Does anyone really think that taking "stripping" the 2004-05 BCS title away from USC really means anything??? Oh yeah, and they "vacated" USC's participation in the 2006 National Championship game. Is the BCS joking with this?
They can take all the votes they want in their little power room with the board members of the BCS and just decide that the title is gone, it's still not going to erase the 55-19 throttling that the Trojans gave the Oklahoma Sooners that night in Miami. And does that mean that Texas played no one for the National Championship?
And just leaving the 2005 title vacated, what does that accomplish? If we're going down this path, shouldn't they have to vacate all wins from the 2004-05 season? Or how about this, why not take away Matt Leinart's Heisman Trophy from that season?? Seems crazy, but if we're just going to pretend that Reggie Bush didn't exist as a football player at USC, then why don't we just "vacate" his stats as well.
Here are Leinart's 2004 Season statistics with Bush (pre Bowl game):
ATT COMP INT % COMP YDS TDs LG
377 267 6 .708 2990 28 69
Here are Leinart's 2004 Season statistics without Bush (pre Bowl game):
ATT COMP INT % COMP YDS TDs LG
336 226 6 .672 2512 21 69
Pretty big difference, right? If you took the second set of numbers, had the same Heisman voters come togther again and gave them stats only to evaluate then there is no way Leinart wins the Heisman over Adrian Peterson that year. AP would have been the first and only freshman to win the prestigious award. Or even better, Oklahoma QB Jason White probably would have walked away with his second award because his regular season stats would have dwarfed Leinart's in 2004. But does any of that really matter now? NO. You can't unmake history, and you can't unplay games. So what is the significance of taking a label away from a team and giving it to no one?
Nothing. It's just further proof of how screwed up and useless the BCS is.
No comments:
Post a Comment