I'm ready to get killed on this one, but I think the integrity of the Board deserves this counter-point, so...
A reasonable argument could be made that, in many respects, the alleged violations at UM are worse than those at USC involving Bush:
USC's alleged violations involve a single player's receipt of (mostly) indirect benefits, whereas UM's consist of widespread prohibited practices and activities -- many of which probably do not take place at all other Div. I institutions.
USC coaches were probably not aware of most, if any, of Bush's benefits, and at the least were probably not involved in procuring them, whereas the UM coaches in this case most likely knew or should have known what was going on with the QC personnel essentially running practices, and other exceedances of NCAA time limits.
USC's alleged violations did not result in a competitive advantage, whereas UM's were specifically designed to do so (ironically, these measures desgined to gain a competitive advantage have yet to bear any fruit whatsoever -- at least if we are going to skirt the rules, let's get some wins to show from it!).
So while USC's allegations certainly are more unsavory from the standpoint of maintaining the sanctity of the amateur athlete (a notion that I think is becoming more and more nostalgic, rather than practical), UM's are worse in that they sought a competitive advantage over other programs in a way that the entire coaching staff knew or should have known about.
Which is worse? I open the debate.