You mean like Josh Johnson?

Both Thurman and Braxton were "exceptionally cleared" for domestic dispute and affray.
Police chief Jimmy Williamson said that charges would have been filed if Thurman and Braxton were living together. "The young woman would have been arrested if they were cohabiting," he said.

Note a few things here.  First, see those words "exceptionally cleared"?  That means the police looked into it and saw no crime committed.  Second, notice how the police chief says SHE would've been arrested, but doesn't say anything about Thurman getting arrested.  Seems to show exactly who the cops thought was in the wrong, and it wasn't Odell.

As I read this article, it appears clear to me that Thurman got assaulted.  So definitely Richt was in the wrong for not kicking him off the team.  Is being the victim of a crime grounds for a 1 or 2 game suspension in your mind?  

Now here's exactly what Richt said (not a journalist's retelling) in regard to Thurman's suspension: "Basically, we're not going to make anything public about what he did, but I felt like three games is fair."  I'd bet that the situation may have had something to do with the suspension (probably part in parcel with a bigger picture "poor decisionmaking), but I don't know and you don't know the exact reasons for the suspension.  What we do know is that something happened, Richt punished him, and after that Thurman wasn't a problem at UGA (see next paragraph).

As for your second paragraph, those are defamatory accusations.  Do you know of anything Thurman did between his suspension and when he left campus?  Do you know of anything that he did but wasn't caught for?  Please provide details.  As for what is reported as fact, after Richt's 3 game suspension, Thurman had a clean record at UGA.  It wasn't until he was in Cincinnati, under that "man of character" that he started running afoul of the law again.  If you know something otherwise, PROVE IT, don't just throw out unverifiable accusations.

Your third paragraph already has been knocked by Blutarsky, but I think you're even more incorrect than that.  What is a coach to do?  Zero tolerance policies?  No judgment, simple - if you screw up, you're gone?  Send troubled kids to the street?  Or give a second chance and hope things turn around, with clear rules.  Arguably, Thurman was a success story for Richt.  Screwed up once bad, Richt sends him to GMC.  Comes back, has a slip, Richt punishes him (last chance).  After that... nothing (unless you have something to provide).  He goes off to the Bengals and has a great rookie season.  At that point, it seems like Richt did the exact right thing.  Thurman's behavior at UGA improved, and he was able to make something of himself.  Had he never been brought back, who knows what would've happened to him.  It's only later, under the control of Marvin Lewis, that the story turns sour again - and Mark richt can hardly be blamed for Thurman's behavior 2 years after the fact.  Hebron could be the same thing.  He spends a year growing up and realizing how much he's screwed up, and he might come back a model citizen.  Or maybe he goes home, screws around and never comes back.  The point is that Richt's punishments show that he's willing to believe in these kids and give them a second chance.  That's the message he sends.  Yes, he could "send a message" by kicking off the team anyone who jaywalks.  Richt wants his players to become better people - and cutting them off at the knees early on doesn't accomplish that.  If Richt lets kids come back and they follow the rules and make something out of themselves, that's a great story.  If Richt lets kids come back and they don't follow the rules, that's not necessarily a failure of Richt - it's a failure of the individual he allowed to come back.  Just like it wasn't Richt's fault that Odell Thurman messed up after he was in the pros for 2 years.  Thurman has all the responsibility on himself.  For Akeem Hebron, this is the same situation.  Richt can let him back with a short leash a year from now and hope that Hebron's mature and able enough to take responsibility for his actions.  If so, he stays in the program and everyone's happy.  If not, I have no doubt that he'd be gone swiftly.  

Ergo, Tuberville is clearly better than Meyer?

And for the 10,000,000th time, WHEN YOU LOSE YOUR BOWL GAME, YOU LOSE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLAIN ABOUT HOW YOU HAD AN ARGUMENT FOR A BETTER BOWL.  Iowa has no compelling argument whatsoever for playing for a title in 2002 because they were blown out by the Trojans in the Rose Bowl.  In hindsight, had Ohio State or Miami lost a game, the list of teams who (knowing what we know now) would have had a decent argument for playing in a title game that year are: 1) Miami/Ohio State with one loss; 2) Georgia.   That's it.  And even if you want to ignore the fact that the Hawkeyes lost by 3 touchdowns to USC, you don't really want to argue that Iowa had a better argument than Georgia that year, having the same number of losses, one fewer win, a strength of schedule (according to the BCS, back when they used SOS) 44 spots lower than UGA (49th vs. 5th), played the same number of opponents that ended up ranked in the final poll (though UGA played one more team that was ranked at the time the game was played).  

Utah wasn't a bad program.  It is one of the top 2 programs in its conference.  Bowling Green wasn't a bad program either.  It is no worse (in terms of resources) than any other MAC conference.

And beside all of this, the "accomplishment" of a national championship inherently demands externalities to come into play, including LUCK.  If you can say that Meyer's 2006 season was in any way better, objectively, than Richt's 2002 season, you'll be the first to say so.  The only difference was that there weren't 2 undefeated teams (entirely outside the control of Meyer and Richt).  So, basically, your entire argument is that Meyer's a better coach than Richt because he's luckier.  OK.