In USC’s case, it is severing ties with pariah tailback Reggie Bush and purging him from its history, going so far as to send his Heisman Trophy back to the Downtown Athletic Club.

This is symbolic punishment. And sure, it might hurt Bush’s feelings. But it’s not accountability.

Pundits are screaming that this is the latest proof of a broken system. The NCAA is powerless to go after a long-departed athlete. The school is its only possible target.

Not so for USC, if it would consider my option: litigation.

Maybe I’m naive, but my gut tells me that if anything might make athletes tempted by premature riches think twice, it is the threat of someone grabbing for their wallet down the road.

That’s why I believe USC and the Pac 10 Conference should join forces and make the bold move of suing Bush for lost revenue (potentially millions of dollars thanks to the NCAA’s two-year bowl ban) and other damages.

(Yes, I realize basketball forward O.J. Mayo also played a major role in USC’s punishment, but let’s focus on Bush and his actions, which will have a far longer lasting impact on Trojans football.)

Admittedly, the Trojans were probably complicit in this case. The former coaching staff’s tendency to turn a blind eye to unsavory outside influences has been well documented. But USC, like every other major college athletic department, has extensive education programs in place to ensure athletes are well-informed about NCAA rules against accepting improper gifts and other favors. And having made my living for many years covering a major college athletic program, I know it’s impossible for a school to monitor its athletes 24/7.

But if USC successfully sued Bush for damages, that certainly would send a message that would resonate in college locker rooms across the nation. Wouldn’t it?

Or are superstar college athletes too narcissistic to even care?

What do you think?

What an opportunity for a classic Obama speech. If I was his speechwriter, here’s what I would pitch as the theme:

“When Lincoln stood on this stage in 1860, he spoke on behalf of freedom for African-American slaves. But today, all but the most privileged of Americans are slaves — slaves to Wall Street and its excesses. It’s time for a new emancipation proclamation. Join me as we take back America!”

Can you imagine how conflicted all those Tea Partiers would be after such a statement?

Instead, I’m sure Obama will use politically prudent language and phrases such as “rules of the road” and “free market doesn’t mean you’re free to do whatever you want.” With more than 6 in 10 Americans supporting stricter financial regulations, he’s on solid ground.

But it should would be nice to hear stronger rhetoric from our first black president, bridging 150 years of great oratory on a stage rich in symbolism.

Nearly two weeks passed before that story became public, as I privately gloated over holding such valuable knowledge.

Well, maybe “gloat” isn’t the right word. A more accurate verb would be “ruminate.” I have dozens of journalist friends who would have killed to know what I knew, friends who could have advanced their careers by breaking the story. But I held back for two reasons.

1. I did not want to unintentionally thrust myself or my sources into the story, and
2. I believed that Tiger Woods was entitled to privately chase his demons for as long as he could hold off the media.

Look, I don’t disagree that Tiger brought all this scrutiny upon himself. He’s the one who cheated on his wife and screwed countless porn star wanna-be’s from coast to coast. He’s the one who allowed a traffic incident to go rogue by giving the world the silent treatment as though hoping the unfortunate episode would disappear into the haze of so many bad dreams. He’s the one who for years allowed his squeaky-clean lie of a life to be perpetuated by handlers, friends and the media.

But does that make Tiger evil? I don’t think so. It just makes him human.

And Tiger is not just any human. He’s a walking dichotomy — a gifted golfer from infancy who never really had a childhood, yet never stopped being a child until the day he hit that tree.

If anyone needs help, Tiger does. And he deserves the opportunity to seek that help as privately as possible.

This outrage can be traced directly to February 27, 1951.

That’s the day the 22nd Amendment was ratified, limiting Presidential terms — and thus throwing off kilter the “balance of powers” dictated by the Founding Fathers in our Constitution. Why? Because the 22nd Amendment did nothing to limit term limits for members of the Senate, House of Representatives or Supreme Court.

Our nation’s founders never foresaw the “career politicians” who roam the halls of Congress today. Rather, they envisioned political office as a dedicated period of public service in the course of one’s life, not an end-all primary vocation. A bit Utopian, perhaps, but a desireable ideal for our American democracy.

And (I can’t believe I’m saying this) that’s why I’m cheering for South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint. Quietly last November, he introduced a “Term Limits for All” Constitutional Amendment that would limit every House member to three terms (6 years max), and every Senator to two terms (12 years max).

Says DeMint:

Americans know real change in Washington will never happen until we end the era of permanent politicians. As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward spending taxpayer dollars to buyoff special interests, covering over corruption in the bureaucracy, fundraising, relationship building among lobbyists, and trading favors for pork – in short, amassing their own power.

Is it possible to ratify such an Amendment? I doubt it. But the 22nd Amendment is proof that term limits can be achieved, though its ratification in 1951 was primarily a measure to prevent the Presidency from becoming a monarchy after FDR was elected to four consecutive terms.

Perhaps if a splinter group of Tea Partiers (under a different name, please) embraced term limits as their sole mission, it could truly be called a movement.

And more moderates like me might just join in support.

Health care reform in its current state in Congress is as dead as my once white-hot passion for a Barack Obama presidency. (More on that another time.) Depending on one’s political perspective, the bills that made it out of the House and Senate either cost too much, don’t go far enough, or are just plain socialist.

In response, I’d like to propose a three-pillar bill that I defy anyone to find fault with:

1. Make it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
2. Make it illegal for insurance companies to drop coverage on any patient just because he or she gets sick.
3. Allow individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines.

There. What’s so difficult about that? Such a bill may not provide universal coverage, but it would be a major advance from where things stand today. Insured patients no longer would have to worry about losing their home because of an illness. That long-ago visit to the doctor for a headache won’t lead to denial of coverage when you have a brain tumor removed. And most importantly, we’d open up health insurance to the free, capitalist system, which would certainly drive down costs.

Do you see this three-pillar bill adding to the federal deficit? I don’t either.

Methinks the health care debate is pushing me toward liberterianism.

Now, excuse me while I head back to the living room to watch the Gators continue their thrashing of Georgia’s “basketball team.”

Let me say something right up front. I’m a Gator, and as such I am very proud of Timmy’s accomplishments as a Gator.

But I must side with my first editor as a sportswriter, Sam Cook, now a columnist for the Fort Myers News-Press, who recently wrote:

Religion — except for the ‘Hail Mary’ pass — has no place in sports. In Tebow’s case, he should play football and forget about us sinners for 3 1/2 hours every Saturday.

Amen, Sam.

The fact that you win or lose does not mean Jesus Christ, or any other mythical diety, is or is not on your side. You are not being rewarded, punished or challenged to do better.

You simply won. Or you lost.

Or, as Crash Davis said so eloquently put it, perhaps it just rained.

So leave your biblical passages in the locker room.

That goes for you too, Timmy.

P.S. It sure is interesting that the controversy is being stirred as Tebow plays the worst football of his career, isn’t it?