Very little of the USC case is directly applicable to the NCAA's investigation into the U-M football program. However, how the committee viewed USC's self-sanctions could provide a hint on how the committee will view U-M's self-imposed penalties.
USC's case involved lavish gifts from sports marketers to Bush and cash from a middleman to Mayo -- transgressions that traditionally bring down the NCAA hammer.
In U-M's case, which involves exceeding practice and workout limits, improper use of quality-control staff and failure to monitor the football program, the NCAA has alleged five major violations, four of which U-M accepted. U-M challenged the assertion that coach Rich Rodriguez "failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance."
USC self-imposed penalties in basketball but didn't punish its football program.
Chairman Paul Dee said in teleconference that the committee was "impressed" with USC's actions in the basketball case.
"The institution did self-impose many penalties with regard to the sport of basketball," Dee said, "because in most instances the institution agreed that a violation had occurred."
NCAA infractions expert and Florida attorney Michael Buckner analyzed the USC report for the Free Press. He noted that, as it pertains to the U-M case, "the Committee on Infractions, through the USC case, imposed expectations on universities to be proactive regarding rules compliance."
Buckner said USC's case showed that leaving room for the committee to craft its own penalties by challenging an allegation --as USC did by contesting those in football -- could be dangerous.
"The USC case does say something about self-imposed sanctions -- which is that schools have to tailor the self-imposed penalties to meet the type and scope of all rules-violations it believed occurred and the sports involved in the case," Buckner wrote via e-mail. "For instance, USC only self-imposed penalties for the men's basketball program and did not propose any self-imposed penalties for football. Hence, the NCAA Committee on Infractions was able to impose wide-ranging penalties on the football program."
Buckner cited this section of the NCAA report: The "general campus environment surrounding the violations troubled the committee."
Buckner also noticed that the committee pointed out that USC "failed to heed clear warning signs; did not have proper procedures in place to monitor rules compliance; failed to regulate access to practice and facilities, including locker rooms, and in some instances failed to take an active stance or investigate concerns. The question for Michigan is whether they can demonstrate that the institution's rules-compliance program has been proactive with regards to the areas under investigation."
Buckner said U-M's fate could be determined by how the committee viewed the atmosphere of compliance.
