Little-Known BCS Policy Could Allow For Revocation Of 2004 USC Title

If it ever does end, (which, don't hold your breath), the NCAA investigation into USC athletics could sport some heretofore unseen twists on the sanctioning end. Until this point, attention has been focused largely on how any ruling might affect the future of USC football, but if the Committee on Infractions gives them enough wiggle room, the BCS may very well have its eye on changing the past:

Quietly in early 2007, as the investigation into USC and alleged improprieties involving Bush and his family was unfolding, college football's Bowl Championship Series drew up a policy calling for teams' BCS appearances and BCS titles to be vacated when major rules violations subsequently are discovered and the institutions are sanctioned by the NCAA. Current BCS executive director Bill Hancock confirmed the provision Wednesday.

Legally speaking, the Committee is now merrily bounding through the section of the map with the little clouds and the "HERE THERE BE DRAGONS" signs. There has never been a case quite like this one in the BCS era, but the central arguments for what will or won't go down are actually quite familiar:

1. The NCAA will bring the hammer down on USC because a high-profile sanctionpalooza will set a very public example, and they've clearly crafted this policy specifically to allow them to do so.
2. The NCAA will let USC off with a light swat on the bottom because they're USC, and when they're doing well it's good for business.
3. Neither of the above arguments matter, because the university will appeal whatever does happen and we'll all be treated to another four years of stretching this mess out, world without end, amen.

I've got both feet planted firmly in the "this will never, ever end, ever" camp, and for what it's worth, so does the BCS brass:

Hancock emphasized, "Nothing would happen until the very end of the NCAA process, including any appeals."

But supposing this does wind down (very, very eventually), and the '04 championship gets vacated? That's where things can really get interesting. If the Associated Press can revote on Brian Cushing's rookie award, why can't they revote on the 2004 champion? And would that vote let 55-19 speak for itself, and leave the trophy in Trojan hands, or would Auburn finally get its day in the undefeated sun?

(And will any of this be resolved while the players on the affected teams are still alive?)