Bucklion;1911226; said:
A TV ban is the one place I see that has too many innocent victims...mainly networks and advertisers, all of whom commit big money. I don't see how the NCAA could say a TV ban targets the school...they'll still sell out their tickets, and in fact tickets would be in more demand if people can't watch on TV...so that doesn't really make a lot of sense.
Exactly right, but, can the NCAA "fine" (for lack of a better term) part of its BTN revenue?
That would make some sense. First, it only penalizes Ohio State. Not the rest of the conference.
Take this out of context for a moment, what if the Cam Newton thing comes back and blows up in Auburn's face and they decide to slap a bowl ban on them, reduce scholarships and all that stuff, but, Auburn still gets all the $ from the ESPN deal?
Same kind of thing...
Back to the Big Ten, bowl bans would punish the whole conference as well since they share that revenue too... so... I'd say if you want to hit programs where it counts, hit them in the wallet. But only their wallet... and indirectly, loss of scholarships, mass suspensions and the like accomplish the same thing (you'll be less likely to have bowl eligible teams in your conference).
I'm not saying I advocate such a course of action, but, it makes a bunch of sense in that it's directly impactful to the offender, and from a precedent standpoint, you can impose sanctions based on revenue to other schools... (Kind of like how they fine speeders in Germany, based on income).