FB Dive

October 23rd, 2023 at 4:45 PM ^

But he didn't just receive, he coordinated and apparently paid for with personal funds. It's absolutely a gray area, but we can't just act like this is clearly *not* a violation of the rules.

Harbone IV

October 23rd, 2023 at 4:40 PM ^

It doesn't. There is a rule against taping your opponents during a game. So if we paid a rando to film the opposing sideline DURING our game with their phone, we'd be violating Rule 1, Article 11(h) of the NCAA Football Rules Book, but paying someone to film ANOTHER game is not against the rules, because Conor was not there.

The rules in Rule 1 start as follows: "The Game ARTICLE 1. a. The game shall be played between two teams of not more than 11 players each, on a rectangular field and with an inflated ball having the shape of a prolate spheroid." LOL. These are "the teams."

It goes to explain who these rules apply to: "Persons Subject to the Rules ARTICLE 6. a. All persons subject to the rules are governed by the decisions of the officials. Those persons subject to the rules are: Everyone in the team area, players, substitutes, replaced players, coaches, athletics trainers, cheerleaders, band members, mascots, public-address announcers, audio/video/lighting system operators, and other persons affiliated with the teams or institutions." I.e., the teams playing that day. 

Harbone IV

October 23rd, 2023 at 4:50 PM ^

Agreed. There are, e.g., celebs on the sideline and I believe the team is likely responsible for their behavior (like staying off the field). But that's about the teams participating in the contest on that day. The person in the stands was affiliated with us, not the teams playing in the contest. 

Harbone IV

October 23rd, 2023 at 4:50 PM ^

Agreed. There are, e.g., celebs on the sideline and I believe the team is likely responsible for their behavior (like staying off the field). But that's about the teams participating in the contest on that day. The person in the stands was affiliated with us, not the teams playing in the contest. 

Dayday

October 23rd, 2023 at 5:08 PM ^

So for the sake of argument,  if Michigan can prove they the individuals that attended the games were not affiliated with the program then this goes away? What would constitute a person being considered affiliated with the team? Does that definition include the transfer of money? If so then if the people that sat in those seats didn't get monetary compensation and the tickets were "gifts" then at what point is affiliation established? I'm going to assume the moment video was given to Stallions.

Robbie Moore

October 23rd, 2023 at 4:48 PM ^

Stalions would not have gone to all this trouble and expense if what he recorded was not of value to someone higher up in the program. I don't care who paid for what. Finding out who used the information Stalions collected should be easy if his computer and cell phone have been impounded. This ain't complicated folks. MGrowOld is correct...this is bad.

Now, I don't think we needed to do this for the level of success we have had the last two and a half years. But if this is what it looks like then we got greedy and the good times will blow up in our faces.

G-dammit. 

UMForLife

October 23rd, 2023 at 3:35 PM ^

That sounds like a bad rule. A guy can do whatever the hell he wants on his own time or on Saturdays. So, now the coaches are supposed to monitor what someone does evenings and weekends? That road can lead to a lot of bad things. I see that the article says that but I just don't understand how these ADs agree to rules that are not enforceable. Sounds like ADs are not good at their job. 

Njia

October 23rd, 2023 at 4:03 PM ^

Every company for which I have ever worked has made me read the companies’ policies on ethics and personal conduct. Several of them have made it quite clear that even if I am not in a work setting I am expected to abide by certain standards. Failure to do so would subject me to “disciplinary action” up to and including termination of my employment. 

I have to believe that the University has similar practices for its employees - this cluster fark is precisely why. Even if management has no knowledge of what the employee is doing, it can severely damage the brand (at a minimum) as well as incur civil and criminal penalties. 

This is unlikely to end well even if it can be shown that this guy acted entirely on his own.

Njia

October 23rd, 2023 at 9:17 PM ^

Yes, absolutely. In particular, my last employer specifically called out the use of escort services and related (oldest) professions whether or not they were legal in the jurisdiction where they were procured (e.g. Amsterdam, Bangkok). Any employee caught using such a service would be terminated for cause.

ak47

October 23rd, 2023 at 4:18 PM ^

It’s not irrational at all because it’s the only thing that could possibly prevent those actions. It would absolutely behoove a coach to establish a culture where people bent the rules without telling the coach because it would mean the program never gets punished.

Also every company is responsible for the actions of their workers. The ceo might not get fired but the company pays a fine if an employee breaks the law in a way that creates harm. That is basically what we are talking about here. This won’t result in a show cause for harbaugh but it could result in penalties for the Michigan football program 

trueblueintexas

October 23rd, 2023 at 4:43 PM ^

Ultimately, Stalions was on staff at Michigan and was responsible for providing some form of value for $55K/year. If "really great info" about play calls and signals was making its way to the coaches to help in game plans, it is Harbaugh's and/or the coaching staff's responsibility to ask "how did we get this info"? I doubt Stalions was simply providing a report documenting how many times a future opponent ran the ball on 3rd down. 

I agree, the head coach can not possibly know everything everyone on staff is doing. The head coach and his/her direct reports need to know to ask the right questions when they see something that doesn't quite add up and make sure the total organization is doing the right thing. 

ScruffyTheJanitor

October 23rd, 2023 at 4:07 PM ^

Reminds me of a story a guy I work with told me. He worked for a software company in the mid aughts where a lot of the people working there had side projects -- everything from legitimate side gigs to simple passion projects. So the VP over all the software engineers came up with an idea: what if we made everyone on salary sign a document saying that the company owned all software developed by their employees. If you read the details, it essentially said that all things done by the employees on or off the clock were being done in the name of the Company. The VP had a meeting and everyone grumbled but signed the document after a quick glance.

My friend-- who is VERY intelligent and VERY detailed- was on vacation and missed the meeting. The VP called him into his office to sign the document first thing when he got back. My friend carefully read through the document and just said, "OK!" Cheerfully and signed it. On his way out, he said, "Just so we're clear -- this document covers malware too, right? Like if I develop a program to steal personal information or credit cards the company would be responsible, right?" The VP apparently looked like he swallowed an apple. That afternoon, they had a second meeting with the VP, CEO, and three lawyers that had them sign a new document that undid that original document. 

RobM_24

October 23rd, 2023 at 3:46 PM ^

I think that would be more for things that happen in your building, like Pat Fitzgerald and the hazing.

If this guy did everything outside of work, on his own dime, what's Harbaugh supposed to do?

In my opinion, this is a guy trying to establish his value (and future pay) by cheating the system and making himself appear like he's some type of savant. His corny LinkedIn description reflects that. The funny part to me is that if you're going to openly anoint yourself as a spy "expert" you should probably be a little more covert about your operations. He was clearly (to my surprise) awful at covering his tracks.