If it substantiates the Bush charges, the [NCAA] could find that he played for USC while ineligible and vacate the wins in which he took part. That would be the BCS' cue. Its policy stipulates: "When the NCAA or a conference makes a finding of violations … and imposes a sanction of forfeiture or vacation of contests in which an ineligible student-athlete participated, we will presume that vacation of participation in a BCS bowl game is warranted." That's if the player in question participated in that BCS game or in victories that led to the bowl berth.I've assumed all along that, no matter what penalties the NCAA brought down on USC, it wouldn't cost the Trojans their title because the NCAA has no control over the BCS. But the USA Today has an interesting article today talking about how the BCS established a new bylaw in 2007 that says the BCS can vacate a BCS bowl win if an NCAA-ruled ineligible player participated. I would hope the NCAA would no longer recognize a champion if it did not win the championship game. Unfortunately, this would further fuel the Auburn crowd. OTS: This is a great point by USA Today, and it seems to be a very reasonable reading and an equally reasonable application thereof. It would be interesting to see what direction the BCS would move in from there, if the '04 title indeed was vacated. I highly doubt they would award it to anyone else, I imagine it would be, much like the 1984 SEC championship, a situation where there is just no champion for that year. Who knows? I do know that if it comes to fruition, those guys over at Onepeat are going to have some changes to make.