Untrue.
A postseason ban next year was warranted, at the very least.
What's our prism for viewing this? UConn's APR punishment.
Yup. The postseason ban announced this year to apply to this year doesn't do anything to their current roster. Our postseason ban was announced prior to the start of the season and, thus, we lost players to transfer because they were given enough of a fair warning. If the NCAA announced in January that we would not play in the postseason for that season, we don't lose players. And then there is the whole shameful act of picking a down year to self-impose penalties. Cheat for over a decade, pay the penalty in a down year, continue cheating in the next decade. Rinse and repeat (they have done it before).
Missing out on a few recruits doesn't capture headlines quite like losing players to transfer. UConn became the symbol of academic ineptitude and the majority of the country believes we are no better an academia than, say, Louisville because of it. Our penalty kept creating headlines for weeks/months afterward, thus cementing the negative perception throughout the country. Their penalty will be forgotten about in a week. With the Syracuse-centric sports media out there, I wouldn't be surprised if they are able to play the martyr. "Oh just look how hard Jimmy has his kids playing, even with all that is going on off the court."
Sorry, but this penalty falls short in my opinion. Yes, the scholarship reduction will hurt them. When we were docked scholarships over friggin' APR, it hurt us. It might still be hurting us. But a year+ worth of negative headlines against our school (not to mention, hurting our P5 profile) hurt too. I want those same headlines against Syracuse...they've earned 'em.