crg

November 2nd, 2023 at 11:33 AM ^

The conclusion of the article:

Stealing signs in college football has become commonplace. Some may view it as gaining an unfair advantage, but the NCAA rulebook has only prohibited sign stealing when it is done live in electronic form. Sign stealing otherwise is considered acceptable behavior that is simply a part of the game. While some coaches may object to its use, the majority of college football coaches opining on the issue condone it, the NFL and MLB accept it in their respective leagues, the NCAA allows it, it has not been listed as unethical behavior under the Football Code, and several ethical theories support its practice. In today’s college football, where winning results in keeping your job and bringing in revenue for your school, a coach engaging in sign stealing is not just involved in an ethical practice, but it is a recommended best practice to keep up with their competitors. 

andy19il

November 2nd, 2023 at 11:37 AM ^

So I'm reading this to say that Marquette's football team steals signs and sends advance scouts to all their opponents' games.  Certainly explains why they haven't lost a game in decades!

brad

November 2nd, 2023 at 11:40 AM ^

That summary paragraph should be dropped into the toxic waste dumps of the comment sections of every article written about this asinine controversy.

Leatherstocking Blue

November 2nd, 2023 at 11:42 AM ^

Probably covered in the numerous threads but one of the early quotes in this article is that sign stealing is not illegal unless electronic devices are used in-game. I'm not a lawyer, but I would interpret that as in the current game being actively played at the moment. Recording signs from other games is irrelevant (in my biased mind), because no team would be dumb enough to use the same signs in front of 100,000 people game after game, right?

And maybe that's the uproar; teams are going to be exposed for using a picture of Taylor Swift and Snoopy in week one that is a QB draw, and are still using the same damn sign in week 4. What an indictment on how lame, unoriginal and incompetent teams' signs are.

oriental andrew

November 2nd, 2023 at 1:26 PM ^

The actual alleged violation is in-person scouting of a future opponent in the same season by a staff member. So a staff member going to the CMU-MSU game early in the season to scout sparty would be a violation. Sending someone else who is not on staff is the gray area. It's not a subscription per se (which is explicitly allowed) but neither are they staff members (which is explictly not). They could be interpreted as "agents" of the staff member, but that's not explicitly spelled out anywhere, either. 

This may end up with the NCAA interpreting individuals paid by a staff member as proxies and, thus, violating the rule - or maybe violating the "spirit of the rule" as the denizens of r/cfb on reddit are wont to mention. 

Regardless, the NCAA will bend over backwards to try to get Michigan on something, but I also suspect that it the talking heads and those calling for everyone's heads will be disappointed that it's not worse. 

Jonesy

November 2nd, 2023 at 4:29 PM ^

Yes, if that is Stalions at the CMU game (and somehow nobody can confirm that one way or the other) that would be the only clear rules violation and precedent says you suspend him for one game. If NCAA or B1G try to hammer us on the rest we need to start lawyering them on the grey area and not concede it.

pastor_of_muppets

November 2nd, 2023 at 11:44 AM ^

I love this!

NCAA rulebook on ethical behavior, bullet point G). Feigning an injury for any reason is unethical.

Yet on Sunday you can turn on the highlights from the day before and you're practically guaranteed to see an instance of a player getting a signal from the sideline that results in an "injury" designed to slow down the offense. And the commentary a lot of the time is about how funny it is.

Fuck the media and their bass ackwards bullshit.

 

skatin@the_palace

November 2nd, 2023 at 11:50 AM ^

Savly, great post! TL;DR would have been nice the but contents are gold.

Can we collectively shove this down the throats of the national media? Not like Thamel or Godfrey could make sense of the contents contained within but it would be fun to shove this down everyone else's throat for a change. 

SalvatoreQuattro

November 2nd, 2023 at 12:25 PM ^

Firstly, he is assuming UM paid for it and they didn’t. Stallions did. Secondly, there is the matter of competitive advantage. That comes from the theft of signals which can be had in a variety of methods.  What competitive advantage comes from inperson scouting vis a vis using films to discern and break signals?

SammyBlue

November 2nd, 2023 at 12:31 PM ^

"Stealing signs in college football has become commonplace. Some may view it as gaining an unfair advantage, but the NCAA rulebook has only prohibited sign stealing when it is done live in electronic form. Sign stealing otherwise is considered acceptable behavior that is simply a part of the game. While some coaches may object to its use, the majority of college football coaches opining on the issue condone it, the NFL and MLB accept it in their respective leagues, the NCAA allows it, it has not been listed as unethical behavior under the Football Code, and several ethical theories support its practice. In today’s college football, where winning results in keeping your job and bringing in revenue for your school, a coach engaging in sign stealing is not  just involved in an ethical practice, but it is a recommended best practice to keep up with their competitors."

Skidmark

November 2nd, 2023 at 12:57 PM ^

Why would Stalions want to be on the CMU sidelines to observe and/or record opponent signals when he’d have a much better vantage point from the stands? Sidelines are crowded, players and staff constantly moving, refs, chain gang, etc.  This makes little sense, but then drafting a 600 page manifesto regarding taking over the Michigan football program doesn’t make sense either. 

Lost in Columbus

November 2nd, 2023 at 2:11 PM ^

Well that was a refreshing read. It was good to read a review from someone looking critically at the rules pre-UM ‘scandal’. They were not shackled or influenced, consciously or unconsciously by the recent events. 
 

A UM win over OSU this season will bring me more enjoyment than the day I got to smack my industrial art teacher in the ass with a t-square in front of the class for losing a bet over the the 1978 UM/OSU game. Pure joy! 

IMB87

November 2nd, 2023 at 3:50 PM ^

Thank you for posting this.  What I found most interesting in this was what the NCAA considers to be unethical conduct:

A. Changing numbers during the game to deceive the opponent.
B. Using the football helmet as a weapon. The helmet is for the
protection of the player.
C. Targeting and making forcible contact. Players, coaches and
officials should emphasize the elimination of targeting and
making forcible contact against a defenseless opponent and/or
with the crown of the helmet.
D. Using nontherapeutic drugs in the game of football. This is
not in keeping with the aims and purposes of amateur athletics
and is prohibited.
E. “Beating the ball’’ by an unfair use of a starting signal. This
is nothing less than deliberately stealing an advantage from the
opponent. An honest starting signal is needed, but a signal that
has for its purpose starting the team a fraction of a second
before the ball is put in play, in the hope that it will not be
detected by the officials, is illegal. It is the same as if a sprinter
in a 100-meter dash had a secret arrangement with the starter to
give him a tenth-of-a-second warning before firing the pistol.
F. Shifting in a way that simulates the start of a play or
employing any other unfair tactic for the purpose of drawing
one’s opponent offside. This can be construed only as a
deliberate attempt to gain an unmerited advantage.
G. Feigning an injury for any reason is unethical. An injured
player must be given full protection under the rules, but 
feigning injury is dishonest, unsportsmanlike and contrary to
the spirit of the rules. Such tactics cannot be tolerated among
sportsmen of integrity.

"As seen from the examples above, the NCAA clearly expresses what it believes
to be unethical conduct. Given the chance to explicitly condemn and call out
sign stealing as unethical behavior, the NCAA chose not to include it, and its
absence further proves that sign stealing is viewed as ethical in college
football."