I never really understood how stripping a team of a National Championship is that big of a deal. USC was forced to void its 2004 National Championship win basically all coming from Reggie Bush excepting improper gifts. The BCS ruling vacated the results of the 2005 Orange Bowl, the national title game for 2004, and the Trojans participation in the 2006 Rose Bowl where USC lost to Texas in one of the best championship games ever.
Now Bush already had to give up his Heisman Trophy from the scandal but I have a few issues with the latest ruling. Is giving up a National Championship really that big of a punishment? Even though a hundred years from now some fan will see that 2004 there was no champion but I don’t think that’s going to hurt USC all that much in the short term. I don’t see all the players from that team giving back their rings, if anything it makes those rings more valuable to collectors. Add to this whole confusion the AP Championship handed out will not be vacated by the Trojans, so you can still claim USC as the National Champions and not be wrong.
The question is, is it really fair to punish the whole team this way? Now it’s one thing if the whole team was juiced up and it gave them an unfair advantage but does one guy taking gifts have any effect on how USC preformed on the field? I had the same argument with Bush giving up his Heisman Trophy. I don’t see how his violation had any impact on what he did between the white lines.
In this era of steroid use in pro sports, athletes heading to jail, and major college coaches resigning for a cover-up, is what Reggie Bush did really worth stripping the National Championship.