As a public company Section 16 Officer and Director, I see this whole travesty a bit differently from the punishment angle. In my opinion, the NCAA will take its time, screw around over many months and eventually mete out something inadequate. The B1G could move a lot faster, but historically hasn't had the stomach for that.

I see the Administration, driven by the Board of Regents as the group that is most likely to act quickly.

The members of the Board are high profile people with reputations to maintain. The scUM Board of Regents consists of 3 women and 5 males. The men are lawyers. Protecting the school's reputation is going to be important to them, but minimizing or eliminating liability will be their first concern. Being that this group is dominated by lawyers, I see them operating out of a pretty narrow playbook. Their first actions will be formulated by the best ways to minimize liability, not maximize wins. If they believe for one second that the University will be sued for anything beyond nuisance value, they will cut the whole coaching staff out and not think twice about it. However, the institutional control issue is an interesting one. The $64,000 question is whether either of these potential liabilities is a real concern for them.

I am not a lawyer so take my next points with a box of Kosher Salt. I can't imagine how Las Vegas becomes a plaintiff because gambling laws are state-specific. I doubt that you could make any interstate case in federal court. Could a team on the losing end sue UM? I sort of doubt that too given that the league is responsible for enforcing its rules and ensuring fair play. Civil cases (tort law) rest on economic damages, logically begging the question of "who was damaged by UM's actions?" Fans? Naaaaah...having to argue about the value of emotional damage probably isn't going to go very far. Former players, coaches, other member universities, along with the B1G and the NCAA certainly were damaged, but will they sue? While that's doubtful to me, I'd put CJ at the top of the list of potential plaintiffs. At the end of it, he's got too much class to sue.

To me the argument that the Lawyers will latch onto is the one where UM's "institutional control" is attacked. Essentially, "you, the board permitted and maybe even encouraged an environment where cheating flourished. You should have known, or your President should have known, that this was occurring and you were negligent enough that we the regulatory body (B1G, NCAA) have to step in and manage things for you through sanctions. Those penalties last years and cause the regulatory bodies to demand changes that arent necessarily in the University's best interests. IMO, this is the liability that the UM Board will be trying to mitigate. 

I think that the BoR will only care about the Institutional Control liability and will chop off the heads of the coaching staff immediately to clearly demonstrate that they have control over the football program.  Through their actions, they will attempt to demonstrate that UM doesn't need "Adult supervision" by the B1G or NCAA. Beyond that, I don't think the BoR will do anything else. They'll wait for the NCAA or B1G to take those actions (forfeits, bowl eligibility, etc).