BCS - Ineligible Bush could dethrone USC

[Jenny AU-92 0]

If they vacate the title, would Auburn be awarded the BCSNC, based on finishing #2?

Link to story

NEW YORK – Assertions by Michael Michaels – the lead investor in a doomed sports agency and the owner of a Spring Valley, Calif., home occupied by the family of Reggie Bush – could cost the University of Southern California its 2004 Bowl Championship Series national championship.

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.

Previously, Bush's eligibility for the 2005 season, which saw him win the Heisman Trophy and lead USC back to the BCS title game, had been questioned because of Michaels' statement that Bush's family failed to pay $54,000 in rent from April 2005 to April 2006.

Michaels' claims, which he has promised will be backed up by corroborating evidence, moves the timeline of Bush's potential ineligibility back to the Trojans' 2004 undefeated BCS national championship season.

In a statement released to Yahoo! Sports on Friday, Michaels' attorney, Brian Watkins, said that in October 2004 Michaels was approached at a San Diego Chargers football game by Bush's stepfather LaMar Griffin about investing and partnering in New Era Sports & Entertainment, a new sports agency.

In November 2004, Michaels then met with Griffin, longtime Bush friend Lloyd Lake and Bush himself to discuss the plan where the USC running back would be the firm's central client when he turned pro in the spring of 2006.

"In November 2004, in San Diego, Reggie Bush, recruited by his stepfather to validate Mr. Griffin's company, convinced [Michaels and Lake] of its viability," Watkins said in the statement.

"There was the representation that Reggie would come with his stepfather," Watkins told Yahoo! Sports on Friday. "Reggie ratified that."

Michaels said that soon thereafter Griffin asked him to pay off $28,000 of Griffin's personal debt, which Michaels obliged.

In April 2005, Griffin said "they were having housing problems" and Michaels allowed them to move into a $757,000, 3,000-square-foot home he owned in Spring Valley, a San Diego suburb. According to Michaels, Griffin and Bush's mother, Denise Griffin, failed to pay any of the agreed upon $4,500 monthly rent on the property before Michaels evicted the family last week.

Michaels also told Yahoo! Sports that he paid for Bush's family to travel to some USC road games during the 2005 season.

Bush, who is now projected to be the second overall pick in Saturday's NFL draft, has denied knowledge of any deal his family may have had with Michaels. Meanwhile, Michaels has said he will file a lawsuit against Bush and his family to recoup "approximately $300,000 in out-of-pocket costs alone, over 1½ years." He is also seeking damages to a total of $3.2 million.

Michaels and Bush had tried to reach a settlement on monies owed over the past few months.

A Feb. 13, 2006 letter obtained by Yahoo! Sports from Watkins to Bush's attorney, David Cornwell, that discusses settlement talks contains the following passage:

"Please advise if it is your intention to involve the University in these settlement negotiations. We would not object to their participation as we understand their wanting to be involved due to the fact that this matter was on going during their championship season of 2004 as well as the entire season of 2005, and any lawsuit filed might have an adverse effect on them."

Bush's NCAA eligibility would have been compromised by any gift that either he or his family received from the aspiring agents, either Michaels or Lake. The paying off of the $28,000 loan, the exact date of which is not known, is a clear NCAA violation. Also, a source inside the NCAA's compliance office said simply setting up the New Era partnership could be deemed an "extra benefit."

Officials at New York's Downtown Athletic Club, which award the Heisman Trophy, have said that they could take back Bush's 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.

[AUHansel 0]

This wasn't the schools fault. If anything, they will take his heisman away and his stats from the record books from when he was declared ineligible. Plus, wouldn't they give Oklahoma the MNC because they were actually in the game. I hope they don't take it away from USC. As much as we want to bitch about us not getting credit, they still did win the BCS game. I realize that Bush may have been a factor in that game, but don't punish the university or the other players for something that they probably had no knowledge of or anything to do with. This was an outside party that is in the wrong.

[WAR EAGLE!!! 0]

This wasn't the schools fault. If anything, they will take his heisman away and his stats from the record books from when he was declared ineligible. Plus, wouldn't they give Oklahoma the MNC because they were actually in the game. I hope they don't take it away from USC. As much as we want to bitch about us not getting credit, they still did win the BCS game. I realize that Bush may have been a factor in that game, but don't punish the university or the other players for something that they probably had no knowledge of or anything to do with. This was an outside party that is in the wrong.

233427[/snapback]

what he said...

[Scottie4AU 0]

I believe I read somewhere--Bham News on Sunday, I think--that if the 2004 title was vacated, that it would remain "vacated."

I also think that is the case in one of Florida's early SEC titles--again, a vague guess: 1984. "Vacated."

Don't make no never mind to me...couldn't make me feel any better about my 2004 Tigers!

War Eagle!

[WeagleDMS 0]

I wonder what the AP folks will do about this?

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

I agree with whoever says that we don't want a "title" in this manner.

Too Alabama-ish for my likings.

Yet another reason to hate the BCS. The NCAA should be ashamed.

[GalensGhost 0]

As previously stated in another thread, I'm going to start counting 2004 as a National Championship season anyway.

Joe Gibbs said AU won it all. I heard him. Good enough for Gibbs, good enough for me.

[WarTiger 3,915]

Sorry folks, but I have a hard time believing this kind of thing happened and NOBODY with the Program knew about it. I just don't believe it. I'll bet Pete Carroll himself knew what was going on and kept his mouth shut. Either way, whether the University knew about it or not, it doesn't change the legality of it within the NCAA. The university still clearly benefited from this, and its their job to know stuff like this. Besides they can say all they want that they had no knowledge of this just to escape the wrath of the NCAA, but I'm pretty confident that someone, somewhere on staff at USC knew about all of this from the beginning.

The university has a responsibility to know about things like this. Whether the university knew or not, they should be forced to forfiet every game Reggie Bush participated in from the time this occured. The NC should be vacated and the Heisman should be vacated. Any and all records that He or the team set while he was a part of that team should be totally erased from the record books. It should be as if USC didn't even field a football team for this period. The university should also face some disciplinary action as well, which would certainly be probation. Just my opinion.

[WarDlowe 39]

i agree. all of this says "lack of institutional control" to me. if they really didn't know about it, they should have, and it should be dealt with. however even if they gave us the title from this i'd still have the same empty feeling that i had in 2004 knowing that we didn't get to win it in the game that counted.

[kingfish 73]

I believe I read somewhere--Bham News on Sunday, I think--that if the 2004 title was vacated, that it would remain "vacated."

I also think that is the case in one of Florida's early SEC titles--again, a vague guess: 1984.  "Vacated."

Don't make no never mind to me...couldn't make me feel any better about my 2004  Tigers!

War Eagle!

233436[/snapback]

I would put very little credibility in the "remain vacated" comment that was in Sunday's Bham News considering the source ... Kevin Scarbinsky was the author.

[DKW 86 7,438]

A little consistency here guys. If Antonio Langham was ineligible and bama was forced to foreit every game he played in, almost the entire 1993 season, then so should USC.

As far as the MNC, It is an MNC. We all have MNC's, MYTHICAL NCs that is. Until we have a playoff, they are all beauty contests.

If USC foreits the BCS game, then did OU really win it? If USC wouldnt have been eligible to play in it then we really got robbed!!! Every other team that USC played will still have the loss showing on its record books, or will they?

Very complicated and I am sure we will debate this for years to come.

I am very happy about one thing, It isnt us getting dragged thru the press now. The press will feel fooled and will eventually beat up Carroll and USC from now on.

[GalensGhost 0]

I am very happy about one thing, It isnt us getting dragged thru the press now. The press will feel fooled and will eventually beat up Carroll and USC from now on.

233474[/snapback]

I bet they will sweep it as far under the rug as they can. There will be no beating up on a demigod.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

If you want to read some funny stuff on this go to the Rivals OU board. They are discussing the same thing.

Some say they should take it cause they win 1-0 over USC.

Some say that it sounds to much like Alabama and even with the forfiet they still were exposed.

Some are saying that it should go to us because we finished two in some polls after the games over, then polls prior to the bowl game should be used others say.

But my favorite is the ones, and there is more than one, that say they deserve it just because they were in the championship game and that trumps Auburn beating a poor 2 loss Virginia Tech team in the Sugar.

Don't know bout ya'll, but I remember that poor 2 loss Virginia Tech team putting up a significantly better game against USC than OU.

[DKW 86 7,438]

I am very happy about one thing, It isnt us getting dragged thru the press now. The press will feel fooled and will eventually beat up Carroll and USC from now on.

233474[/snapback]

I bet they will sweep it as far under the rug as they can. There will be no beating up on a demigod.

233479[/snapback]

G2, this comes at the wrong time for the sports guys. They got nothing else to write about. This is like a major political event in August, there is nothing to remove it from the Internet nor the front page.

Sharks are sharks. When they smell blood, they will do exactly like they are programmed to do and act like a shark. Bush will likely throw his parents and the agent under the bus, as soon as said agent signs him a $35M deal.

[SouthLink02 8]

I think people are taking this just a bit too far in terms of what to take away.

[mcgufcm 4,107]

we were already the best team in the country that year, and since there is no title system, we have as much claim to it as usc or utah, imo. this doesn't change that other than possibly limiting the dispute to two teams instead of three. get a system that works, and i'll get interested. till then, i'll just watch football and remember who the best teams in the country were: 2003 lsu, 2004 auburn, and 2005 texas.

[quietfan 233]

A little consistency here guys. If Antonio Langham was ineligible and bama was forced to foreit every game he played in, almost the entire 1993 season, then so should USC.

As far as the MNC, It is an MNC. We all have MNC's, MYTHICAL NCs that is. Until we have a playoff, they are all beauty contests.

If USC foreits the BCS game, then did OU really win it? If USC wouldnt have been eligible to play in it then we really got robbed!!! Every other team that USC played will still have the loss showing on its record books, or will they?

Very complicated and I am sure we will debate this for years to come.

I am very happy about one thing, It isnt us getting dragged thru the press now. The press will feel fooled and will eventually beat up Carroll and USC from now on.

233474[/snapback]

I agree 100% on the Antonio Langham comparison. USC should be treated like Bama (and as someone mentioned) Florida back inthe '90's.

I'm not big on us claiming any vacated title--if anything it might make us open to more ridicule like our "People's National Championship". On the other hand, if the AP or BCS INSISTED that our name be put into the record books, I suppose we'd have to take it.

One thing though--it's not like USC beat us and we'd be getting that game back. [unlike Oklahoma]. Since AU and USC never met on the field in 2004, it's not like they proved themselves superior to us in play and we're sneaking past them on a technicality anyway. There is always the unsettled argument that we were as good as them. We were 13-0 on the field. Oklahoma would only be 13-0 by way of forfeit in these circumstances.

I don't care how many ineligible players USC might have had, Oklahoma stunk so badly in the Orange Bowl that I don't know if I'd want to claim that game even by forfeit if I were an OU fan. This USC controversy just brings more attention to one of the Sooners most embarrasing performances ever.

[rolltoomer 0]

I don't want anything to do with a "used", "hand-me-down 'title'".

[rexbo 104]

we were already the best team in the country that year...

Well, there is no doubt now that we were the best non-professional team that year...

[BamaGrad03 0]

As previously stated in another thread, I'm going to start counting 2004 as a National Championship season anyway. 

Joe Gibbs said AU won it all.  I heard him.  Good enough for Gibbs, good enough for me.

233447[/snapback]

Then you should NEVER dog Alabama for the ones they claim.

[GalensGhost 0]

As previously stated in another thread, I'm going to start counting 2004 as a National Championship season anyway.  

Joe Gibbs said AU won it all.  I heard him.  Good enough for Gibbs, good enough for me.

233447[/snapback]

Then you should NEVER dog Alabama for the ones they claim.

233516[/snapback]

Auburn's claim to the 2004 NC is twice as valid as half or more than the 12 Bama claims. We've already gone over that, too.

That aside, I guess you're having a hard time recognizing tongue in cheek commentary.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Auburn's claim to the 2004 NC is twice as valid as half or more than the 12 Bama claims. We've already gone over that, too.

Another one of those "because you say so" arguments huh? Well since you dont recognize ANY AP titles that ANYONE has ever won...but you do recognize Golf Digest's NC...there's really no arguing with you.

[GalensGhost 0]

Auburn's claim to the 2004 NC is twice as valid as half or more than the 12 Bama claims. We've already gone over that, too.

Another one of those "because you say so" arguments huh? Well since you dont recognize ANY AP titles that ANYONE has ever won...but you do recognize Golf Digest's NC...there's really no arguing with you.

233534[/snapback]

You're really too sensitive on this issue. I think I know why.

This isn't a "i said so" argument. This discussion has been done before. You've been shown where as many as eight of the titles claimed by Bama are nothing short of fraudulent. If you can't remember those lessons, don't expect me to continue to tutor you unless you're willing to pay. This is the last time I'll explain it to you for free.

Fake #1:

1925 National Championship- Alabama claims they share this one with

Dartmouth. Who awarded the NC? Houlgate and Helms. Houlgate started his

system in 1927. So bama won their 1925 NC using a formula that didn't

exist until 1927? Helms Athletic Foundation started in 1941. An incredible retroactive NC.

Fake #2:

1926 National Championship - Alabama claims they share this one with 3

other teams with equal or better records! Once again it is the Helms Athletic Foundation in 1941 that awards it!

Fake #3:

1930 National Championship - The Davis poll says that Bama tied Notre Dame for NC this year. This was the only one to award it to Bama. Notre Dame was named NC in 6 polls! Parke Davis is another retroactive system! He (an individual, not an organization) did his in 1933!

Fake #4:

1934 National Championship - Alabama says they share this with two other teams. The awarders are Dunkel, Williamson, and Football Thesaurus. Dunkel was an individual who came up with his own system. Williamson was a geologist who came up with his own system. Football Thesaurus first appeared in 1946!

Fake #5:

1941 National Championship - This is a complete joke. The AP ranked

Alabama 20th in the nation with 14 teams with better records in the top 20. Once again it is the Football Thesaurus that retroactively awards it. Alabama finished 3rd in the SEC that year. Mississippi State won the SEC title..yet Bama claims a National title.

Fake #6:

1964 National Championship - While the AP did award the NC to Bama

(10-1-0), Arkansas had the better record, 11-0. Alabama played Texas in their bowl and LOST. The AP poll was before the bowl.

Fake #7:

1965 National Championship - The AP gave this to Bama. That year

there were three teams with better records than Bama. Bama 9-1-1, Michigan St 10-1-0, Arkansas 10-1-0, Nebraska 10-1-0.

Fake #8:

1973 National Championship - AP puts Bama 4th after their bowl game loss. Bama claims a NC from the UPI poll that was taken before they met Notre Dame in the bowl game and lost. There were 3 teams with better records than Bama that year. The embarrassment of naming Alabama number one caused the UPI to name champions after bowl games. Yet Bammer has no shame in claiming it of course.

You really want to tell me Joe Gibbs saying it has less validity than any of those bogus claims? I'd take Joe Gibbs over six of those eight. Bama's NC's are such BS, I keep expecting to see Penn and Teller do a show on it.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Since when does final record automatically determine one's NC worthiness? I dont hear you campaigning for Utah's 2004 team.

[BamaGrad03 0]

PS...im done with this. Sorry for the momentary hijack.