This popped up on twitter today...
The UNC case follows the well-documented sanctions delivered to the University of Southern California (USC) in 2010 and the Ohio State University (OSU) in 2011. USC was stripped of its 2004 National Championship, forced to vacate its 2005 season, and given a two-year postseason ban. OSU was saddled with probation, a one-year postseason ban, and a reduction in football scholarships. In both the USC and OSU cases, part of the violations stemmed from coaches who had knowledge of violations and either fostered continued non-compliance, or did not take proper preventative measures. As UNC recently learned, staff transgressions prompt stiff punishment.
[...]
The sanctions that were leveled against UNC are generally consistent with those imposed upon USC, OSU and others, and may provide a glimpse into future punitive action by the NCAA. The investigation that bears monitoring in the coming months is the well-documented allegations against the University of Miami. In the shocking account detailed in a Yahoo! Sports August report, Nevin Shapiro, a former University booster, claims that from 2002 to 2010 he provided impressible benefits to seventy-two players including: prostitutes, jewelry, travel, and even funds for an abortion after a player allegedly impregnated a stripper. According to the report, at least seven Miami staff members knew about the benefits being conferred, and some even steered athletes toward Shapiro.
I emphasized two sentences above to show why this is laughable.
The Author stated that USC's case was well-documented only to say later that the sanctions handed down between USC, tOSU and UNC were consistent...
Uh, the cases and their subsequent punishments aren't even close.
It is clear that the author didn't read the USC case even though he states that the case is well documented.
Again, to recap the one-hundredth time, it took the NCAA over 4 years to come up with the things that they did on USC. Infractions that are minor in nature that were turned into major infractions and I am not even saying that as a comparison of the UNC case.
I am saying that in looking at the infractions in their totality.
There was no academic fraud, there was no active coach steering players to an agent and so on in the USC case.
Mayo and Bush aside, McNair used bad judgment in having a relationship with Reggie Bush outside of his professional duties. One extra coach is a major infraction? Extra phone calls are a major infraction?
How are multiple incidences of academic fraud, extra benefits to players and a coach who is essentially an active runner for an agent NOT a lack of institutional control?
I get sick and tired of supposed intelligent and successful people who are supposedly in the know continue to miss the bigger picture in these cases. These are people who are paid to read contracts for a living but clearly didn't their due diligence in reading the USC case before writing this piece.