According to this, if USC is stripped of it's '04 BCS Title...

[TigerfanKM 37]

Article from 5/20/2010:

Update: Little-Known BCS Policy Could Allow For Revocation Of 2004 USC TitleIf it ever does end, (which, don't hold your breath), the NCAA investigation into USC athletics could sport some heretofore unseen twists on the sanctioning end. Until this point, attention has been focused largely on how any ruling might affect the future of USC football, but if the Committee on Infractions gives them enough wiggle room, the BCS may very well have its eye on changing the past:

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.

Legally speaking, the Committee is now merrily bounding through the section of the map with the little clouds and the "HERE THERE BE DRAGONS" signs. There has never been a case quite like this one in the BCS era, but the central arguments for what will or won't go down are actually quite familiar:

The NCAA will bring the hammer down on USC because a high-profile sanctionpalooza will set a very public example, and they've clearly crafted this policy specifically to allow them to do so.

The NCAA will let USC off with a light swat on the bottom because they're USC, and when they're doing well it's good for business.

Neither of the above arguments matter, because the university will appeal whatever does happen and we'll all be treated to another four years of stretching this mess out, world without end, amen.

I've got both feet planted firmly in the "this will never, ever end, ever" camp, and for what it's worth, so does the BCS brass:

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

But supposing this does wind down (very, very eventually), and the '04 championship gets vacated? That's where things can really get interesting. If the Associated Press can revote on Brian Cushing's rookie award, why can't they revote on the 2004 champion? And would that vote let 55-19 speak for itself, and leave the trophy in Trojan hands, or would Auburn finally get its day in the undefeated sun?

Here is the link - http://http://www.sbnation.com/2010/1/10/1244082/usc-football-ncaa-investigation"

[mcgufcm 4,107]

They talked about this on College Football Live yesterday. Craig James said there has to be a champ. He and the other guy on set (don't know his name b/c I don't really watch the show) said the AP should re-vote if USC is vacated. They both said Auburn should be made the champ, and they said Auburn should hang banners, roll Toomer's, bring the team back. James, who played for an undefeated team that didn't get a title, said all those players could and should wear their title rings proudly.

I, for one, would absolutely, unapologetically take it. I'd probably drive/fly back to Auburn to help roll Toomer's. Idea for a t-shirt: "We knew it then; you know it now. 2004 National Champions"

[SouthLink02 8]

You all really got screwed

[WarTiger 3,987]

I really don't want this. Vacate the championship and leave it vacated. This just as that bammerish stink to it. Let uat be the one to claim retroactive titles, not us.

[OldNewby 27]

Father time marches on. It's 2010, not 2005. I would rather win it on the field.

[kingfish 73]

I have always felt like we should have had the chance to win it on the field, but since we didn't get the opportunity I will gladly take it now. Bring it on.

[MDM4AU 337]

While I don't want the BCS title since we didn't play for it, if the AP wants to re-vote and Auburn is the #1, I won't have a problem with it.

[Bama My Heart 5]

While I don't want the BCS title since we didn't play for it, if the AP wants to re-vote and Auburn is the #1, I won't have a problem with it.

I have never understood why the AP didn't give it to Auburn in 2004. That's what they did to LSU the year before. LSU won the championship game, but the AP awarded the championship to USC, so they had to share. AP shouldn't try to sound so noble now, and how they would fix this. They should have done it in the first place. Of course, we Bama fans were glad that they didn't, but right is right. I would have rathered that Auburn had played in the championship game, so I could wish for them to lose, and if they won, then I would have to congratulate them and move on. A statement should be made as to what the policy is concerning if a championship is taken away, what happens. I heard that when they did this to Florida, that it is just noted that noone won for that year with an *.

[SCBusPilot 72]

While I don't want the BCS title since we didn't play for it, if the AP wants to re-vote and Auburn is the #1, I won't have a problem with it.

Agreed. I would not want the 2004 BCS NC title either since we didn't play for it in the title game.

However, we DID play in a BCS bowl game in 2004, and did quite well against a team that USC also played that year. If the AP wants to re-vote and name us #1 that year based on our undefeated season, SEC Championship, superior strength of schedule, and BCS Bowl victory, Auburn would and SHOULD claim the national title just like USC does for 2003, even though they weren't the BCS National Championship Game winner that year either.

Another question - was the AP still being used in the BCS NC formula in 2004? It seems like the BCS stopped using it after 2003, but I can't remember. That could also change things drastically.

[WarTiger 3,987]

2004-05 season was the last year the AP poll was used to calculate the BCS standings.

[Auburnfan91 1,408]

While I don't want the BCS title since we didn't play for it, if the AP wants to re-vote and Auburn is the #1, I won't have a problem with it.

Another question - was the AP still being used in the BCS NC formula in 2004? It seems like the BCS stopped using it after 2003, but I can't remember. That could also change things drastically.

No, the AP was used in 2004 but was taken out the next year and replaced by the Harris Interactive Poll.

It was actually strength of schedule that was taken out before the 2004 season that could have helped Auburn. The reason why Oklahoma got to play LSU in 2003 even after they loss in the Big XII Championship game was because they had a tougher strength of schedule than USC.

I also have no problem if the AP wants to re-vote and vote Auburn #1. That's what should have been done in 2004 so it would have been another split title like it was in 2003 with LSU and USC.

Before the 2004 season, the BCS formula was modified to eliminate team record, strength of schedule and quality wins from the equation, while human opinion was given more weight. In the new system, the Associated Press writers' poll, the coaches' poll, and a combination of computer rankings each count for one-third of a team's overall BCS ranking. The human polls now count for two-thirds of the formula, compared with one-quarter previously.

http://football.about.com/od/bowlchampionship/i/bcsvsplayoffs.htm

Here's another link that helped explain it also.

http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1017485

Though the BCS removed strength of schedule as a stand-alone component in 2004, schedule strength is included in some form in each of the computer rankings. The BCS also removed margin of victory from the formula and uses only computers that do not take the final score into account.

[Duder 238]

I'm on board with the AP title if a re-vote ends up taking place but I think the BCS title should be vacated. I'm fairly certain that is what would happen anyway but who knows

[Hoopie 6]

Don't need recognition to know what we deserved. Don't want it now

Let's leave that type of needy, emotional gratification to the Bammers.

[AUgrad00 7]

I agree. Weak @ss way to claim a title...

I really don't want this. Vacate the championship and leave it vacated. This just as that bammerish stink to it. Let uat be the one to claim retroactive titles, not us.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I wouldn't turn it down if it was offered, but I won't lose any sleep over it either way. It was clear that Oklahoma wasn't the team that belonged in that game. We should have gotten our shot and didn't. Hard to rectify that now.

[Auburnfan91 1,408]

Don't need recognition to know what we deserved. Don't want it now

Let's leave that type of needy, emotional gratification to the Bammers.

To act like you don't want it because you don't want to be like Bama fans and have "emotional gratification" is silly. If anything that's what makes Bama fans hypocrites. They constantly joke about Auburn only having half of a NC in our history yet 6 or 7 of their alleged "13" were split or half NC's.

I don't care if they vacate the title or award Auburn a share, I'm happy either way. At least there might be some justice and USC getting hit with probation is enough "emotional gratification" for me.

Edit: Even if they award Auburn a share, I'm sure the university wouldn't claim it anyway. It would just be like some of our other unclaimed titles.

[Ronin 2]

While I don't want the BCS title since we didn't play for it, if the AP wants to re-vote and Auburn is the #1, I won't have a problem with it.

The way I recall, Oklahoma didn't play for it in 2004 either so if they strip USC, we might as well get it.

[RunInRed 16,994]

If Troy Falls, Auburn Should Be Champs

By Clay Travis

As the college football world awaits the ultimate ruling on whether or not USC will be hit with severe NCAA penalties and, beyond that, whether those penalties will include a forfeiture of the 2004 national title, the BCS has already announced that there is a system in place to remove a title. That's why it's time to make a clear argument for what should happen in the result of those major sanctions being levied: A new champion must be crowned. Put simply, it's not enough to remove a champion, we have to reward another team. An absence of a champion defeats the college football season more than any other sport, especially because college football's champion is often chosen based on perception rather than on-field results.

That means there is only one appropriate result in the event of major USC sanctions: The 2004 AP voters, the ones who voted USC the national champion, should re-vote and select a new champion. After all, if the AP is interested in retroactively re-voting in the Brian Cushing NFL defensive rookie of the year award, an honor that is relatively meaningless, then they damn well should be interested in re-voting in the event USC is stripped of its title.

Why? Because the AP's selection of the national champion in 2004 wasn't just an individual award; instead it represented the absolute fulfillment of the reason we watch the season -- the actual crowning of a champion.

What's the only appropriate result of that vote?

13-0 Auburn should become the 2004 national champions.

Read more...

[BoJtrueAUman 4]

While I don't want the BCS title since we didn't play for it, if the AP wants to re-vote and Auburn is the #1, I won't have a problem with it.

The way I recall, Oklahoma didn't play for it in 2004 either so if they strip USC, we might as well get it.

LOL thats the dang truth! Biggest joke of a title game EVER!

[Ranger12 46]

No, I don't want something that was handed to us like that. Besides, we did not even play in the BCS MNC game against them, do why would we get it anyway? Technically, doesn't Oklahoma have a better argument than us? Sure I think we got screwed and should have been in that game instead of OU, but we weren't, so I don't see how we could receive the MNC over them. A re-vote just exposes even more how ignorant the system is, because in a playoff system, with a situation like this, the runner-up would get the title, not a team that did not even play in the "championship" game.

Besides, USC will not lose the title, because it would just open up a huge the debate who should get the title, thus opening up the debate for a playoff even more. We all know that the NCAA does not want that for Div-1A football. They proved that when the created the two different Div-1 series, the Football Bowl Series and the Football Championship Series. So if anything they might keep the title for that year vacated.

[smilin tiger 0]

They can shove it as far as I'm concerned. Lets WIN one on the field (that is IF we don't get screwed AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!) :angry:

[Duder 238]

No, I don't want something that was handed to us like that. Besides, we did not even play in the BCS MNC game against them, do why would we get it anyway? Technically, doesn't Oklahoma have a better argument than us? Sure I think we got screwed and should have been in that game instead of OU, but we weren't, so I don't see how we could receive the MNC over them. A re-vote just exposes even more how ignorant the system is, because in a playoff system, with a situation like this, the runner-up would get the title, not a team that did not even play in the "championship" game.

Besides, USC will not lose the title, because it would just open up a huge the debate who should get the title, thus opening up the debate for a playoff even more. We all know that the NCAA does not want that for Div-1A football. They proved that when the created the two different Div-1 series, the Football Bowl Series and the Football Championship Series. So if anything they might keep the title for that year vacated.

OU would have a legitimate argument for the BCS title, the AP can vote however they please. If the AP takes it from USC pending actual sanction/vacating wins, and awards it to Auburn the university should take it. I'm not going to buy shirts and bumper stickers to celebrate it but if a reputable source awards the title due to a problem with another school it does count.

I will admit I'm torn. I don't want the title that way but I want that team to have all the accolades they so richly deserve.

[Auburnfan91 1,408]

I will admit I'm torn. I don't want the title that way but I want that team to have all the accolades they so richly deserve.

That's pretty much how I feel. They deserve some kind of recognition, not the title but something because there's probably never going to be another undefeated SEC team not to play for a NC again.

[lca408 378]

Agreed. The AP's decision is flexible enough to allow for such a vote. The BCS will never award another team the championship, but the AP is free to do whatever. Because of the situation should USC be stripped of its title, the NCAA would acknowledge such an awarding of a title, even if it is retroactive. Thats the difference between this situation and what Alabama did. At least 5 of their 13 championships are NOT recognized by the NCAA. If Auburn were to get it, it WOULD be recognized as legitimate.

No one would organize a parade or take the trophy on a tour of Alabama Wal Marts, but there's no doubt the University and the team would accept it.

Just because Oklahoma was in the BCSCG opposite USC doesn't make them the default national champion according to the AP. They would only be awarded such a trophy if the BCS was doing it, which is not likely at all. Again, IF given the opportunity, the AP could do whatever it wanted. It would be just like under the old system and we would technically be able to claim it just as we claim 1957.

I know that even with all the talk, right now this looks like a long shot. But I've done a complete 180 the more I think about it and since the AP would be the one to do it. We weren't given the chance to prove ourselves on the field, and even the most biased Bammer fans have to admit that '04 Auburn deserved that shot and that team was a "championship caliber" team. I view this as a kind of vindication for the '04 team, a vindication that will only be complete once both a title is bestowed and the BCS is done away with.

I guess I'm all for it. But please, no tours of Wal Mart if we did get a trophy. I guess thats another thing. I know our players have rings made for that year but I wonder if we get a trophy? I bet that even if we didn't, Auburn would arrange to have one made. That sounds lame. Oh well . . .

Ryan

[TexasTiger 13,559]

Father time marches on. It's 2010, not 2005. I would rather win it on the field.

Uh, we did.