Lack of instl control is widely worded but the first link is an article I read that talked about the move Mark made that were certainly not what the NCAA does. The NCAA's actions here are not precedented. I will post two paragraphs those for those whom have a hard time with the SMU/Penn comparison
The decision came almost solely from Emmert, sources say. He used the significance of the scandal to allow the NCAA Board of Directors to provide him with powers not seen since the iron-fisted Walter Byers ran the organization from 1951-1988.
"Unprecedented," said one NCAA source. "This is just unprecedented."
[Related: Charles Robinson: Staggering penalties likely for Penn State]
Rather than allowing the tedious infractions process to churn on for years, there was no NCAA investigation, no hearings, no letter of inquiry, no reports, no chance for formal response, no nothing. Rather than wait for criminal cases and every last bit of evidence to trickle in, this was Emmert reading the school's own Freeh Commission report and deciding enough was enough
Current NCAA rules limit the penalty to colleges already on probation that commit another major violation. But NCAA leaders have indicated in recent months they are willing to use harsher penalties for the worst offenses. That includes postseason and TV bans, which haven't been used extensively since the 1980s.
""This is completely different than an impermissible benefits scandal like (what) happened at SMU, or anything else we've dealt with. This is as systemic a cultural problem as it is a football problem. There have been people that said this wasn't a football scandal," Emmert told PBS. "Well, it was more than a football scandal, much more than a football scandal. It was that but much more. And we'll have to figure out exactly what the right penalties are. I don't know that past precedent makes particularly good sense in this case, because it's really an unprecedented problem."