Sports Illustrated's Stewart Mandel, comparing the allegations about Miami with the case of USC:
"And now, here's where the two cases differed: USC's involved one football (Bush) and one basketball (Mayo) player. Yahoo's report implicates 73 athletes over an eight-year span, though Shapiro claims he gave impermissible benefits to 72.
The bagmen in the USC case did most of their dirty work in San Diego, far from the campus itself. Shapiro was an active Miami booster, so coveted for his donations he got to lead the team out of the tunnel, sit in the press box on game days, and had a lounge named in his honor.
And for all the hubbub over the Bush case, at the end of the day, USC gained no competitive advantage in football due to its running back's extra benefits. Miami, on the other hand, had assistant coaches allegedly arranging for recruits to meet Shapiro on their visits. On the basketball side, he allegedly paid $10,000 in 2007 explicitly to land a recruit, DeQuan Jones.
If USC got a two-year bowl ban and 30 docked scholarships, what should Miami get for an encyclopedia of allegations so tawdry as to make USC look like a bubble-gum shoplifter? Can you ban a team from the postseason for a decade? Can you take away 90 scholarships? Not likely. All that's seemingly left is the biggie -- the death penalty -- and it's entirely possible: Miami qualifies as a repeat violator for any violations before Feb. 27, 2008, stemming from it mid-90s Pell Grant scandal. But the NCAA hasn't gone there in 25 years.
Once again, the NCAA's entire enforcement process is under the microscope -- just a week after president Mark Emmert promised sweeping changes. The Committee on Infractions notoriously shows little-to-no consistency or adherence to precedent in issuing its verdicts, but Dee himself painted his former employer into a corner on this one. If you're going to rake one school over the coals for a single player's impermissible benefits, your entire credibility is at stake if you don't raise the consequences exponentially for a case involving 73."
Should be interesting to see what happens. Please vote below.