I absolutely HATE this.
Sure, I understand the reasoning - although it made a whole lot more sense in Syracuse's case since they weren't that good last year. BUT what I don't like about it is that it sends a message - 2 consecutive messages from top ACC teams, now - that a post season ban SHOULD be an expected penalty.
The more teams signaling that they think post season bans are correct penalties, the more I worry that it will be easier for the NCAA to do that to us. You can argue all you want that they shouldn't, based on the evidence, but do you really think that will stop them?
We're going to get some kind of smack - deserved or not - because the NCAA's credibility is on the line and they will feel the need to look tough. Just my opinion, obviously, but you have to consider that a strong possibility.
So . . . there are plenty of smacks they could administer. A few games suspension for Roy, the loss of a scholarship for a year or 2. Annoying, but we can easily weather those. But the one that I think is absolutely unwarranted is a post season ban.
NONE of the kids on this team did anything wrong. So even if you believe there was some wrong-doing, it's simply unreasonable to punish these kids. But Syracuse and Louisville have increased the chances that this will happen by their preemptive self-imposed bans.