OK, I'd like to hear this idea of yours out a bit more.
But in order to take it truly seriously, you need to...
...(1) provide several precedents where the NCAA has done this re: other programs with serious ethical breeches...
...and (2) show cause for them to treat Penn State distinctly than what the normal NCAA response might be.
It kills opportunity for a future for the players
Not really...plenty of schools competing for those kids worth starting or playing 2nd team.
Penn State's roster size winds up being about the same.
Yeah, more walk-ons...which, in turns, means even more opportunity for such kids to rise to the surface.
There's been THOUSANDS of good Div I football athletes who were walk-ons thru the decades.
The kids were victims. Unlike those getting paid at SMU or getting benefits from alumni like other programs in the past.
This was a cover up by the administration and they should be held responsible and not the players.
The problem with precedent is that it tends to ignore the specific issue and just lumps everything into “violations”. Arguing precedent could be used to uphold slavery today since it once was “the law of the land”.
My opinion is punish the school in this case and not the program. How is being denied bowl games punishing a child molestor?