Without knowing exactly what SU is accused of it is hard to know what its level of culpability is and how that might translate to penalties.
The ESPN article is bullspit. It really says nothing other than the infractions that the committee will be reviewing come from a 10 year period. It could mean one infraction in 2003 and a wholly different one in 2013, it don't think it necessarily means a continued pattern of infractions over a 10 year period. If ESPN knew that to be the case they would most certainly emphasize that fact in their article. Further while they say that allegations of receiving improper benefits are among the allegations, but that may be one minor not particularly supportable allegation among others that are more clearly the focus of the upcoming hearing.
I want to emphasize that none of what we have seen reports any specifics. In the absence of specifics it is really hard to draw conclusions about what type of penalty SU should receive, much less whether it should even be subject to penalties.
