"If you disagree that God exists then what makes what Paterno did, wrong? or for that matter what makes anything bad/wrong?" This is one of the most-discussed subjects in philosophy and there is a voluminous amount of literature on this subject. Without disparaging your religious views (I, too, am Christian), I suggest you familiarize yourself with this literature.
Beyond that, we aren't grading religious morality here but rather discussing a school that now wants to name their field after the same guy whose statute they pulled down for what most people at the time thought were very good reasons.
I liked the Wink hiring on the theory that Moore needs someone highly experienced on the defensive side of the ball, and because he could develop Clink into the next man up for DC. That sort of continuity, especially when it portends relatively minor changes to the defense Michigan ran so successfully, seemed like the best possible situation.
But humans are humans. Maybe Clink doesn't like Wink, maybe he had enough of Warde, maybe he believes he is ready now, maybe he wasn't sure what this meant for his future. Also, coaches who are lucky enough to work for Harbaugh tend to do very well. Following Harbaugh is effectively a zero-risk proposition. If we assume that Clink had conflicted feelings (for whatever reason), following the guy with the most successful coaching tree in the business seems like a reasonable path.
This *sucks*, though. I felt like we particularly needed Clink for recruiting and player relationships with what amounts to a hired-gun DC who probably won't do much recruiting.
It appears to me that a not-insignificant part of Harbaugh's motivation was getting away from Warde. It also appears that Warde was blindsided when Harbaugh actually accepted the Chargers job, notwithstanding that the rest of us realized much earlier that this was a real possibility. It also appears that Michigan football has succeeded in spite of Warde and not in any way because of him.
But even if those assumptions are incorrect, it's very clear that Warde had no plan in place to support Coach Moore once he was elevated. They aren't ready with enticing packages for his staff; they aren't ready with NIL support; they hadn't thought through the "continuity" rationale for Moore's elevation beyond merely assuming that the staff likely would more-or-less remain in place.
Make no mistake, I think Moore was the right choice. But Michigan needs to treat him as a big-time hire that they have to work to support. Otherwise, this doesn't work.
The bottom line is that Warde has failed. And that's putting aside his obvious and ongoing failure with respect to non-football sports. Keep him and everything gets worse. President Ono and the Regents, I hope you're paying attention.
Actual coaching would be to play the walk-ons rather than talking about how and why he should. He could send a message to his players without having to use the media and fans as a go-between.
Hard disagree. First, if that's indeed the case, Herbert will be negotiating his deal right now. You don't say you're definitively staying in the middle of a negotiation. Second, saying he will be on the staff creates instant news, and therefore immediately detracts from Coach Moore's introduction. The classy thing to do -- whether or not he's staying -- is not to give an answer that steals the spotlight on someone else's day.
1000%. This misinterpretation of Bo's phrase has always driven me crazy. Never did Bo suggest that a coach had to be from Michigan, but he very much meant that Michigan isn't like other places and that the role requires something special. Coach Moore gets that, has walked the walk, and seems to already have a deep appreciation and love for Michigan and his team. He's every bit a Michigan Man.
Certainly possible. Promoting an assistant to the head coach role always comes with some risk. Even if Sherrone was the best coach imaginable in his current role, no one really knows how he'll do in a much larger role with some very different responsibilities. Nevertheless, one possibility is that he'll soar.
If anything, the available evidence suggests this is more likely than the alternative. Harbaugh clearly positioned him as a successor, and Harbaugh has been an extremely shrewd evaluator of coaching ability. Sherrone also acquitted himself quite well this year, including in situations where he had to juggle multiple roles. Finally, he seems to really understand how to win, as evidenced by the very different offensive approaches we saw between the Penn State and Ohio State games.
When you factor in all that along with the program continuity and character continuity he brings, hiring him seems like a no-brainer. But there's a real chance that he, too, could turn out to be a legendary Michigan coach.
Harbaugh could have gone back to the NFL during any of his first few years with Michigan; yet, he made no effort to do so. He was at his least hirable point after 2020, so he probably could not have done so then. Suppose you're in Harbaugh's cleats after the salary cut. You probably don't quit right then, because your options wouldn't be as good. You therefore accept the contract you have (at a place which, BTW, you love except for the one humiliating event) and you start thinking about alternatives. That's what he did.
To me, that is the simplest explanation. A super-competitive guy that craves respect gets dealt a humiliating blow. Do you really think he's just going to let that go? In this case, because of the National Championship team, the support of a new president, and the overwhelming fan support, he probably thought seriously about doing just that. But in the end, he's still have to work for the guy that did that to him in public.
This is exactly right and isn't getting enough discussion. Harbaugh had shown zero interest in returning to the NFL until that point. He accepted the pay cut and subsequent contract without any public protest, but he had to be seething. And like many people do when they feel under appreciated at work, he started looking.
I think the decision became very hard along the way because he loves Michigan and his team more than nearly anything, and it hopefully was very obvious to him that Michigan fans loved him, but he wasn't going to forget that the AD didn't and wouldn't have his back.
I agree, and to the point that he effectively turned this "limitation" into one of his greatest strengths. It would be hard for any of us to have our salary halved, very publicly, for perceived performance-related reasons. Most of us would express anger, leave, or become less productive. Harbaugh did the opposite. He accepted the pay cut (and implicit insult) without complaint, worked his hardest, and delivered everything that anyone could have wanted. Whatever limitations he may have had in this regard earlier in his career, it's hard to say he can't or won't overcome bad management at this point in his career.
Or to put it differently, if he can wildly succeed despite Warde, it's hard to imagine a GM that could hold him down.
Yeah, I think 10-2 with a new coach during a re-load year and with this schedule would be a very solid result, especially if OSU is one of the wins. That's especially true in light of the timing: I want us to become a dynasty as much as anyone, but we have to be somewhat realistic about what's possible.
Right -- it's not like Michigan's lawyers are treating it as a low-priority item. There almost certainly has been extensive discussion between Michigan-Harbaugh on what might work, but there are at least some terms not currently agreed in principle.
I'm guessing that the sticking point is exactly what some have reported: Harbaugh wants assurances that nothing the NCAA can do would result in a for-cause separation, while Michigan wants assurances that it isn't paying enormous amounts of money to a head coach that is prevented from actually coaching. That's not an easy problem to solve.
Football at its best is about the triumph of character, grit, and determination over the pervasive pull of mediocrity. For that reason, you'll always have both: champions on one hand and, on the other hand, people who try to drag those champions back to mediocrity. There's a middle ground, too, but that also consists of those who aspire to be champions and those who find comfort with something less. My point is that you can choose to focus on those who achieved excellence or on those who try to tear down excellence. Make the same choice these players did, and you'll be in a much better place.
Why not both? As to Harbaugh, he has delivered what we all wanted: a national championship, obviously, but more importantly a revived and refreshed Michigan football program with a culture that other programs could only dream of. I badly want him to stick around until he retires, but he has more than earned the opportunity to choose what's best for him.
As to Warde, he's . . . just not very good. We'll always think (probably correctly) that a better AD could have kept a coach that probably truly wanted to stay. We'll always think (probably correctly) that a better AD could have more deftly managed the "sign stealing" controversy, and certainly could have provided better messaging within the limits of what the NCAA allows. We'll always wonder whether a better AD could have put the basketball team in a better place, etc.
I also worry about Warde overseeing a football coaching vacancy. For that reason and many others, I'm extremely glad Sherrone Moore is where he is right now. An internal promotion isn't always the best way to go, but I think Sherrone has proven his ability and I think Warde would screw up an open search.
It isn't often that I learn new things about life from a college student, but that has been the case with JJ. From the time we all got to know him, starting with the now-famous tweet before he had ever set foot on campus as a student, he has displayed wisdom beyond his years. He's the complete package: amazing human, natural leader, exceptionally dedicated worker, generational talent, and one who understands the human condition better than most. It's a huge testament to Team 144 that he's not the only standout leader and champion, but he'll always be remembered among the Michigan greats. JJ, if you're reading this, thanks for a great season, thanks for waking me up to some new ways of thinking about challenges, and Go Blue forever!
Assuming this report wasn't completely made up, one side or the other leaked it, and that's not good news either way. For the moment at least, Harbaugh has apparently looked at two truly huge contract offers and hasn't decided to pull the trigger on either one. When you consider the timing (huge games approaching, transfer portal season), that's a big deal.
I love the Harbaugh era. Coach has delivered everything Michigan fans hoped he would, and the team culture he has built at Michigan should be the envy of all college teams anywhere. Noooobody has it better than us. That said, I wouldn't want the university to offer those dollars on a no-strings-attached basis. If that's the stumbling block, or if Harbaugh truly can't get the NFL out of his system, then we live with the results. By all accounts, Michigan has stepped up.
It has been fairly widely reported that Warde was the ultimate decision maker on this once the HR claim was filed. That's also typical for large organizations -- HR won't fire or retain a high-level employee on their own.
Presumably just to block the transfer. Not all lawsuits are about money, and there's nothing terribly controversial about asking a court to block an administrative agency from acting contrary to its rules (if that's indeed what happened here).
RIP. Apart from her many accomplishments, Justice O'Connor hired multiple clerks from Michigan's law school. This was notable, as the Court overall leans very heavily into Ivy League law schools for their law clerks, and a number of justices hired only from the Ivy League. O'Connor was smart enough to know where the talent was.
I think this is right. For all the talk this week about how unclear the CFP picture looks, a fairly straightforward playoff picture is likely to emerge after this weekend. The only complication might be an *impressive* win by Alabama, but that's unlikely.
It will be interesting to see how the coach-in-waiting concept will manifest contractually, but that would be a big win for everyone, especially if it has sufficient teeth to make it unattractive for Sherrone to consider any other offers (he'll surely get some). This also could pay huge recruiting dividends: When other schools peddle their annual Harbaugh-to-the-NFL rumors, part of Michigan's response is that it has an almost unique ability to guarantee program stability.
Crisis management is something in which every organizational executive should be extremely well-versed, and one of the core tenants of crisis management is getting out in front of bad news so you appear responsive and so you can remind people to separate fact from rumor. I've never seen anyone fail as badly at this as Warde did when these stories broke.
Yep -- this team would be 10-0 right now without any of this, and the players (and students/fans) deserve to enjoy that without any hint of an "asterisk" from anyone. Also, Michigan has sustained reputational damage that will stick with it of a long time. It's hugely overblown, but reputational damage often is, and it didn't have to be this way.
None of this lessens my anger at the Big Ten, but this wouldn't have happened if everyone involved had simply done their jobs.
Go hard after Petitti. This is no time to be wry or self-effacing. We have an enemy, and every Michigan sign should focus on that. Obvious exceptions for signs focusing on Ryan Day, who is soft.
From a football perspective, absolutely. We saw that during his voluntary suspension earlier this year. From a legal perspective, the harm has to be significant and tangible. Losing a game *might* qualify if it could be directly tied to the loss of a coach, but that degree of certainty is not possible here (different story if, for example, the B1G had suspended all of Michigan's coaches).
No chance. Also, as Prof. McQuade said, none was needed because the court very clearly communicated its view on the imminent harm prong when it did not grant the TRO last week.
This was a negotiated settlement. Had the parties not reached a deal, the hearing would have taken place. (Also, having done many of these, they are anything but instant, and if you look like you will back down, you will never get a concession from the other side. I'm certain Michigan knew exactly what they wanted and would have fought like mad if they didn't get it.)
She's right, and that's why neither of your "two things" needs to be true. This was a good deal under very bad circumstances (I'm referring to Petitti's vendetta, not anything in the underlying facts).
This is exactly it. The hearing on the injunction (not really the TRO at this point since a TRO requires no hearing and effectively was tacitly denied last week when the court decided to wait a week and conduct a hearing) was not about the merits of the allegations. The court wouldn't hear and wouldn't decide any of those issues at this hearing. We know -- to a near certainty -- that Michigan wouldn't have won the TRO. Had Michigan not achieved this deal, Harbaugh is still suspended for the same games, but the investigation continues along with the potential for future punishment, including this season. Michigan traded nothing (except Twitter arguments) and gained something tangible. That's it.
This in no way means that anyone learned of something bad that we didn't already know. That's certainly possible, but Michigan would have taken this deal either way.
I wouldn't expect it to unless a joint statement was part of the settlement (which it obviously wasn't). The B1G's press release is going to make this sound like a win for the B1G. That silence doesn't mean a fact stated in Michigan's press release is wrong.
Here's the thing: We weren't going to win on a TRO. On the likelihood of success prong, we lose because of the commissioner's broad discretion. On the imminent harm prong, we lose because we just demonstrated we can win without our head coach on the sideline. (OSU will be much harder, and we on this board all know that, but we cannot establish that difference in court and that's not where the argument would go anyway.)
That doesn't mean the Big Ten was right -- they most definitely were not, and we should extract our revenge when the time comes. But for purposes of this motion, Michigan had to assume it would be without Harbaugh on the sidelines either way.
What we get in return is that the NCAA can't touch us in the Big Ten championship game or in the post season. They can't take away past wins or otherwise fuck with us over this issue. And we made them look foolish for saying this was the biggest scandal in their history and then accepting this as a final resolution.
There are unanswered questions, but not the ones stated in this article. Michigan very clearly got something in return: finality. Michigan's statement makes clear that this entirely resolves the Big Ten's investigation. Recall the the suspension sought by the Big Ten was intended to represent only an immediate measure, and that they had said their investigation was ongoing. They almost certainly would have sought postseason penalties or would have kept this going next year, seeking additional penalties along the way. This puts an end to that.
When you hire a top law firm, you are doing so not only to beat up on your opponent, but also for their advice as to how to end up in the best place possible. Very often, that is achieved through settlement. Settlements are rarely satisfying. You always feel like you lost more than you should have or gained less than you should have. But if it's a good settlement, the other side feels the same way.
-- This explicitly says the decision was Harbaugh's, with the University's support. The fact that Harbaugh drove this is very positive in that it means he and Michigan are aligned (i.e., Warde didn't impose this).
-- This not only resolves the litigation, but the Big Ten's investigation as well. This presumably means the entire issue is done with respect to the Big Ten. That's huge, and may have made this worthwhile.
-- This should *help* resolve things with the NCAA. Not only did the staff member at issue resign, but Michigan reportedly has cooperated, and now has voluntarily accepted punishment that arguably was disproportionate to the alleged infraction. Yes, another staffer's involvement may have been confirmed, but Michigan can show good faith by promptly addressing that as well.
-- It will be interesting to hear the Big Ten's take, but the Michigan's statement about the lack of evidence of Harbaugh's involvement is significant. Note, though, that it didn't say there was no evidence of *anyone's* involvement other than CS.
Because this wraps things up with the Big Ten, this probably was a deal worth taking. However, it is both infuriating and heartbreaking that Harbaugh can't be on the sidelines for the team's 1000th win and the OSU game.
Harbaugh put the team before himself in a way I've never seen any coach do. Nobody's got it better than us.
A different but related question: In the call where Pettiti reportedly was urged by member schools to go after Harbaugh, were the schools represented only by their ADs, or were presidents on the line as well? I could see a scenario where ADs are ginned-up by what they think Michigan may've done but presidents are looking at the bigger picture and don't like where this is headed.
EDIT: I put no weight behind the above rumor, to be clear. But I am curious as to how certain university presidents may feel about what the Big Ten is doing here.
Including, arguably, this site, which sells a cool "Vast Network" shirt, and the Michigan NIL who partnered with MDen to release the "Michigan vs. Everybody" shirt that benefits the team.
Helpful thread -- I expect to learn some things here myself.
BTW, one thing that I expect Michigan's lawyers are thinking about is what happens if and when the university must completely distance itself from Connor Stallions' actions. I suspect that his conduct was unsanctioned, but Michigan doesn't benefit by taking an adversarial stance with him while the facts are still being developed. For that and other reasons, I think our most pointed arguments may wait until the investigation itself has concluded.
If two games brought us finality, I would agree. But by all accounts it won't.
Also, the litigation serves an important secondary purpose: it reminds the NCAA to tread carefully in its own investigation and in imposing any punishment, as we are willing to fight an unjust result.
We are for now. At this point in the investigation, it is not in Michigan's interest to be hanging our hat on the "merits" arguments -- i.e., that we didn't do anything wrong. We don't know that to the case any more than the Big Ten doesn't know that we did something wrong. If we rely on a merits argument, we open ourselves up to the ultimate facts being different from what we had supposed. In addition, that line of argument also risks undercutting the point that it is premature at this point to decide anything.
Beyond that, relying on the merits poses a risk that the decision makers (the Big Ten now, the NCAA later) will simply disagree, as the Big Ten has already suggested. If we lean too heavily now into the argument that we did nothing wrong, we risk a determination that we not only did something wrong, but condone it.
In addition, some of the arguments you raised are not strongly supported by the text of the NCAA rules. For example, there is a very strong argument based on the text of the rules that the prohibition on advance (not "advanced") in-person scouting applies only to certain people, and that non-staff paid by Stallions are not covered by the rule. That is one merits argument we made, but mostly to plant that flag for later. However, there is no support in the rule itself that the prohibition on (certain) in-person advance scouting was based on financial advantage. Yes, the history of the rule suggests that may have been a driving factor, but that's not what it says, and even if it did, we are exactly the type of institution that a rule based on financial advantage would seek to regulate. Similarly, rules that allow coaches to trade knowledge do not allow all forms of advance scouting. Thus, there is are logical points to be made regarding the equivalency (and Michigan made some of those points), but that does not mean what Stallions is alleged to have done is necessarily permitted.
Our best arguments for now are the ones in Michigan's official reply. The Big Ten shouldn't do anything now because the investigation has only just begun, Michigan is committed to fair play and will accept appropriate punishment when and if wrongdoing is proven, the rules *might* allow at least some of the rumored activity (maybe much more than some), there are logical problems with assuming competitive advantage, particularly absent factual support, and the Big Ten lacks authority to do what is has just attempted to do. All of these are true, and should have been enough for the Big Ten to tap the brakes. The day will come when we can lean into merits arguments about how the rules apply to the then-known facts, but that day is not yet here.
As pissed off as I am against the Big Ten, Coach and the team must feel pretty great about the support they have from the administration and fans. Every Michigan fan I know is ready to do battle for this team.
Recent Comments
"If you disagree that God exists then what makes what Paterno did, wrong? or for that matter what makes anything bad/wrong?" This is one of the most-discussed subjects in philosophy and there is a voluminous amount of literature on this subject. Without disparaging your religious views (I, too, am Christian), I suggest you familiarize yourself with this literature.
Beyond that, we aren't grading religious morality here but rather discussing a school that now wants to name their field after the same guy whose statute they pulled down for what most people at the time thought were very good reasons.
Can’t believe anyone here is defending this. You don’t leave Michigan for Ohio State ever, for any reason. Go anywhere else. Not there.
I liked the Wink hiring on the theory that Moore needs someone highly experienced on the defensive side of the ball, and because he could develop Clink into the next man up for DC. That sort of continuity, especially when it portends relatively minor changes to the defense Michigan ran so successfully, seemed like the best possible situation.
But humans are humans. Maybe Clink doesn't like Wink, maybe he had enough of Warde, maybe he believes he is ready now, maybe he wasn't sure what this meant for his future. Also, coaches who are lucky enough to work for Harbaugh tend to do very well. Following Harbaugh is effectively a zero-risk proposition. If we assume that Clink had conflicted feelings (for whatever reason), following the guy with the most successful coaching tree in the business seems like a reasonable path.
This *sucks*, though. I felt like we particularly needed Clink for recruiting and player relationships with what amounts to a hired-gun DC who probably won't do much recruiting.
It appears to me that a not-insignificant part of Harbaugh's motivation was getting away from Warde. It also appears that Warde was blindsided when Harbaugh actually accepted the Chargers job, notwithstanding that the rest of us realized much earlier that this was a real possibility. It also appears that Michigan football has succeeded in spite of Warde and not in any way because of him.
But even if those assumptions are incorrect, it's very clear that Warde had no plan in place to support Coach Moore once he was elevated. They aren't ready with enticing packages for his staff; they aren't ready with NIL support; they hadn't thought through the "continuity" rationale for Moore's elevation beyond merely assuming that the staff likely would more-or-less remain in place.
Make no mistake, I think Moore was the right choice. But Michigan needs to treat him as a big-time hire that they have to work to support. Otherwise, this doesn't work.
The bottom line is that Warde has failed. And that's putting aside his obvious and ongoing failure with respect to non-football sports. Keep him and everything gets worse. President Ono and the Regents, I hope you're paying attention.
Actual coaching would be to play the walk-ons rather than talking about how and why he should. He could send a message to his players without having to use the media and fans as a go-between.
I'm not an insider by any means, but I would have thought Hart sticks around for sure. Hope we'll get more clarity soon.
Hard disagree. First, if that's indeed the case, Herbert will be negotiating his deal right now. You don't say you're definitively staying in the middle of a negotiation. Second, saying he will be on the staff creates instant news, and therefore immediately detracts from Coach Moore's introduction. The classy thing to do -- whether or not he's staying -- is not to give an answer that steals the spotlight on someone else's day.
1000%. This misinterpretation of Bo's phrase has always driven me crazy. Never did Bo suggest that a coach had to be from Michigan, but he very much meant that Michigan isn't like other places and that the role requires something special. Coach Moore gets that, has walked the walk, and seems to already have a deep appreciation and love for Michigan and his team. He's every bit a Michigan Man.
Certainly possible. Promoting an assistant to the head coach role always comes with some risk. Even if Sherrone was the best coach imaginable in his current role, no one really knows how he'll do in a much larger role with some very different responsibilities. Nevertheless, one possibility is that he'll soar.
If anything, the available evidence suggests this is more likely than the alternative. Harbaugh clearly positioned him as a successor, and Harbaugh has been an extremely shrewd evaluator of coaching ability. Sherrone also acquitted himself quite well this year, including in situations where he had to juggle multiple roles. Finally, he seems to really understand how to win, as evidenced by the very different offensive approaches we saw between the Penn State and Ohio State games.
When you factor in all that along with the program continuity and character continuity he brings, hiring him seems like a no-brainer. But there's a real chance that he, too, could turn out to be a legendary Michigan coach.
Harbaugh could have gone back to the NFL during any of his first few years with Michigan; yet, he made no effort to do so. He was at his least hirable point after 2020, so he probably could not have done so then. Suppose you're in Harbaugh's cleats after the salary cut. You probably don't quit right then, because your options wouldn't be as good. You therefore accept the contract you have (at a place which, BTW, you love except for the one humiliating event) and you start thinking about alternatives. That's what he did.
To me, that is the simplest explanation. A super-competitive guy that craves respect gets dealt a humiliating blow. Do you really think he's just going to let that go? In this case, because of the National Championship team, the support of a new president, and the overwhelming fan support, he probably thought seriously about doing just that. But in the end, he's still have to work for the guy that did that to him in public.
This is exactly right and isn't getting enough discussion. Harbaugh had shown zero interest in returning to the NFL until that point. He accepted the pay cut and subsequent contract without any public protest, but he had to be seething. And like many people do when they feel under appreciated at work, he started looking.
I think the decision became very hard along the way because he loves Michigan and his team more than nearly anything, and it hopefully was very obvious to him that Michigan fans loved him, but he wasn't going to forget that the AD didn't and wouldn't have his back.
If he stays, how about we change his title so that he is known by Jim Harbaugh, the Jim Harbaugh Family Football Coach.
I agree, and to the point that he effectively turned this "limitation" into one of his greatest strengths. It would be hard for any of us to have our salary halved, very publicly, for perceived performance-related reasons. Most of us would express anger, leave, or become less productive. Harbaugh did the opposite. He accepted the pay cut (and implicit insult) without complaint, worked his hardest, and delivered everything that anyone could have wanted. Whatever limitations he may have had in this regard earlier in his career, it's hard to say he can't or won't overcome bad management at this point in his career.
Or to put it differently, if he can wildly succeed despite Warde, it's hard to imagine a GM that could hold him down.
He probably did, just not in the direction we all would have wanted.
Yeah, I think 10-2 with a new coach during a re-load year and with this schedule would be a very solid result, especially if OSU is one of the wins. That's especially true in light of the timing: I want us to become a dynasty as much as anyone, but we have to be somewhat realistic about what's possible.
Right -- it's not like Michigan's lawyers are treating it as a low-priority item. There almost certainly has been extensive discussion between Michigan-Harbaugh on what might work, but there are at least some terms not currently agreed in principle.
I'm guessing that the sticking point is exactly what some have reported: Harbaugh wants assurances that nothing the NCAA can do would result in a for-cause separation, while Michigan wants assurances that it isn't paying enormous amounts of money to a head coach that is prevented from actually coaching. That's not an easy problem to solve.
Football at its best is about the triumph of character, grit, and determination over the pervasive pull of mediocrity. For that reason, you'll always have both: champions on one hand and, on the other hand, people who try to drag those champions back to mediocrity. There's a middle ground, too, but that also consists of those who aspire to be champions and those who find comfort with something less. My point is that you can choose to focus on those who achieved excellence or on those who try to tear down excellence. Make the same choice these players did, and you'll be in a much better place.
Why not both? As to Harbaugh, he has delivered what we all wanted: a national championship, obviously, but more importantly a revived and refreshed Michigan football program with a culture that other programs could only dream of. I badly want him to stick around until he retires, but he has more than earned the opportunity to choose what's best for him.
As to Warde, he's . . . just not very good. We'll always think (probably correctly) that a better AD could have kept a coach that probably truly wanted to stay. We'll always think (probably correctly) that a better AD could have more deftly managed the "sign stealing" controversy, and certainly could have provided better messaging within the limits of what the NCAA allows. We'll always wonder whether a better AD could have put the basketball team in a better place, etc.
I also worry about Warde overseeing a football coaching vacancy. For that reason and many others, I'm extremely glad Sherrone Moore is where he is right now. An internal promotion isn't always the best way to go, but I think Sherrone has proven his ability and I think Warde would screw up an open search.
It isn't often that I learn new things about life from a college student, but that has been the case with JJ. From the time we all got to know him, starting with the now-famous tweet before he had ever set foot on campus as a student, he has displayed wisdom beyond his years. He's the complete package: amazing human, natural leader, exceptionally dedicated worker, generational talent, and one who understands the human condition better than most. It's a huge testament to Team 144 that he's not the only standout leader and champion, but he'll always be remembered among the Michigan greats. JJ, if you're reading this, thanks for a great season, thanks for waking me up to some new ways of thinking about challenges, and Go Blue forever!
Assuming this report wasn't completely made up, one side or the other leaked it, and that's not good news either way. For the moment at least, Harbaugh has apparently looked at two truly huge contract offers and hasn't decided to pull the trigger on either one. When you consider the timing (huge games approaching, transfer portal season), that's a big deal.
I love the Harbaugh era. Coach has delivered everything Michigan fans hoped he would, and the team culture he has built at Michigan should be the envy of all college teams anywhere. Noooobody has it better than us. That said, I wouldn't want the university to offer those dollars on a no-strings-attached basis. If that's the stumbling block, or if Harbaugh truly can't get the NFL out of his system, then we live with the results. By all accounts, Michigan has stepped up.
It has been fairly widely reported that Warde was the ultimate decision maker on this once the HR claim was filed. That's also typical for large organizations -- HR won't fire or retain a high-level employee on their own.
Never. Dude, what the hell?!
Really? I always get a custom plate because it doesn't cost much and there's not an obvious downside. What are you assuming?
Presumably just to block the transfer. Not all lawsuits are about money, and there's nothing terribly controversial about asking a court to block an administrative agency from acting contrary to its rules (if that's indeed what happened here).
RIP. Apart from her many accomplishments, Justice O'Connor hired multiple clerks from Michigan's law school. This was notable, as the Court overall leans very heavily into Ivy League law schools for their law clerks, and a number of justices hired only from the Ivy League. O'Connor was smart enough to know where the talent was.
I think this is right. For all the talk this week about how unclear the CFP picture looks, a fairly straightforward playoff picture is likely to emerge after this weekend. The only complication might be an *impressive* win by Alabama, but that's unlikely.
It will be interesting to see how the coach-in-waiting concept will manifest contractually, but that would be a big win for everyone, especially if it has sufficient teeth to make it unattractive for Sherrone to consider any other offers (he'll surely get some). This also could pay huge recruiting dividends: When other schools peddle their annual Harbaugh-to-the-NFL rumors, part of Michigan's response is that it has an almost unique ability to guarantee program stability.
Crisis management is something in which every organizational executive should be extremely well-versed, and one of the core tenants of crisis management is getting out in front of bad news so you appear responsive and so you can remind people to separate fact from rumor. I've never seen anyone fail as badly at this as Warde did when these stories broke.
Yep -- this team would be 10-0 right now without any of this, and the players (and students/fans) deserve to enjoy that without any hint of an "asterisk" from anyone. Also, Michigan has sustained reputational damage that will stick with it of a long time. It's hugely overblown, but reputational damage often is, and it didn't have to be this way.
None of this lessens my anger at the Big Ten, but this wouldn't have happened if everyone involved had simply done their jobs.
Re: this headline, Michigan didn't suspend anyone.
Go hard after Petitti. This is no time to be wry or self-effacing. We have an enemy, and every Michigan sign should focus on that. Obvious exceptions for signs focusing on Ryan Day, who is soft.
From a football perspective, absolutely. We saw that during his voluntary suspension earlier this year. From a legal perspective, the harm has to be significant and tangible. Losing a game *might* qualify if it could be directly tied to the loss of a coach, but that degree of certainty is not possible here (different story if, for example, the B1G had suspended all of Michigan's coaches).
No chance. Also, as Prof. McQuade said, none was needed because the court very clearly communicated its view on the imminent harm prong when it did not grant the TRO last week.
This was a negotiated settlement. Had the parties not reached a deal, the hearing would have taken place. (Also, having done many of these, they are anything but instant, and if you look like you will back down, you will never get a concession from the other side. I'm certain Michigan knew exactly what they wanted and would have fought like mad if they didn't get it.)
She's right, and that's why neither of your "two things" needs to be true. This was a good deal under very bad circumstances (I'm referring to Petitti's vendetta, not anything in the underlying facts).
This is exactly it. The hearing on the injunction (not really the TRO at this point since a TRO requires no hearing and effectively was tacitly denied last week when the court decided to wait a week and conduct a hearing) was not about the merits of the allegations. The court wouldn't hear and wouldn't decide any of those issues at this hearing. We know -- to a near certainty -- that Michigan wouldn't have won the TRO. Had Michigan not achieved this deal, Harbaugh is still suspended for the same games, but the investigation continues along with the potential for future punishment, including this season. Michigan traded nothing (except Twitter arguments) and gained something tangible. That's it.
This in no way means that anyone learned of something bad that we didn't already know. That's certainly possible, but Michigan would have taken this deal either way.
I wouldn't expect it to unless a joint statement was part of the settlement (which it obviously wasn't). The B1G's press release is going to make this sound like a win for the B1G. That silence doesn't mean a fact stated in Michigan's press release is wrong.
Here's the thing: We weren't going to win on a TRO. On the likelihood of success prong, we lose because of the commissioner's broad discretion. On the imminent harm prong, we lose because we just demonstrated we can win without our head coach on the sideline. (OSU will be much harder, and we on this board all know that, but we cannot establish that difference in court and that's not where the argument would go anyway.)
That doesn't mean the Big Ten was right -- they most definitely were not, and we should extract our revenge when the time comes. But for purposes of this motion, Michigan had to assume it would be without Harbaugh on the sidelines either way.
What we get in return is that the NCAA can't touch us in the Big Ten championship game or in the post season. They can't take away past wins or otherwise fuck with us over this issue. And we made them look foolish for saying this was the biggest scandal in their history and then accepting this as a final resolution.
It sucks, but it was a good deal.
Michigan provided voluminous information to the NCAA.
There are unanswered questions, but not the ones stated in this article. Michigan very clearly got something in return: finality. Michigan's statement makes clear that this entirely resolves the Big Ten's investigation. Recall the the suspension sought by the Big Ten was intended to represent only an immediate measure, and that they had said their investigation was ongoing. They almost certainly would have sought postseason penalties or would have kept this going next year, seeking additional penalties along the way. This puts an end to that.
When you hire a top law firm, you are doing so not only to beat up on your opponent, but also for their advice as to how to end up in the best place possible. Very often, that is achieved through settlement. Settlements are rarely satisfying. You always feel like you lost more than you should have or gained less than you should have. But if it's a good settlement, the other side feels the same way.
-- This…
Quick observations:
-- This explicitly says the decision was Harbaugh's, with the University's support. The fact that Harbaugh drove this is very positive in that it means he and Michigan are aligned (i.e., Warde didn't impose this).
-- This not only resolves the litigation, but the Big Ten's investigation as well. This presumably means the entire issue is done with respect to the Big Ten. That's huge, and may have made this worthwhile.
-- This should *help* resolve things with the NCAA. Not only did the staff member at issue resign, but Michigan reportedly has cooperated, and now has voluntarily accepted punishment that arguably was disproportionate to the alleged infraction. Yes, another staffer's involvement may have been confirmed, but Michigan can show good faith by promptly addressing that as well.
-- It will be interesting to hear the Big Ten's take, but the Michigan's statement about the lack of evidence of Harbaugh's involvement is significant. Note, though, that it didn't say there was no evidence of *anyone's* involvement other than CS.
Because this wraps things up with the Big Ten, this probably was a deal worth taking. However, it is both infuriating and heartbreaking that Harbaugh can't be on the sidelines for the team's 1000th win and the OSU game.
Harbaugh put the team before himself in a way I've never seen any coach do. Nobody's got it better than us.
Absolutely legendary album.
A different but related question: In the call where Pettiti reportedly was urged by member schools to go after Harbaugh, were the schools represented only by their ADs, or were presidents on the line as well? I could see a scenario where ADs are ginned-up by what they think Michigan may've done but presidents are looking at the bigger picture and don't like where this is headed.
EDIT: I put no weight behind the above rumor, to be clear. But I am curious as to how certain university presidents may feel about what the Big Ten is doing here.
I like this idea. Just Jim, moving in real time, with score and stats superimposed over the bottom.
Including, arguably, this site, which sells a cool "Vast Network" shirt, and the Michigan NIL who partnered with MDen to release the "Michigan vs. Everybody" shirt that benefits the team.
Helpful thread -- I expect to learn some things here myself.
BTW, one thing that I expect Michigan's lawyers are thinking about is what happens if and when the university must completely distance itself from Connor Stallions' actions. I suspect that his conduct was unsanctioned, but Michigan doesn't benefit by taking an adversarial stance with him while the facts are still being developed. For that and other reasons, I think our most pointed arguments may wait until the investigation itself has concluded.
On the first one, we'll get there. But we can't run hard with that until both sides know what the facts actually are.
If two games brought us finality, I would agree. But by all accounts it won't.
Also, the litigation serves an important secondary purpose: it reminds the NCAA to tread carefully in its own investigation and in imposing any punishment, as we are willing to fight an unjust result.
We are for now. At this point in the investigation, it is not in Michigan's interest to be hanging our hat on the "merits" arguments -- i.e., that we didn't do anything wrong. We don't know that to the case any more than the Big Ten doesn't know that we did something wrong. If we rely on a merits argument, we open ourselves up to the ultimate facts being different from what we had supposed. In addition, that line of argument also risks undercutting the point that it is premature at this point to decide anything.
Beyond that, relying on the merits poses a risk that the decision makers (the Big Ten now, the NCAA later) will simply disagree, as the Big Ten has already suggested. If we lean too heavily now into the argument that we did nothing wrong, we risk a determination that we not only did something wrong, but condone it.
In addition, some of the arguments you raised are not strongly supported by the text of the NCAA rules. For example, there is a very strong argument based on the text of the rules that the prohibition on advance (not "advanced") in-person scouting applies only to certain people, and that non-staff paid by Stallions are not covered by the rule. That is one merits argument we made, but mostly to plant that flag for later. However, there is no support in the rule itself that the prohibition on (certain) in-person advance scouting was based on financial advantage. Yes, the history of the rule suggests that may have been a driving factor, but that's not what it says, and even if it did, we are exactly the type of institution that a rule based on financial advantage would seek to regulate. Similarly, rules that allow coaches to trade knowledge do not allow all forms of advance scouting. Thus, there is are logical points to be made regarding the equivalency (and Michigan made some of those points), but that does not mean what Stallions is alleged to have done is necessarily permitted.
Our best arguments for now are the ones in Michigan's official reply. The Big Ten shouldn't do anything now because the investigation has only just begun, Michigan is committed to fair play and will accept appropriate punishment when and if wrongdoing is proven, the rules *might* allow at least some of the rumored activity (maybe much more than some), there are logical problems with assuming competitive advantage, particularly absent factual support, and the Big Ten lacks authority to do what is has just attempted to do. All of these are true, and should have been enough for the Big Ten to tap the brakes. The day will come when we can lean into merits arguments about how the rules apply to the then-known facts, but that day is not yet here.
As pissed off as I am against the Big Ten, Coach and the team must feel pretty great about the support they have from the administration and fans. Every Michigan fan I know is ready to do battle for this team.