I guess the NCAA would prefer their athletes to be homeless

USC and the PAC-10 conference are investigating whether USC's Reggie Bush and his family violated NCAA rules by living in a house allegedly provided by a sports agent he never used. If it is found that Reggie Bush violated the rules, here are the possible penalties:

...any punishment would likely involve Bush vacating school records, Schad reported. A source told Schad that because it was not an "institutional violation" and USC received no competitive advantage, it is not likely that the school would have to vacate victories. This could technically occur, however, if it is ruled Bush should not have been eligible.

It is unlikely that the school would lose scholarships or a bowl appearance.

Some Texas fans are even advocating taking away the Heismann trophy from Bush.

The director of the Heisman Trophy Trust told ESPN's Joe Schad on Monday that he will reach out to board members to determine the potential ramifications of an investigation involving 2005 winner Reggie Bush.
"We're doing some soul searching ourselves right now," Rob Whalen said. "To the best of my knowledge no one has ever had a Heisman Trophy revoked."

Whalen said he's already begun to receive e-mails from Texas fans who believe runner up Vince Young should now receive the trophy.

So let me ask, who exactly has been harmed by Bush living in a nice house? Did his living in a nice house mean that Vince Young had to live in a crappy house? Did the taxpayers who support the university suffer any loss? Did Bush get more or less of an education as a result of living in a nice house?

The only person I can see who suffered a loss in this situation was the agent who allegedly bought the house for Reggie Bush's family to live in, only because Bush didn't use him for an agent. So why does the NCAA have a rule against it?