NW, I agree that the loss in schollies will impact recruiting. But the bowl ban won’t very much. Think about it – the kids being recruited right now would be on campus, at earliest, next spring. So they will automatically miss this coming bowl season. So that means they’d be bowl ineligible for 1, their frosh, season, when most guys don’t play anyway. For the next recruiting cycle, it would literally have no impact, as the guys being recruited then wouldn’t be on campus until after the bowls that year. They’d be eligible again their frosh year and on. I think it matters more from a perception standpoint and a revenue standpoint than from a recruiting angle. It’s the reductions in schollies that really get them on the recruiting front.

I read part of the NCAA decision and it was not only pitiful and sad, but at times got me mad that a university like U$C had no respect for the rules (and continues in that mindset) intended to keep the playing field fair for all teams. What has become obvious is that U$C is a culture of cheating.
Fortunately for U$C fans, they are getting a new university president. This should mean the end of Garrett as AD. If Garrett stays on as AD or someone of his ilk replaces him, look for U$C to be back in front of the NCAA Infractions Committee within a few short years.

Later, Garrett said: “Today I got a purpose for really wanting to dominate for another 10 years.”
Another way of saying Garrett’s U$C will keep cheating and to hell with the NCAA.

U$C was telling recruits in recent recruiting cycles the NCAA would not bring any penalties for the breaking and ignoring of rules. Truly reprehensible to tell recruits that kind of BS. Recruits and their parents should have had some common sense. I guess that says something about the type of recruits that pick U$C.
Coaches at U$C are now telling recruits sanctions will be reduced in an appeal. What a bunch of sleaze bags.
In my opinion, U$C got off easy. They should be repentant and thankful the penalties were not worse.

Thanks