In the record books, one of two things will be seen in the college football section under "champions". Either it will have USC's name next to the 2004 championship with an asterisk chillin' next to it ... or it will say "vacated".
The BCS officially took away USC's 2004 BCS championship (the Associated Press earlier had said they have no intention of taking away their AP titles). Since the BCS also stated that it will not award Oklahoma, who were creamed by USC in the title game, the de facto championship, it means there was no champion for that season.
That is fitting. In reality, college football has no champion. It used to be some writers and media types crowned a champion. Now a computer joins the voters in determining who plays in a "championship game". Either way, the champion isn't solely determined by competition but by fairy tales and magic carpets.
In a situation such as this, you can't feel sorry for anyone involved. None of them.
Reggie Bush? Yeah, his name has been muddied but he'll try to wipe his tears with the millions he has gotten and will continue to get in the NFL.
The USC players that now have worthless (in theory) title rings? To a man, they all believe they still are champions ... and they are right. They got to have all the trimmings of winning a title back in 2004 and no matter what any record book may say, they got all that championship swagger. I know rules were broken, but no one cheated. Cheated the system? Maybe. But that football team won the title.
How about Oklahoma? The lost to USC in the BCS title game yet still don't get to be called champions. They shouldn't be. Even if you take USC out of the picture, that means Auburn would've played Oklahoma for the title and who knows what happens? And if you start handing out make believe titles like it is a Miss America crown, it opens up a huge bucket of worms. I mean, since John Calipari's Final Four with Memphis was vacated does that mean Texas (who Memphis beat in the Elite Eight) can hang a Final Four banner in their rafters? Does that mean Mississippi State, who Memphis beat in the second round, consider themselves reaching the Sweet 16 that year? No. So why award Oklahoma a title?
This is a scummy business these people are participating in. They all bend the rules as much as they can and many break them. It's hard to feel sorry for anyone in the system. So don't bother.
The BCS officially took away USC's 2004 BCS championship (the Associated Press earlier had said they have no intention of taking away their AP titles). Since the BCS also stated that it will not award Oklahoma, who were creamed by USC in the title game, the de facto championship, it means there was no champion for that season.
That is fitting. In reality, college football has no champion. It used to be some writers and media types crowned a champion. Now a computer joins the voters in determining who plays in a "championship game". Either way, the champion isn't solely determined by competition but by fairy tales and magic carpets.
In a situation such as this, you can't feel sorry for anyone involved. None of them.
Reggie Bush? Yeah, his name has been muddied but he'll try to wipe his tears with the millions he has gotten and will continue to get in the NFL.
The USC players that now have worthless (in theory) title rings? To a man, they all believe they still are champions ... and they are right. They got to have all the trimmings of winning a title back in 2004 and no matter what any record book may say, they got all that championship swagger. I know rules were broken, but no one cheated. Cheated the system? Maybe. But that football team won the title.
How about Oklahoma? The lost to USC in the BCS title game yet still don't get to be called champions. They shouldn't be. Even if you take USC out of the picture, that means Auburn would've played Oklahoma for the title and who knows what happens? And if you start handing out make believe titles like it is a Miss America crown, it opens up a huge bucket of worms. I mean, since John Calipari's Final Four with Memphis was vacated does that mean Texas (who Memphis beat in the Elite Eight) can hang a Final Four banner in their rafters? Does that mean Mississippi State, who Memphis beat in the second round, consider themselves reaching the Sweet 16 that year? No. So why award Oklahoma a title?
This is a scummy business these people are participating in. They all bend the rules as much as they can and many break them. It's hard to feel sorry for anyone in the system. So don't bother.
No comments:
Post a Comment