide what to do about the last coaches poll for the 2004 season, anyway? With no Orange Bowl winner, it would seem to follow, that, barring a revote (not a great precedent, by the way), there is no coaches poll champion, because there is no one the coaches poll can put in first position.
Apparently the trophy, by the way, refers to the champion of the coaches poll, and not the winner of the game. So, arguably, the coaches poll would have to be formally altered to justify the return of the trophy.
Can the BCS change the result of the coaches poll? What do the contracts say?

Q: TrojanChamp said:

Who would win a fight between Ed Orgeron and Ron Artest, and why? Does the southern upbringing help Orgeron or would the hood roots of Artest be too much for him?

A: This is not as easy to decide as a Orgeron-Henry Bibby matchup. But I always go with a football player over a basketball player, so I take Orgeron.

Share this post:Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someonePrint this page
  • Karrillo

    Well, they say never bet against crazy… but if both contestants are legitimately crazy like Coach O and Ron-Ron…

    I just don’t know. It would be interesting to see what odds Neuheisel’s bookie would give.

  • norcaltroy

    Karillo – well played.

  • DallasTrojan

    There was a hidden gem within Scott’s reply. Bush is the reason for this entire debacle. He has brought the entire University down through his actions. Based on the findings, everything appeared to revolve around Bush getting extra benefits from Lake, Lake’s family, Ornstein, and many others. It is completely crazy how bad Bush was. I was a big Bush fan before reading all this stuff. Now, I think his jersey should be removed and he should be completely disassociated with the University.

  • “Count” Smackula

    allow the Count to assist on this one wolfman! as it turns out, the BCS does have a process in place to deal with cheaters, and based on my carefull analysis of the policy, Southern Cal can kiss the crystal football goodbye!! from USA Today:

    By Steve Wieberg, USA TODAY
    If the NCAA deems Reggie Bush guilty, if it vacates victories in which Southern California’s Heisman Trophy winner made an appearance five and six seasons ago, it appears likely the Trojans would lose their 2004 national championship, as well.
    Quietly in early 2007, as the investigation into USC and alleged improprieties involving Bush and his family was unfolding, college football’s Bowl Championship Series drew up a policy calling for teams’ BCS appearances and BCS titles to be vacated when major rules violations subsequently are discovered and the institutions are sanctioned by the NCAA. Current BCS executive director Bill Hancock confirmed the provision Wednesday.

    Hancock emphasized, “Nothing would happen until the very end of the NCAA process, including any appeals.”


  • osezno

    The NCAA can’t take away the AP Title, which was around long before the crystal ball and will be around long after the joke that is the BCS is disbanded.

  • hadenusc

    Who cares what the BCS or the NCAA does with the wins or BCS title etc etc….Its all paper.
    Everyone knows USC beat the he@! out of Oklahoma and no written word by the BCS or the NCAA can change history. So who cares.
    What we need to be concerned with again is ridiculous
    bumbling idiot committeemembers who by the way were all east coast including Notre Dame and Miami people. These are the ones judging USC and the sanctions on them ??? Give me a break. The whole thing is full of corruption and we all know that.
    Every educated fan or student etc knows USC was the best team in football in that title year so its a moot subject. These bias ridiculous sanctions are the issue here.