Does that mean we win the 2004 Rose Bowl?
Hockey pet peeve: "when a teammate tips a puck in on you, which is exactly how my first collegiate goal against happened. Thanks, Copper."
Support MGoBlog: buy stuff at Amazon
If USC has to vacate Rose Bowl win because of Bush
May 11th, 2010 at 10:10 PM
#1
If USC has to vacate Rose Bowl win because of Bush
May 11th, 2010 at 10:11 PM
#2
no
no, they should have to repay the money they received from winning though, it that makes you feel better
May 11th, 2010 at 10:20 PM
#3
No, vacating is not the same
No, vacating is not the same thing as forfeiting. Don't get your hopes up. Nobody's going to have wins added to their record.
May 12th, 2010 at 1:53 PM
#4
Which is the right thing to
Which is the right thing to do. Claiming a Rose Bowl victory via forfeit would be pretty lame.
May 12th, 2010 at 6:32 PM
#5
Agree
We weren't going to win that game even if he hadn't played. They were just better than us.
May 12th, 2010 at 6:52 PM
#6
but the reason
they were better than us is because they CHEATED. Can't be sure to what extent, but imagine it was widespread.
May 12th, 2010 at 8:48 PM
#7
And who says we didn't
And who says we didn't "cheat"? Do you have any idea how hard it is to run a perfectly clean program?
May 11th, 2010 at 10:24 PM
#8
U$C news?
I thought that whole thing was dead. Are there new developments?
May 11th, 2010 at 10:26 PM
#9
There is a video sports center over at ESPN speculating . . .
on their crimes and punishment:
May 12th, 2010 at 7:27 AM
#10
their punishment is supposed
their punishment is supposed to be handed down this week
May 11th, 2010 at 10:30 PM
#11
Timeline
As far as I know all the illegal benefits Bush allegedly received started coming in the offseason between his sophomore and junior seasons. If he is found to have been ineligible and USC vacates wins, I think it would just be from the 2005 season (where they lost to Texas in the Rose Bowl).
May 11th, 2010 at 10:36 PM
#12
Careful what you wish for
Although, presumably, the NCAA considers each investigation and judgement "separately", they're not so stupid that they don't consider the perception of multiple judgements issued more or less simultaneously. If they throw the book at USC, they'll probably not want to be seen as being "soft" on Michigan. Therefore, I am holding my breath.
On the other hand, if they give USC a pass, (or issue a judgement that amounts to same) for systematic violation of the rules regarding "amateur" athletes, they can't very well punish UM for what amounts to a few minutes of stretching time being omitted from "practice time."
May 12th, 2010 at 8:20 AM
#13
"if they give USC a pass they can't very well punish UM"
You have a faith in the sanity of that organization that I don't think is justified.
May 11th, 2010 at 10:45 PM
#14
Yes, Jon Navarre getting
Yes, Jon Navarre getting systematically torn into pieces by USC's line and any references to it will be deleted from our collective memories and the Internet...or not so much.
May 12th, 2010 at 12:34 AM
#15
Navarre was hit so hard that it changed the spelling of his name
.
May 12th, 2010 at 8:28 AM
#16
Navarre getting systematically torn into pieces by USC's line
Oh, that brings back good memories.
"Tatupu said the Trojans ran five new blitzes on the Wolverines. Coach Pete Carroll refused to reveal what he saw that made him come so hard with the corners. Whatever he saw, corners Marcell Almond and Will Poole got the first two sacks, and on the opening drive. Poole sacked John Navarre again on the first play of the second quarter, running forever before he reached the quarterback.
"When [Michigan] said, 'We better take care of the corner pressure,' that really heated up the guys inside," Carroll said. "We really could have easily had 12 sacks."
The heads of the offensive linemen turned into Lazy Susans. The rest of them looked a little lazy and a little Susan, too. Michigan gave up 15 sacks all season, but nine on Thursday.
"It was a guessing game," Michigan offensive tackle Tony Pape said. "They usually rushed with their four down guys. This time they didn't. They had a lot of five- and six-man blitzes. It really wasn't the blitzing guy who made the tackles. It was the guys going one-on-one. You don't want to give up nine sacks. That's a terrible statistic.""
May 12th, 2010 at 6:36 PM
#17
I like Terry Malone in
I like Terry Malone in general, but he got his ass completely handed to him that game.
May 12th, 2010 at 8:29 AM
#18
Maybe WolverineHistorian can
Maybe WolverineHistorian can put together a highlight tape of all of our great plays from that game, it will be about 1 minute long as opposed to his usual 10 minutes.
May 11th, 2010 at 11:26 PM
#19
I'd rather see USC get off
I'd rather see USC get off completely than get a phony "punishment" like vacating wins. With vacated wins, there is the facade of the program having paid penance without any actual consequence. If they are not going to get legitimately punished, then I would rather that they carry the guilt of cheaters who got away with it.
May 12th, 2010 at 12:04 AM
#20
I'd rather...
We get to play USC with Gallon, Odoms and D-Rob in 2011.
Really, we're hoping for retribution via forfeited wins? Let RR get a chance at Kiffin...on the field.
May 12th, 2010 at 1:07 AM
#21
if they vacate the win..
We could print up t-shirts for 'Ro$e Bowl Champs'
May 12th, 2010 at 7:43 PM
#22
seriously
do you have to put /sarcasm after everything these days?
May 12th, 2010 at 7:45 PM
#23
People don't like the dollar
People don't like the dollar signs man. That's what's killin' ya.
May 12th, 2010 at 11:34 PM
#24
People take them$elves too $eriously
$arcasm
It was a joke, as in a play on the fact that we don't like them. Meant to be lighthearted, as in not $erious
I don't $weat it really.
May 12th, 2010 at 11:34 AM
#25
I blame many things on the
I blame many things on the former President but I don't see how our loss to USC can be blamed on him.
May 13th, 2010 at 12:23 AM
#26
Come on guys, I know NO
Come on guys, I know NO POLITICS and all, but this was legitimately funny. I don't even agree with the "I blame many things on the former President" but I still laughed. Not worth the negs.
May 13th, 2010 at 10:59 AM
#27
Thanks. I'll take the negs
Thanks. I'll take the negs if someone got a kick out of it.
