USC to vacate 2004 BCS Championship

It kind of hangs Auburn and Oklahoma out to dry, since neither of them really have a claim to the BCS NC (Oklahoma lost to USC and Auburn was snubbed from the game, but didn't ever beat Oklahoma.) What do you think is the right way for the BCS to handle this? Should Oklahoma be punished for their loss to a team that has since vacated its victory? Should Auburn be ghosted a win over an otherwise undefeated Oklahoma team? Do the words of Frank Beamer (who played and lost to USC at the beginning of the 2004 season and was spanked by Auburn in the Sugar Bowl at the end) mean anything?

I think the most likely thing is for the BCS to simply vacate the 2004 title and not declare a champion; the AP will probably leave USC with its title (though Auburn was the only other team receiving first place votes.)

What do you think should happen? What do you think will happen?

I take that back, the most likely thing to happen is for Alabama to declare itself National Champion.

Oklahoma can go to hell and suck a dick, did all those perks really make Reggie Bush a better RB? No. OU lost 55-19. No one (except maybe the Norman Transcript) can attribute a 36 point loss to "multiple cash payments, a house for Bush’s parents, an automobile outfitted with rims and a stereo system, airfare, hotel stays, limousine service, meals, auto repairs, clothing, furniture and appliances" for a single player. I'd attribute it more to OU just being a generally overranked and over-thought of football team.

also I am always in favor of OU being punished although the only punishment I can see here is the ass-pounding USC gave them

Quote:

---

also I am always in favor of OU being punished although the only punishment I can see here is the ass-pounding USC gave them

---

Agreed.. USC pretty much stuck their testies in OU's mouth and never took em out. That's a taste OU will have on their tongue (and in the back of their throat) for quite some time! :dint:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmoscheer

It kind of hangs Auburn and Oklahoma out to dry, since neither of them really have a claim to the BCS NC (Oklahoma lost to USC and Auburn was snubbed from the game, but didn't ever beat Oklahoma.) What do you think is the right way for the BCS to handle this? Should Oklahoma be punished for their loss to a team that has since vacated its victory? Should Auburn be ghosted a win over an otherwise undefeated Oklahoma team? Do the words of Frank Beamer (who played and lost to USC at the beginning of the 2004 season and was spanked by Auburn in the Sugar Bowl at the end) mean anything?

I think the most likely thing is for the BCS to simply vacate the 2004 title and not declare a champion; the AP will probably leave USC with its title (though Auburn was the only other team receiving first place votes.)

What do you think should happen? What do you think will happen?

---

I think Oklahoma should be punish!