NCAA considered eliminating in-person scouting restriction in 2021

Submitted by 3PG on November 22nd, 2023 at 2:34 PM

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/michigan-sign-stealing-investigation-ncaa-considered-eliminating-in-person-scouting-restriction-in-2021/

 

"Two years ago, the NCAA considered eliminating the rule against in-person scouting of future opponents because of its "minimal competitive advantage."

The proposal was voted down 48-14, including the big ten voting against it, but it provides interesting context for the current investigation. As has been said on this site, penny-ante BS.

Football

M-Dog

November 22nd, 2023 at 4:45 PM ^

I think this is a good post.  I upvoted it.  

The neutral-to-positive spin that CBS (a broadcast partner now) puts on it is noteworthy.

There is no WORST SCANDAL OF ALL TIME!! bullshit.  

They actually read the rulebook and know the rule history, something that we have bitched about the media not doing.

 

Joined: 07/06/2008

MGoPoints: 257517

Don

November 22nd, 2023 at 2:48 PM ^

Considering that I haven’t seen a single reference to this point in any of many dozens of anti-Michigan comments on TV, radio, or social media, I think it’s a certainty that virtually nobody outside of the Michigan orbit is even aware of it. Repetition is what’s necessary to get it across.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 148371

Blinkin

November 22nd, 2023 at 3:01 PM ^

Yes, this is interesting as a tracking point in "the narrative."  But the MGoBorg Collective was aware of this (and specifically the point about it being "minimal competitive advantage") months ago.  But if that kind of knowledge is seeping into the general public consciousness, that is a good thing overall.  

Joined: 08/17/2022

MGoPoints: 28248

ShadowStorm33

November 22nd, 2023 at 2:37 PM ^

Haven't we known about this for weeks? Maybe not the voting details, but I'm pretty sure that "minimal competitive advantage" quote has been floating around for awhile...

Joined: 07/22/2008

MGoPoints: 23065

LKLIII

November 22nd, 2023 at 2:50 PM ^

Old news. So the question is: "Why rehash it now?"  My WAG:

Is this stuff about "milk" Venmo payments on Twitter/X starting to get traction? i.e., Are some OSU types worried it'll break out to more mainstream media soon, and rediscovering this talking point is a way for them to get ahead of the news now that it might be useful in defending the Buckeyes?

Joined: 11/06/2013

MGoPoints: 8927

berto714

November 22nd, 2023 at 2:53 PM ^

Playing a bit of devil's advocate here, but two things about this have always bothered me:

1. The rule change was resoundingly voted down, which suggests that most did not agree with removing the rule.  Whether that means they disagreed specifically with the "minimal competitive advantage" is unclear, but it's not a leap to think that at least some of those that voted this down did so because they disagreed with the idea that the minimal competitive advantage was minimal.

2. I've seen people twist this "minimal competitive advantage" point to say that having all of another team's signs in advance is a minimal advantage. Unfortunately, that's kind of taking the quote of context.  The quote is about the advantage gained from advanced scouting.  You could of course argue that a byproduct of advanced scouting is knowing all of a team's signs, but that's easy to say with hindsight now that Stalions' scheme is known to all.  It's not clear to me that at the time they wrote this language they were even considering a sign-decoding scheme such as what Stalions was doing.  It seems far more likely to me they were thinking about more traditional advantages gained from scouting--learning opponents tendencies, strengths, weaknesses, etc. Maybe they did have sign-decoding in mind, maybe they didn't, we really have no idea one way or another because there's no further context provided.

Anyway, in the end in my mind this "minimal competitive advantage" language should not be given much weight for these reasons.

Joined: 09/18/2010

MGoPoints: 861

DelhiWolverine

November 22nd, 2023 at 3:08 PM ^

You’re looking at it as if only Michigan has ever stolen signs before. In reality, we know all of our opponents do so legally and possibly via advanced scouting as well, although that hasn’t been proven yet. 

Therefore, stealing signs via advanced scouting is of minimal advantage at the MOST, if one’s opponents also have decoded a good number of your own team’s signs.  Michigan has produced receipts that Purdue was given a pretty comprehensive portfolio of Michigan’s signs from OSU and Rutgers. So in reality, this is not about any significant competitive advantage. It’s about allegedly breaking a fairly outdated, minor, and irrelevant rule. 

Joined: 11/26/2017

MGoPoints: 11910

Eng1980

November 22nd, 2023 at 3:46 PM ^

Advanced scouting has to be entirely about the signs.  All other information is publicly available.

Furthermore, rule was implemented to save cost.  It was NOT initiated to address advantages.  It would be inappropriate to pretend the rule was about on the field advantages now when it wasn’t before.  Just like it isn’t about safety.

Joined: 04/28/2016

MGoPoints: 11970

CFraser

November 22nd, 2023 at 3:23 PM ^

“This is the most serious scandal ever to hit football” they said as they literally were giving and getting info on their future opponents. And people bought it! It doesn’t get dumber. 

Joined: 08/15/2017

MGoPoints: 6262

Colt Burgess

November 22nd, 2023 at 3:57 PM ^

Key sentence:

"Several coaching sources confirmed to CBS Sports that they can figure out an opponent's signs to signal in plays from game film without in-person scouting of future opponents."

Which also makes Connor Stallions more of an idiot for doing something so stupid and unnecessary. 

Joined: 02/20/2021

MGoPoints: 12994