I posted this on another forum regarding the "reinstatement" argument, which I think is the strongest argument made, though likely still futile:
The problem with the reinstatement argument, which is still a necessary and somewhat persuasive argument, is that the example player may not have (and likely was not) involved in the more egregious acts. But I get it. Louisville is arguing, understandably, that while they should be punished badly for what happened overall, the vacation of games and money is a separate issue that revolves solely around the ineligibility of players -- i.e., it should not turn on how bad the actual violations were by the school.
I don't think that will fly in the end because of the scale of this, the nature, and the fact that no matter how much you speculate about what would have happened the players still played while technically ineligible. What Louisville's argument does is open a huge can of worms where so long as a player is not caught until after they have finished playing, then they and the school can never be punished for playing while ineligible. I can't see how the NCAA will allow that to become the precedent. And if Louisville concedes that some games should be vacated, but not all, then how on earth do you determine what games should be vacated? That would be a completely arbitrary and useless exercise.