Why have they not punished USC yet?

Question

How is it fair for OU to go through the ringer and forfeit all their wins in 2006 for conducting an investigation and solving the matter themselves within the University, and then not even punish USC even a little over the Reggie Bush scandal. We all know he took money. Their is a lot of it going on and sure something should be done about it. I don't have a thing against what the NCAA did to my beloved sooners but why haven't they punished USC yet? Are they going to completely blow it off? Are they going to wait so long that they can just shover it under the doorway? I don't think it is right to nail OU and let USC slide off. Does anyone else feel this way?

Answer 1

I've been wondering that myself.  It appears they want to push it under the rug and I think it's because of one of two reasons.

1) The issue goes no further than Bush.  Bush is a high profile athlete still today (regardless if he sucks in the NFL) and people who know people want to see it quietly go away.  Even if this case, I still don't know why some reporter has pushed this issue any further.

2) The issue goes deep...real deep and there is no way the NCAA will admit this has been going on under their watchful eye.  It's a given that players get perks at nearly every school.  Could you imagine if a program d**n near had a "payroll" though.  What would be the ramifications for such a thing?

Answer 2

No proof! "We all know" is a lie!

Answer 3

The issue is not whether Bush took money, but whether USC knew about it. No hard evidence has come to light to show that they did know. Plainly OU knew what was going on with Bomar. That's the difference. Nothing will be done to USC specifically until a hard link is shown between Bush's indiscretion and USC's knowledge of it.

Answer 4

I think Bush was taking payments in violation of the NCAA rules.

For USC, the issue is whether or not they knew that he was taking those payments or if they should have known.

If they knew, they should and will be sanctioned.  If they didn't know, but "should" have known, they will also get punished, but on a lesser scale.  

And of course, if they didn't know at all, they will not get sanctioned, but may be forced to forfeit some games due to the participation of an ineligible player.

In any event, the NCAA does not have the power to subpoena people or compel testimony, so they are at the mercy of the civil court testimony, depositions and voluntary participation from the people involved.  

Answer 5

1. It is already known that the NCAA picks and chooses WHO they will bring the axe down on or WHAT issues they will pursue with vigor. OU is a top program and in football circles, high profile but it is not the glamor spot or marketing gem of USC.

2. Ur right. OU brought out all the evidence it had during the 2006 issue. And with all the info laid out, the NCAA made their decision. The job was done for them. We know USC dragged their feet on everything, Reggie Bush, OJ Mayo, Mark Sanchez or what have you.

3. Maybe the NCAA doesn't have a strong case against USC. I'm only suggested this notion.