Quote Originally Posted by BulldogBear View Post
My take on it is basically thus:

1) I can see the point of view that PERHAPS the NCAA should not have become involved or at least not to this extent

2) BUT SINCE THEY DID, it pisses me off that they're backing off the harshness of this punishment. What is too harsh? Like somebody said, basically nothing is too harsh. Why are these guys even a threat to have a winning season before 2020? Why the 17 do they have enough scholarships to have more than a starting defense, offense, punter and kicker (say 24 total allowed)? They should be having to work with walk-ons for the rest of their team for a while.

Same goes for USC and Miami....oh, it was the worst thing in the history of college football.... yet. USC could still stay on the field with Stanford last week. If a program with this level of violation is capable of being bowl eligible 2-3 years later in a power 5 conference the logical conclusion is THAT THE PUNISHMENT WASN'T NEARLY ENOUGH.
Because even with big sanctions, USC signs as much or more talent per player as anyone. Their lack of depth has led them to losing games the last few years, not lack of starting talent. And when all your starters are 4-5* recruits, you'll still win 7+ games, even if you only have 65 guys on scholarship instead of 85.