Wandering into the cross-fire here...
I'd like to see an athlete in this situation, with the "preponderance of evidence" mentioned above (multiple eyewitnesses, medical evidence, etc.) suspended for 365 days from the time of the incident, 366 for leap years, and required to go through intensive and meaningful therapy throughout that year off the field, addressing what it means to be a man and how mature relationships work.
If after a year the suspended athlete has been FULLY compliant with treatment, stays out of any and all trouble, and the treating therapist is allowed to give a candid opinion, he can come back on the team with an incredibly tight leash plus continued therapy to monitor how the return to sports is coming. (No medical redshirt btw, although he probably wouldn't qualify anyway.)
I was struck by the poster above who described how his time in the military taught him that there are other was to live than hitting. I do believe that college coaches have a responsibility to develop athletes as human beings, not just athletes, and dumping them on other programs (which might not bother to address off-field issues) doesn't do a thing for the athlete or his future GF's or wives.
Football is a violent sport, requiring quick and aggressive reactions. Players need to know how to leave that on the field.
The problem with this scenario, of course, is that everyone has to take it deadly seriously; no nod and a wink. It comes down to the personal integrity of the coach, the therapist, and (eventually) the player, or it will just be a sham, and nothing will change. There would also be the question of how bad the actions would have to be before this chance wouldn't be offered.
And I'm a woman, and I would buy tickets and otherwise support a program that took this approach. jmo and all the rest