The busses with the girls one for each recruit? Money handed out? All of that was proven false? Or just no evidence?
What buses - what girls - that was not in the violations listed.
The only thing really pointed out by the NCAA was that USC had lost control of their players.
I forgot what they called it.
But they did not list any recruiting violations.
Following is a paragraph that compared USCs sanctions to Oregon and Miami recruiting violations. USC had ZERO recruiting violations.
Further criticism of the sanctions came during later NCAA's investigations into other programs such as
[14] the University of Miami and University of Oregon[15] for recruiting violations, all of which led to substantially more lenient punishments
than USC's for arguably greater offenses. This has led many people to think that the NCAA's sanctions of USC were intended to make an example out of the school to other programs that the NCAA hasn't followed through on with other college programs.
[16]
Most notable of these scandals was that against Miami, because of the involvement of
Paul Dee. Dee was the Committee on Infractions chairman for USC's NCAA investigation. It was Dee who announced the USC penalties and closed with the reminder that "high-profile athletes demand high-profile compliance." Accusations later came out that, while Dee was athletic director there, Miami had also been the center of
major improper benefits, specifically that of university booster
Nevin Shapiro from 2002 until 2010. Writers noted the hypocrisy of Miami's more lenient punishment (loss of nine scholarships and three years) compared to USC's, despite Miami committing more serious infractions through university employees over a longer time. One writer stated: "it seems only fair [Dee] should spend a day at USC's Heritage Hall wearing a sandwich board with the word "Hypocrite."
[17][18]
In 2014, USC's sanctions once again became a talking point because of the
Penn State child sex abuse scandal. Sanctions against Penn State, which included a four-year bowl ban and forty lost scholarships, were significantly reduced after two years. USC petitioned the NCAA for similar leniency but was denied, the NCAA finding the situations to be distinguishable.
[19] This incident led to more outcry over the inconsistency of punishment by the NCAA, and its seeming bias against USC.
[20]