On more than one occasion in the wake of the NCAA slapping the sanction hammer up against the side of USC’s head, former Auburn and current Texas Tech head coach Tommy Tuberville has stumped for the Tigers to be awarded the 2004 national championship due to Reggie Bush being ruled retroactively ineligible for the BcS title game.
Tuesday, another central figure in that 2004 season has chimed in, albeit with a slightly different take than Tuberville.
Speaking on the Dan Patrick radio show earlier today, Bob Stoops did not go Coach Tubs and say Oklahoma, which was demolished by the Trojans 55-19 in the actual title game, should be awarded the crystal if the BcS decides to strip USC of the title. Instead, Stoops says it should simply be vacated.
“The reason to leave it blank is everyone, obviously, is not on the same playing field,” Stoops told Patrick by way of the Daily Oklahoman.
“I think it’s the right thing, just to vacate it. And no one is asking my opinion, it’s just that I don’t think there’s a good way for anyone to claim it.”
Stoops also offered his opinion on whether undefeated Auburn should be awarded the title.
“I’m not Auburn, so they can do whatever they feel they need to do in the end. But they didn’t play in the game and they didn’t play against Reggie Bush either.”
Yeah, we’ll just go ahead and mark that down as a “no” for Stoops.
Regardless, the BcS needs to do something regarding this situation. The organization shoved provisions into their bylaws to address this very scenario, and have the authority to strip a school of its trophy if a player who played in the title game is ruled retroactively ineligible and wins are vacated by the NCAA.
Common sense would dictate that the BcS would strip USC of the title and vacate. Then again, common sense and the BcS don’t normally hang out in the same neighborhood, so we’ll see.
Then again, if the current head of the USC athletic department has the soul he claim to possess, the BcS could be bypassed altogether and the school could send the ’04 hardware back to the BcS. What’s good for the Bush is good for the gander, no?