This is not going to be very popular here.
Now, I understand that Alabama got hammered over the Langham signing a napkin deal. But later, at least part of the penalties were dropped on appeal. Also, 2 wrongs don't make a right.
If USC was giving Bush money directly, or if this somehow gave them a "competitive edge" I'd agree they would need to be hammered. Here's the thing though, USC didn't give him money, and agent provided free/reduced price housing for his parents. The parents living in this house didn't help USC win any games.
So why should USC get slammed? Just because we did back in '95?
Some punishment is needed yes, but I don't think they should have to forfeit a bunch of games and/or lose a lot of scholarships.
I'm wondering if the law suit from Dr Jones back then, a long with all of the recent law suits, (not just the ones from former Bama coaches) are making the NCAA be a little more careful in there dishing out of penalties and sanctions?