The fact that the NCAA penalized the University of Idaho for not enough of their football team staying academically eligible or in school over a four year period of time leaves blood on allot of hands. And, since the school knew they would be getting into a blood bath on the field anyway, I think they didn't care.

What's the difference?

They would rather take the image hit of academic sanctions then the image hit of a losing football program.

Idaho got both.

A post season playing ban and some practice time was taken away. From a team who CBS Sports.com  said was the 4th worst in the country last year?  What difference does it make if you averaged a little more then 3 wins a year the last 5 anyway?

The only bowl Idaho would likely be in was a soup bowl.

Former Coach Robb Akey was allowed to recruit any athlete who would help them win from 2009-2012. I believe it was a win at all costs attitude that Rob Spear and President Nellis encouraged. Coach Akey did exactly that and despite him wanting to get rid of the " thieves, criminals and drug guys" he inherited in 2007, he replaced them with players who didn't want to go to class, wouldn't behave and couldn't stay eligible. Idaho said players left because the Vandals had no conference and they didn't have enough money to hire baby sitters to make sure the football players went to class.

Bull shit.

I am all for giving marginal kids a chance to get a college education and turn themselves around. I believe in giving them a second chance. Maybe even a third if they deserve it.  But, if those kids can't stay eligible by going to class and getting mostly C's, that's on the kids. They were not ready for the challenge of self improvement at the time and they sabotaged themselves. It isn't the end of the world, just the end of their chance to get a education.

Idaho took a chance on some marginal students who played football and, with so little to lose, they have lost again.