Bush, USC, and the 2004 Championship

So, if things come down bad for Bush in this investigation, and USC is forced to give up their 2004 championship, who gets it? Auburn or Oklahoma? I say Auburn is the rightful champion. Oklahoma wouldn't have stood a chance against them (Auburn) either.

Well, Auburn finished #2 in both of the final polls (post bowl season). Of course, Oklahoma slid to #3 because they lost to SC, but even still, Auburn finished #2.

Still, that's a whole mess that I think might not happen just because it was such a mess.

You can just vacate the title and not have a 2004 national champion, on the grounds that you can't award a title fairly. If SC's disqualified, then the championship game had to be Oklahoma vs. Auburn. Since that didn't happen, it's hard to say that one team should get it.

Even though I am of the opinion Auburn would likely have won, I also have to recognize that it's football and anything could happen. And just because Oklahoma couldn't beat SC doesn't mean that Auburn necessarily would have proved equally unbeatable. Football can't be boiled down to "if A beats B, and B beats C, then A beats C" logic, it just doesn't work that way.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_yl...

The only concrete information to surface so far has come from Michaels/Watkins. Bush and his family are either not speaking or avoiding the questions. That makes it look really bad for Bush, despite the fact that he claims evidence will arise to clear his name. It appears to me that his family tried to take advantage of his fame a little too early and now USC may pay for it.

I say Auburn is the rightful champion. Oklahoma wouldn't have stood a chance against them (Auburn) either.

I agree 100%, but I'm biased.

I'd rather there just be a vacancy at #1. As bad as I think the kids @ Auburn got screwed, I can't imagine they'd want to back into it like that. Besides, that season has come and gone. It's all just recordkeeping now.