FWAA Reaction
I'm a member of the FWAA and was asked to present the Grantland Rice Trophy to Pete Carroll at the national championship celebration at USC in 2005. With that in mind, I'm disappointed by today's decision. It seems silly to vacate a title that everyone saw a team win and attempt to alter history. The games took place. Everyone knows the results. Even more illogical was the decision not to include USC in this year's FWAA rankings. Why punish the 2010 team for something they had nothing to do with?
The BCS will follow suit at some point and vacate the 2005 Orange Bowl. But at the end of the day, USC remains the only national champion in the 2004 season because it is the Associated Press champs, the only selectors who allowed their title results to stand.
A rare moment of wisdom and clarity, Mr. Wolf.
Well stated Scott. The piling on is ridiculous. I know it's unlikely, but should we win the AP title this year, the FWAA is gonna look pretty marginal giving their trophy to the 2nd best team.
One of Scott Wolf's best bosts. Well done, Scotty.
bosts?? I meant posts. Damn.
Word...
Scotty, is that you? Your BEST post ever.
What is so objectionable about all this was the very thin evidence that NCAA relied on to determine that Bush was ineligible for the 2005 Orange Bowl game. There was an excellent post on the USCFootball board a few weeks agon on this point:
http://usc.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?highlight=trojanjustice&sid=995&fid=521&tid=146213394&mid=146213394
Here is a cut and pasted excerpt:
>
the game was played with an ineligible player - vacating a win in such a circumstance is not only the right move, it's the standard punishment AT EVERY LEVEL, from high school on. The only surprise here is that the AP hasn't followed suit. As for punishing the team, you're missing the boat - the school is being punished. The kids are just an extension of the school. Puff, puff, pass...
I have still yet to see any evidence that Reggie Bush was ineligible during that game. There has been no proof of any wrongdoing as far as I am concerned prior to March 2005.
This is probably the single most promising piece of evidence that USC will at least get the bowl ban reduced to a single year during the appeal process. Without recounting the innumerable inconsistencies and instances of conflict of interest from both the jovial Paul Dee and the Missy Conboy, charging SC with noncompliance during the 2004 season is reckless at best.
I hope the USC lawyers sue the NCAA for damages, regardless of the result of the appeal. A cool 50 million dollars from the N-C-Two-A coffers could help heal some of the festering dissatisfaction I feel towards that worthless group.
Are they gonna strip the two All-American designations given to Bush by the FWAA for 2004 & 2005 as well? Or do those not matter?
Spot on post Wolf
ask me if i give a sht about this? scinsc5, do you give a sht? answer: F no i don't give a sht!
Our buddy sped has the "puff, puff, pass" down, takes one to know one.
Solid post Wolf.
i'm watching usc-ucla '05 right now. it's 31-6 and a so-called ineligible player is running wild over the bruins who were 9-1 at the time. too bad the ncaa can't erase the footage.
let me get this straight, alabama had how many ineligible players with a textbook scandal sometime around '06/'07 and there were how many scholarship reductions and no bowl games missed?
something seems amiss.
from what i understand, usc is only giving 15 schollies this year per sanctions. shouldn't usc puch the schollie sanctions back a year in case the appeal is granted and they can give 20 or 25?
Most psychologists agree that a critical indicia of intelligence is consistency, i.e. the bright ones react the same way given the same set of facts.
How many USC fans, or those on this blog, were and are upset that the NCAA stripped UCLA of its National Championship and vacated its wins in softball years ago when it was determined that an ineligible player was used that year? The fact is that there was nothing wrong with that ruling.
The fact is that vacating wins (and a resultant conference or national championship) by a school that used an ineligible player, has been black letter NCAA law since its inception, as well as the case in high school and other levels.
Pat Haden properly expects USC to play by the rules. We all know (well maybe not all of us), what the rules are! Is there some reason why Scott Wolf and other USC fans apparently lack the ability to do the same, instead of whining about a consistent application of the law, except when USC is involved?? Those psychologists were right.
scinsc5, you can't say that USC didn't benefit from Bush and his cheating. Look at how motivated he was in that game -- he knew he owed Lloyd Lake some big-time money!
usc-ucla 2005 update: 51-6 with :55 left in the 3rd quarter.
Don't care. I was there. I got my ring. Come get it.
Stanford 91: based on your definition of genius, ChuckerBucky was the biggest genius since Tesla, inasmuch as he reacted to every one of Wolf's sweeet scoops the same way...AUUUUUU-WOOOOOOOOOOOO!!
But back to the topic at hand. You are right on Stanford 91!! the AP reckanzing Southern Cal as '04 Paper Champs is a pure joke! They recognize a team who used a inelligible player as champ??!! By Southern Cal and Wolf's logic, we should all recognize Floyd Landis as the Tour De France champ because he "won it on the course"!!
Rewarding cheating...it's just so "Southern Cal"
Stanford 91; ucla gave tanya harding - mvp of the softball tournament - a soccer scholarship to play softball. that is not allowed under ncaa bylaws. neither USC or its boosters gave reggie any impermissable benefits. the "consistency" that you seek glosses over some important factors when comparing the two situations.
Now I know how Dustin Johnson feels.
This is typical self-serving Wolf hubris. He writes positively about it because HE was involved.
"I'm a member of the FWAA and was asked to present the Grantland Rice Trophy to Pete Carroll..."
For a hack sportswriter who works a $600-a-week job at the third rate fishwrap, this guy is full of himself.