It is not only the AGs that are responding. UT’s Chancellor sent a very defiant and critical letter to the NCAA (full letter here) yesterday, presumably with some degree of coordination with the AGs in anticipation of this litigation.
I had the same thought. Obviously Moore doesn’t command Harbaugh-level money, but I really thought he’d be in the $7M range given that he’s at Michigan. I also assumed that, given the absolutely enormous value Minter would bring to the program by remaining for another year to coach this defense, the difference would allow us to make him a proposal in the $4-5M range and give him something to think about.
This HC salary makes it almost certain that we are not going to be in a position to offer Minter money to make him consider the option of staying. I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but it has the makings of yet another AD blunder.
Except that the new information here is that there literally was more that the University could agree to in order to retain Jim, and they simply choose not to act on it until it was too late in the process with another institution that more properly recognized his worth.
If Jim wants to leave because he wants a Super Bowl ring, that’s fine. But if it comes out you’re playing chicken on contract clauses and give way too late after he’s already made up his mind to go elsewhere, it’s pretty clear it’s not simply the Super Bowl ring at issue anymore.
And yes, that is absolutely a terminable offense for an AD and/or any University counsel to the extent they were unwilling to authorize this concession previously.
Oh I don’t dispute that. Guy operated on Brady and Kobe so he’s clearly well respected.
I just found it interesting that he’s involved once again with a now-prominent injury “controversy” of sorts for Michigan athletes and our medical staff.
Ummm, so . . . I read through this thread and didn’t see this posted yet. Does that doctor’s name not ring a bell for anybody?
He’s the same guy Cade saw in LA last year. Seems he’s oddly become the go-to guy for telling Michigan athletes they’ve been misdiagnosed by Michigan’s staff.
Unfortunately, I share your pessimism. As a lawyer who negotiates some pretty complex contracts for a living, seeing these positive updates that the contract negotiations are “progressing” for several months are pretty disheartening and make me suspicious it’s a public narrative covering for something else: one of the parties is simply not willing to sign a deal right now. In my view, it would basically be sufficient grounds for a for-cause termination of Warde if the delay is on him — I’m joking . . . but only partially, especially if the Regents and Ono want this done — so I am starting to fear it’s Jim.
The truth of the matter is that these agreements are simply not that complicated or lengthy to negotiate if the parties wish to do so. An agreement like this can go from delivering a term sheet to execution over a weekend if the parties are motivated. We literally see schools do it with coaches all the time.
I hope I’m wrong and it’s just a matter of Jim and the AD each having the slowest lawyers imaginable on one of their most business critical agreements, but I really can’t imagine that’s the case. We’ll see, I guess.
For celebrating a Michigan legend this great (BtG!™️) most of us probably don’t mind a double post, but this news came out and was discussed well over a week ago: Link
My mistake — I read the sentence re: releasing the final CFP and NY6 at 2:30 pm as applying to these games and the noon reference to just to show itself.
Not sure if it’s accurate, but the article on CBS says that the final 6 isn’t released until 2:30 p.m. ET. I recall in the past the huge show window felt like it was dragging forever until CFP matchups were released, so I think they may be correct.
Watching that live, it was crystal clear that there was absolutely no way that he didn't sustain a severe concussion from a hit of that magnitude. The back of his head slammed backwards into the turf from the force of two helmets as hard as I've ever seen in football.
The fact that FSU's coaching staff allowed him back in the game without anywhere close to sufficient time to perform a meaningful head injury assessment was absolutely appalling. It was incredibly dangerous.
I feel like there’s been a bit of selective amnesia after his injury year in 2022 that made a lot of people forget that NHG was perceived as a promising up-and-coming player for our roster in 2021 before he got injured and then announced his transfer. I recall feeling quite surprised about the general apathy towards him on this board when he announced, as I remembered him performing pretty darn well in the UFR charting in 2021 for a first-year player. By no means elite, but often comparable to or even exceeding our starters at the time.
I just googled and clipped some grades from some of our bigger 2021 games to make sure I wasn’t going crazy, and I don’t think I was. For example*:
MSU:
PSU:
Nebraska:
Maryland:
Iowa (B1G championship game):
So, I dunno what to make of this? Guy wasn’t elite as a first-year player, but all the chatter I saw about him not being able to cut it, being unlikely to compete for playing time with EH transferring in, etc. has always felt oddly out of place to me. After watching Rolder take -2s out the gate on Saturday and seeing that NHG was viewed as being generally on par with our starters in his first year playing in 2021 — absent a major regression I’m unaware of — I’d personally welcome the guy back in a heartbeat as a third linebacker for our rotation.
*Please have mercy on my attempts to scribble in the opponent on my iPhone screenshots that look like a 2 year old learning to spell his name for the first time.
I have been brainstorming a “burn, baby, burn” approach to this. It’s an (admittedly) highly deranged, scorched-earth tactic. And fortunately, it does not require a single national journalist, Michigan beat writer, or cooperative NCAA investigator to deploy. It just requires Michigan to (a) actually have the goods and (b) have the courage to deploy them
It’s quite simple. Here’s what we do:
1.) On Michigan’s first offensive play of the game against OSU, we have a staffer hold up a sign (like a play call sign). It simply says in big bold letters visible to the crowd: “Dear Ryan:”
2.) On Michigan’s second offensive play of the game, we have that same staffer hold up a second play call sign. It simply says in big bold letters visible to the crowd: “We know what you did.”
3.) On Michigan’s third, fourth, fifth, etc. offensive play of the game, we have that same staffer hold up a new play call sign. And each new sign will contain a very concise drip, drip, drip of new information.
Maybe it’s just the PI firm’s name. Maybe it’s followed by the date they were engaged by OSU.
Maybe it’s the name of a recruit who was paid for a visit, which is followed on the next play by the dollar value they were paid.
Maybe it’s the name of their sign stealing staffer(s). Maybe it’s the name of other schools we know they shared with.
It doesn’t really matter what order: whatever information you have, you drip it out.
One. sign. at. a. time. All. game. long.
4.) By deploying it via play call signs for 100k attendees to all see at once, it is an absolute guarantee that it will make waves during the most watched CFB broadcast of the season and throughout social media. And OSU will have to spend the entire game — or at least, until they get their AD and lawyers on the phone screaming to the B1G to try to stop it — in a state of anxiety thinking about what story is going to come out on each successive play, when they should be focusing on the game. Sure, they may pretend they’re not bothered by it and they’re focused on the game, but there’s simply no way not to pay attention.
Is this idea absolutely insane? Yes.
Should I be forcibly committed for even typing this up? Without question.
But would it be one of the most talked about moments in the history of this rivalry and compel widespread discussion about OSU that we’ve all been waiting for? I defy you to tell me it wouldn’t.
He was proclaiming the TRO was a done deal and being held back so it could be issued after midnight (for 14-day timing reasons). Now apparently an appearance by opposing counsel the next am delayed it.
Any idea what the fine is (if one is prescribed) if we took the logo off our jerseys? Would be curious if it’s a worthwhile price for us to accept to make our perspective crystal clear.
But here’s the thing: Penn State recruits very highly rated guys! Across the past four classes, they have seven 4* WR recruits (and multiple 4* athletes and TEs) and eight 4* or 5* OL recruits.
It’s really not the recruiting that’s to blame. It’s almost entirely the coaching and development.
ETA: And to be clear, that falls entirely on Frames.
I appreciate the argument you’re making. I really do. It may potentially be worth making the argument to develop some leverage on whatever our term fee may be.
But I’m just telling you how it works in reality as a practicing MLaw transactional lawyer who negotiates (and occasionally, has to manage disputes of) agreements every day.
For those of you who have never worked on contracts, "material breach" means the contract instantly becomes null and void. No buyout required.
I’m sorry to tell you this, but that’s simply not accurate. Material breaches most typically result in a variety of remedies for the non-breaching parties, usually involving compensatory damages and in certain circumstances expectation damages or sometimes (in fairly rare cases) consequential or other indirect damages (e.g., loss of profits, diminution in value, etc.). Equitable relief like injunctions are also available remedies depending on the agreement and nature of the breach. And usually there are breach indemnities that are triggered (although I imagine unlikely here with conference bylaws).
But the type of total breach to permit a court-ordered complete invalidation of a contract usually requires that the breach undermine the entire value and frustrate the very purpose of the agreement. I’m not saying it’s impossible to argue, but it’s just not reasonable to expect that to be a slam dunk here for the conference’s failure to follow the disciplinary process.
Relatedly, this filing confirms that the B1G is represented by Sidley. This was initially mentioned in Tom Mars’ response letter in passing, but helpful to get confirmation.
Sidley is a decent firm for Chicago, but ummm . . . yeah, I’d take elite litigators like Butswinkas and Zinn at W&C over a recent-GC like Favia every day of the week and twice on Saturday.
Someone posted this idea on Twitter, but I actually don’t hate it if we don’t prevail in litigation:
If we go 12-0, simply do not attend or play in the game.
We’re 100% in the CFP at that point anyways. No 12-0 Michigan team will ever be left out.
Everyone for all eternity will know Michigan are the rightful B1G champions. I know the conference title was historically an important goal for the kids, but I’m guessing making this statement in defense of their head coach (and still having a run at the much bigger CFP title) will feel much more important.
It will be an enormous black eye for both the conference and, more importantly, the commissioner in particular. It will infuriate his corporate sponsors, including Fox, and be pretty devastating for his future at the conference.
It may sound a bit dramatic, but we don’t need to kick the shit out of Iowa again to know we’re champions. So, fuck ‘em and hit them where it hurts.
All good — it’s all over Twitter and the boards so it’s not unreasonable to post! Just want to make sure folks who see it also know what his shtick is.
If you look at his feed, he’s posted this article like 6+ times in the past two hours all with different iterations of the exact same “no Heisman for JJ, blame Harbaugh” script.
It’s blatant clickbait for engagement, and we shouldn’t fall for it.
I tend to agree. Unfortunately for the B1G, there’s seemingly very little upside to Michigan refraining from making all known transgressions by our peer schools public. We believe we’ve already taken their best shot and had our reputation repeatedly tarnished by almost all of our peers and by journalists in nearly every national publication, and the notion that our ammo will somehow be a deterrent to B1G / NCAA enforcement action feels a bit naive. Rather, our best strategy is probably airing out the goods to redirect the narrative and make any selective enforcement action against us look comically arbitrary and capricious.
You mean to ask would we willingly agree to lock in what almost all of us view as the ultimate downside that we’re trying to prevent at zero cost to the B1G? Umm, absolutely not.
On the vast majority of these that hit the turf, it’s truly inexcusable. Without a second of hesitation, I would trade not returning a single punt for the rest of the season for someone who can and will reliably catch it on the fly each time.
This is extremely common language that was almost certainly drafted by his lawyer and is actually quite precise. Important to remember: if he had involved or told anyone on the staff, he would have knowledge that he had done so and therefore would not be able to make this statement.
The only gray area this really leaves is something very unlikely, e.g., another coach found out about his conduct by looking at his files and never told him he knew, etc. Very low probability there.
That’s not the argument at all. Just off the top of my head, it does the following:
It signifies that Jim is valued as the football coach of the university. There were reports back in January that the university was working on an extension to his existing deal, and it became a topic once against last month with media questions as to why it’s still not resolved. We’re now into our November games, and delays like this can give recruits meaningful apprehension about how the university feels about his tenure and permit opportunities for negative recruiting (e.g., a deal isn’t getting done because he’s out the door, etc.).
It’s also an opportunity to increase his salary. He’s the fourth best paid coach in the B1G, and he’s made it clear that he thinks he should be compensated commensurate with his performance.
Relatedly, it’s an opportunity to increase his buyout as consideration for a meaningful extension. His buyout is currently well below market and does very little to help mitigate the annual NFL concerns. Ideally these levers should all work in tandem. (“We’ll make you the best paid coach in the B1G via a lucrative long-term deal, but you need to agree this is going to remain your home and we’re not doing this song and dance every year.”)
Finally, there’s the intangible aspect that’s been frequently reported that Jim cares greatly about feeling like he has the support and backing of the university. Public reporting of delayed agreement negotiations only undermines the perception of support for Jim at Michigan, and as he’s presented with other opportunities like the NFL there’s a significant emotional cost to being drug through investigations like this and not feeling confident that you have strong institutional support (both privately and publicly).
I’m sure there are more reasons one can come up with, but I think the fact that the parties have been discussing the need for this new agreement for quite some time (and it’s reportedly only on pause due to this scandal) is fairly clear evidence that both parties believe one is merited.
This is incredibly easy to contract around, though, and that will significantly mitigate the PR risk by making it clear that the agreement contemplated which conduct (if discovered) would be considered unacceptable. Time kills deals, and it is increasingly not on our side to get this finalized prior to the NFL carousel in a couple months, recruit signing day, etc. — the closer we get to those the more appealing it becomes for Jim to take time to evaluate his options. So add in a provision to the causal termination provision that sets out the criteria that would constitute “for cause” for the signal stealing investigation and get this thing done already.
This language came from the Legislative Committee Modernization of the Rules Subcommittee in 2021 (proposal here), but sadly this Bylaw revision wasn't adapted. Even still, the committee's language would seem potentially very helpful for assessing level of penalties if we ultimately have to get to that point.
See also the introductory paragraph to The Rules further identifying the scope of application and Rule 1 §4.11.h as a "conduct rule," which is defined as a rule "that ha[s] to do directly with the playing of the contest." on PDF p. 16
II.) Primary source materials for reference re: Bylaw Rule 1.6.1:
On that note, if anyone comes across any good post-MSU recaps detailing his latest advanced stats against peers (similar to Bill C’s article a couple weeks ago), I’d be much obliged and fascinated to see how he’s tracking now. Yesterday I had a ND fan friend (using that word loosely, of course!) try to tell me that JJ dinks and dunks with huge YAC so he’s getting his stats with ease, and I am now sending him clips of every single NFL window he throws but would love some updated raw data to further establish the absolute idiocy of such a claim.
Yup, and if you wanted to get really crazy with it you could also adapt the conversion rule: your “extra point” has to be kicked from a straight line directly back from where the ball is “grounded” upon scoring, meaning the XP can vary from being directly in front of the posts all the way to a kick from the difficult angle of the sideline. I suspect it’s partly why the point value in rugby is 5+2 instead of 6+1 like in football — it puts a huge premium on quality kickers. (Incidentally, it would also put a premium on scoring in front of the posts that would favor a dominant running game like Michigan’s, and for wholly unbiased and entirely neutral reasons it should obviously be adopted.)
Thank you for saying this! I’ve tried to control my impulse to tag Brian with a comment on this when it gets said on the podcast recaps, because it feels pedantic (and is obviously very annoying to have people chime in with this stuff). But the term “scrum” is used incorrectly all the time by sports commentators when what they actually mean is a “maul”. They're extremely different concepts, but nobody knows much about rugby so it’s never corrected.
For those of us former rugby players, though, I would liken it to watching a three-pointer in a basketball game where the commentator exclaims “wow, what a slam dunk!” It’s bewildering. I don’t expect the majority of broadcasters to care, but our resident mgo-folks are the best in the biz so I’ll add my plea:
Don't refer to three-pointers as slam dunks! And any time a runner stays upright and pushes forward against a defender (particularly when his own teammates help push the pile), call it a maul!
100%. Pool B ended up with the #1, #2, and #5 teams in the world. And the reward for the two teams that advanced were quarterfinal matchups against the #3 or #4 teams in the world. Absolutely brutal gauntlet. Incredibly envious of the other side of the bracket.
I was fortunate enough to be in attendance for the 2019 QF between Ireland vs. NZ. As an Ireland fan, I’m hoping to see a slightly different outcome in today’s match.
djmagic -- it sounds like you're unaware, but there's pretty clear guidance posted at the end of OT season (and that is stickied at the top of the board you're reading) that explains what a "snowflake" thread is. Snowflakes are described in the very first rule:
[W]e have some excellent football minds on the board and I really don’t want their contributions to be buried by your two paragraphs which amount to “that was awesome” or “that sucked” or what-have-you.
OP's post was highly generalized post-game musings about positive offensive developments that are the subject of discussion in almost every single podcast, UFR, FFFF, preview, etc. on this board ("is JJ making his reads? did we use his legs early to maximize effect? are our WRs catching what they should?"). It was textbook snowflake content, and if you read the Minnesota Snowflakes: The Offense thread there's already a bunch of almost identical commentary on JJ's running (even including JJ vs. Denard discussion!), balls being caught / dropped, etc.
By contrast, people are generally fine with more detailed analysis that is specific, nuanced, and/or provides value to other readers on the board (as described here):
The Snowflake Rule will apply after games, but we will weigh threads individually and those which provide, for example, detailed analysis of a single series or play or video analysis will probably stay.
For example, unique and/or otherwise useful threads like these and these that aren't essentially recitations of "our offense looked good" and the like.
Candidly, I usually never care about these since the moms clean it up fairly quickly (and I've certainly never commented on it before), but someone asked the question as to why it's being downvoted and I provided an explanation. Complain about this not mirroring your own definition of "snowflakes" all you'd like, but the concept is quite straightforward and really not that hard to understand. I hope that explanation helps.
The downvotes are probably because this is an absolute textbook snowflake post about the Michigan offense, for which there is a perfectly capable thread for OP to have used. OP decided their snowflake opinion is much more important than everyone else’s and merited their own special thread on the board instead, and used a clickbait-y thread title while doing so to boot.
Totally agreed. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills as a lot of our American media (especially the Barstool types, but not just them) have tried to downplay Lacava’s behavior and treat it as part of the Ryder Cup experience, but it was downright shocking. To be clear: there’s zero problem with taking off your hat and waving it (just like Cantlay) to give it back to the crowd — that’s classic Ryder Cup banter and totally in the spirit of the tournament environment — and that’s how people are trying to paint it. But it was considerably more than that.
From the camera angles that came out, Patrick had moved off the green and Rory had started looking at the side profile read of his putt during a critical attempt to tie the match on the 18th green. Your only job as a caddy at that point is to get the heck out of the way — and you are certainly never supposed to engage in conduct to even remotely interfere with your opponent’s ability to play golf. But we can actually see Lacava remaining alone in the middle of the green and Rory asking Lacava to step out of the way so he can progress through his routine, and Joe not only doesn’t move but actually pauses when he’s asked to move, then takes several steps towards Rory and starts directing what look like agitated words at him, and then proceeds to stand behind Rory while he is behind his ball lining up his putt and starts chirping at Lowry from over Rory’s shoulder.
I appreciate and love watching me some Tiger every opportunity I get, and I’ve long appreciated Joe as a great caddy for him. But that behavior was simply trash and incredibly embarrassing for our team. And if a European caddie did something like that to Scottie or JT on the 18th green while they’re trying to save a match, I know I would be very heated.
It feels like we have this same issue every year with people posting TDF spoilers before it’s been broadcast for most people, and a lot of us come on a Michigan blog not expecting to see unrelated sports spoilers for events we enjoy and aren’t able to watch yet. Last year someone even posted about Vingegaard’s cracking of Pogacar as their thread headline and spoiled the most exciting stage of the entire TDF for a lot of people.
It is truly not that hard to keep it more discrete with an “OT: Tour de France Stage 9 + Michigan connection [Spoilers]”. Please be a bit more considerate.
Recent Comments
Unfortunately this reporter from 247 is reporting, and the main 247 account RT’d as well. https://x.com/mzenitz/status/1772445918337347848?s=46&t=-w4UsDGS0SXJIYvmjVnrwQ
It is not only the AGs that are responding. UT’s Chancellor sent a very defiant and critical letter to the NCAA (full letter here) yesterday, presumably with some degree of coordination with the AGs in anticipation of this litigation.
I had the same thought. Obviously Moore doesn’t command Harbaugh-level money, but I really thought he’d be in the $7M range given that he’s at Michigan. I also assumed that, given the absolutely enormous value Minter would bring to the program by remaining for another year to coach this defense, the difference would allow us to make him a proposal in the $4-5M range and give him something to think about.
This HC salary makes it almost certain that we are not going to be in a position to offer Minter money to make him consider the option of staying. I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but it has the makings of yet another AD blunder.
Except that the new information here is that there literally was more that the University could agree to in order to retain Jim, and they simply choose not to act on it until it was too late in the process with another institution that more properly recognized his worth.
If Jim wants to leave because he wants a Super Bowl ring, that’s fine. But if it comes out you’re playing chicken on contract clauses and give way too late after he’s already made up his mind to go elsewhere, it’s pretty clear it’s not simply the Super Bowl ring at issue anymore.
And yes, that is absolutely a terminable offense for an AD and/or any University counsel to the extent they were unwilling to authorize this concession previously.
100% this. It’s both an absolute abomination to listen to, and yet also absolutely perfect for this video. Truly well done.
Rose Bowl tickets were linked out here.
This feels like a massive reveal! I, too, was not fully aware.
sup?
Thanks for posting this. There’s a lot to like there — glad I watched.
Oh I don’t dispute that. Guy operated on Brady and Kobe so he’s clearly well respected.
I just found it interesting that he’s involved once again with a now-prominent injury “controversy” of sorts for Michigan athletes and our medical staff.
Ummm, so . . . I read through this thread and didn’t see this posted yet. Does that doctor’s name not ring a bell for anybody?
He’s the same guy Cade saw in LA last year. Seems he’s oddly become the go-to guy for telling Michigan athletes they’ve been misdiagnosed by Michigan’s staff.
Unfortunately, I share your pessimism. As a lawyer who negotiates some pretty complex contracts for a living, seeing these positive updates that the contract negotiations are “progressing” for several months are pretty disheartening and make me suspicious it’s a public narrative covering for something else: one of the parties is simply not willing to sign a deal right now. In my view, it would basically be sufficient grounds for a for-cause termination of Warde if the delay is on him — I’m joking . . . but only partially, especially if the Regents and Ono want this done — so I am starting to fear it’s Jim.
The truth of the matter is that these agreements are simply not that complicated or lengthy to negotiate if the parties wish to do so. An agreement like this can go from delivering a term sheet to execution over a weekend if the parties are motivated. We literally see schools do it with coaches all the time.
I hope I’m wrong and it’s just a matter of Jim and the AD each having the slowest lawyers imaginable on one of their most business critical agreements, but I really can’t imagine that’s the case. We’ll see, I guess.
Wonderful news!
For celebrating a Michigan legend this great (BtG!™️) most of us probably don’t mind a double post, but this news came out and was discussed well over a week ago: Link
My mistake — I read the sentence re: releasing the final CFP and NY6 at 2:30 pm as applying to these games and the noon reference to just to show itself.
Not sure if it’s accurate, but the article on CBS says that the final 6 isn’t released until 2:30 p.m. ET. I recall in the past the huge show window felt like it was dragging forever until CFP matchups were released, so I think they may be correct.
Watching that live, it was crystal clear that there was absolutely no way that he didn't sustain a severe concussion from a hit of that magnitude. The back of his head slammed backwards into the turf from the force of two helmets as hard as I've ever seen in football.
The fact that FSU's coaching staff allowed him back in the game without anywhere close to sufficient time to perform a meaningful head injury assessment was absolutely appalling. It was incredibly dangerous.
I feel like there’s been a bit of selective amnesia after his injury year in 2022 that made a lot of people forget that NHG was perceived as a promising up-and-coming player for our roster in 2021 before he got injured and then announced his transfer. I recall feeling quite surprised about the general apathy towards him on this board when he announced, as I remembered him performing pretty darn well in the UFR charting in 2021 for a first-year player. By no means elite, but often comparable to or even exceeding our starters at the time.
I just googled and clipped some grades from some of our bigger 2021 games to make sure I wasn’t going crazy, and I don’t think I was. For example*:
MSU:
PSU:
Nebraska:
Maryland:
Iowa (B1G championship game):
So, I dunno what to make of this? Guy wasn’t elite as a first-year player, but all the chatter I saw about him not being able to cut it, being unlikely to compete for playing time with EH transferring in, etc. has always felt oddly out of place to me. After watching Rolder take -2s out the gate on Saturday and seeing that NHG was viewed as being generally on par with our starters in his first year playing in 2021 — absent a major regression I’m unaware of — I’d personally welcome the guy back in a heartbeat as a third linebacker for our rotation.
*Please have mercy on my attempts to scribble in the opponent on my iPhone screenshots that look like a 2 year old learning to spell his name for the first time.
It’s incredible. They can put this straight in the fucking Louvre.
I have been brainstorming a “burn, baby, burn” approach to this. It’s an (admittedly) highly deranged, scorched-earth tactic. And fortunately, it does not require a single national journalist, Michigan beat writer, or cooperative NCAA investigator to deploy. It just requires Michigan to (a) actually have the goods and (b) have the courage to deploy them
It’s quite simple. Here’s what we do:
1.) On Michigan’s first offensive play of the game against OSU, we have a staffer hold up a sign (like a play call sign). It simply says in big bold letters visible to the crowd: “Dear Ryan:”
2.) On Michigan’s second offensive play of the game, we have that same staffer hold up a second play call sign. It simply says in big bold letters visible to the crowd: “We know what you did.”
3.) On Michigan’s third, fourth, fifth, etc. offensive play of the game, we have that same staffer hold up a new play call sign. And each new sign will contain a very concise drip, drip, drip of new information.
Maybe it’s just the PI firm’s name. Maybe it’s followed by the date they were engaged by OSU.
Maybe it’s the name of a recruit who was paid for a visit, which is followed on the next play by the dollar value they were paid.
Maybe it’s the name of their sign stealing staffer(s). Maybe it’s the name of other schools we know they shared with.
It doesn’t really matter what order: whatever information you have, you drip it out.
One. sign. at. a. time. All. game. long.
4.) By deploying it via play call signs for 100k attendees to all see at once, it is an absolute guarantee that it will make waves during the most watched CFB broadcast of the season and throughout social media. And OSU will have to spend the entire game — or at least, until they get their AD and lawyers on the phone screaming to the B1G to try to stop it — in a state of anxiety thinking about what story is going to come out on each successive play, when they should be focusing on the game. Sure, they may pretend they’re not bothered by it and they’re focused on the game, but there’s simply no way not to pay attention.
Is this idea absolutely insane? Yes.
Should I be forcibly committed for even typing this up? Without question.
But would it be one of the most talked about moments in the history of this rivalry and compel widespread discussion about OSU that we’ve all been waiting for? I defy you to tell me it wouldn’t.
Wait, but the Big Ten’s suspension letter said that even though they’re suspending Jim Harbaugh, this is not a punishment of Jim Harbaugh.
Surely, that must be sufficient!
He was proclaiming the TRO was a done deal and being held back so it could be issued after midnight (for 14-day timing reasons). Now apparently an appearance by opposing counsel the next am delayed it.
So, you can decide.
Any idea what the fine is (if one is prescribed) if we took the logo off our jerseys? Would be curious if it’s a worthwhile price for us to accept to make our perspective crystal clear.
But here’s the thing: Penn State recruits very highly rated guys! Across the past four classes, they have seven 4* WR recruits (and multiple 4* athletes and TEs) and eight 4* or 5* OL recruits.
It’s really not the recruiting that’s to blame. It’s almost entirely the coaching and development.
ETA: And to be clear, that falls entirely on Frames.
I appreciate the argument you’re making. I really do. It may potentially be worth making the argument to develop some leverage on whatever our term fee may be.
But I’m just telling you how it works in reality as a practicing MLaw transactional lawyer who negotiates (and occasionally, has to manage disputes of) agreements every day.
Actual fiery statement from Warde just now.
Sign and announce the contact immediately.
I’m sorry to tell you this, but that’s simply not accurate. Material breaches most typically result in a variety of remedies for the non-breaching parties, usually involving compensatory damages and in certain circumstances expectation damages or sometimes (in fairly rare cases) consequential or other indirect damages (e.g., loss of profits, diminution in value, etc.). Equitable relief like injunctions are also available remedies depending on the agreement and nature of the breach. And usually there are breach indemnities that are triggered (although I imagine unlikely here with conference bylaws).
But the type of total breach to permit a court-ordered complete invalidation of a contract usually requires that the breach undermine the entire value and frustrate the very purpose of the agreement. I’m not saying it’s impossible to argue, but it’s just not reasonable to expect that to be a slam dunk here for the conference’s failure to follow the disciplinary process.
Relatedly, this filing confirms that the B1G is represented by Sidley. This was initially mentioned in Tom Mars’ response letter in passing, but helpful to get confirmation.
Sidley is a decent firm for Chicago, but ummm . . . yeah, I’d take elite litigators like Butswinkas and Zinn at W&C over a recent-GC like Favia every day of the week and twice on Saturday.
And it’s not even close.
Someone posted this idea on Twitter, but I actually don’t hate it if we don’t prevail in litigation:
If we go 12-0, simply do not attend or play in the game.
It may sound a bit dramatic, but we don’t need to kick the shit out of Iowa again to know we’re champions. So, fuck ‘em and hit them where it hurts.
All good — it’s all over Twitter and the boards so it’s not unreasonable to post! Just want to make sure folks who see it also know what his shtick is.
If you look at his feed, he’s posted this article like 6+ times in the past two hours all with different iterations of the exact same “no Heisman for JJ, blame Harbaugh” script.
It’s blatant clickbait for engagement, and we shouldn’t fall for it.
I tend to agree. Unfortunately for the B1G, there’s seemingly very little upside to Michigan refraining from making all known transgressions by our peer schools public. We believe we’ve already taken their best shot and had our reputation repeatedly tarnished by almost all of our peers and by journalists in nearly every national publication, and the notion that our ammo will somehow be a deterrent to B1G / NCAA enforcement action feels a bit naive. Rather, our best strategy is probably airing out the goods to redirect the narrative and make any selective enforcement action against us look comically arbitrary and capricious.
You mean to ask would we willingly agree to lock in what almost all of us view as the ultimate downside that we’re trying to prevent at zero cost to the B1G? Umm, absolutely not.
On the vast majority of these that hit the turf, it’s truly inexcusable. Without a second of hesitation, I would trade not returning a single punt for the rest of the season for someone who can and will reliably catch it on the fly each time.
I don’t want to pile on with this, but yeah — he 100% did. I have no idea what’s going on there but it is not optimal.
This is extremely common language that was almost certainly drafted by his lawyer and is actually quite precise. Important to remember: if he had involved or told anyone on the staff, he would have knowledge that he had done so and therefore would not be able to make this statement.
The only gray area this really leaves is something very unlikely, e.g., another coach found out about his conduct by looking at his files and never told him he knew, etc. Very low probability there.
Not just the B1G West, but also tiebreaker relevance as well (I know, I know: just win, etc.). We’re cheering for Indiana over Wisconsin, too!
That’s not the argument at all. Just off the top of my head, it does the following:
I’m sure there are more reasons one can come up with, but I think the fact that the parties have been discussing the need for this new agreement for quite some time (and it’s reportedly only on pause due to this scandal) is fairly clear evidence that both parties believe one is merited.
This is incredibly easy to contract around, though, and that will significantly mitigate the PR risk by making it clear that the agreement contemplated which conduct (if discovered) would be considered unacceptable. Time kills deals, and it is increasingly not on our side to get this finalized prior to the NFL carousel in a couple months, recruit signing day, etc. — the closer we get to those the more appealing it becomes for Jim to take time to evaluate his options. So add in a provision to the causal termination provision that sets out the criteria that would constitute “for cause” for the signal stealing investigation and get this thing done already.
Appreciate the updates — hoping it all pans out that way!
Do you have any intel (or even hunches) on the engagement of the PI firm involved here and the source of their engagement?
This language came from the Legislative Committee Modernization of the Rules Subcommittee in 2021 (proposal here), but sadly this Bylaw revision wasn't adapted. Even still, the committee's language would seem potentially very helpful for assessing level of penalties if we ultimately have to get to that point.
I.) Primary source materials for reference re: Football Rule 1 §4.11.h:
NCAA Football 2023 Rules Book
Rule 1 §4.11.h: see PDF p. 29
Rule 1 §1.6.b: see PDF p. 18
See also the introductory paragraph to The Rules further identifying the scope of application and Rule 1 §4.11.h as a "conduct rule," which is defined as a rule "that ha[s] to do directly with the playing of the contest." on PDF p. 16
II.) Primary source materials for reference re: Bylaw Rule 1.6.1:
Original: 2012-2013 NCAA Division 1 Bylaws (see PDF p. 63)
Updated: 2013-2014 NCAA Division 1 Bylaws (see PDF p. 63)
Amendment History & Rationale: Division I Proposal - RWG-11-3-B
On that note, if anyone comes across any good post-MSU recaps detailing his latest advanced stats against peers (similar to Bill C’s article a couple weeks ago), I’d be much obliged and fascinated to see how he’s tracking now. Yesterday I had a ND fan friend (using that word loosely, of course!) try to tell me that JJ dinks and dunks with huge YAC so he’s getting his stats with ease, and I am now sending him clips of every single NFL window he throws but would love some updated raw data to further establish the absolute idiocy of such a claim.
Yup, and if you wanted to get really crazy with it you could also adapt the conversion rule: your “extra point” has to be kicked from a straight line directly back from where the ball is “grounded” upon scoring, meaning the XP can vary from being directly in front of the posts all the way to a kick from the difficult angle of the sideline. I suspect it’s partly why the point value in rugby is 5+2 instead of 6+1 like in football — it puts a huge premium on quality kickers. (Incidentally, it would also put a premium on scoring in front of the posts that would favor a dominant running game like Michigan’s, and for wholly unbiased and entirely neutral reasons it should obviously be adopted.)
Thank you for saying this! I’ve tried to control my impulse to tag Brian with a comment on this when it gets said on the podcast recaps, because it feels pedantic (and is obviously very annoying to have people chime in with this stuff). But the term “scrum” is used incorrectly all the time by sports commentators when what they actually mean is a “maul”. They're extremely different concepts, but nobody knows much about rugby so it’s never corrected.
For those of us former rugby players, though, I would liken it to watching a three-pointer in a basketball game where the commentator exclaims “wow, what a slam dunk!” It’s bewildering. I don’t expect the majority of broadcasters to care, but our resident mgo-folks are the best in the biz so I’ll add my plea:
Don't refer to three-pointers as slam dunks! And any time a runner stays upright and pushes forward against a defender (particularly when his own teammates help push the pile), call it a maul!
100%. Pool B ended up with the #1, #2, and #5 teams in the world. And the reward for the two teams that advanced were quarterfinal matchups against the #3 or #4 teams in the world. Absolutely brutal gauntlet. Incredibly envious of the other side of the bracket.
I was fortunate enough to be in attendance for the 2019 QF between Ireland vs. NZ. As an Ireland fan, I’m hoping to see a slightly different outcome in today’s match.
djmagic -- it sounds like you're unaware, but there's pretty clear guidance posted at the end of OT season (and that is stickied at the top of the board you're reading) that explains what a "snowflake" thread is. Snowflakes are described in the very first rule:
OP's post was highly generalized post-game musings about positive offensive developments that are the subject of discussion in almost every single podcast, UFR, FFFF, preview, etc. on this board ("is JJ making his reads? did we use his legs early to maximize effect? are our WRs catching what they should?"). It was textbook snowflake content, and if you read the Minnesota Snowflakes: The Offense thread there's already a bunch of almost identical commentary on JJ's running (even including JJ vs. Denard discussion!), balls being caught / dropped, etc.
By contrast, people are generally fine with more detailed analysis that is specific, nuanced, and/or provides value to other readers on the board (as described here):
For example, unique and/or otherwise useful threads like these and these that aren't essentially recitations of "our offense looked good" and the like.
Candidly, I usually never care about these since the moms clean it up fairly quickly (and I've certainly never commented on it before), but someone asked the question as to why it's being downvoted and I provided an explanation. Complain about this not mirroring your own definition of "snowflakes" all you'd like, but the concept is quite straightforward and really not that hard to understand. I hope that explanation helps.
The downvotes are probably because this is an absolute textbook snowflake post about the Michigan offense, for which there is a perfectly capable thread for OP to have used. OP decided their snowflake opinion is much more important than everyone else’s and merited their own special thread on the board instead, and used a clickbait-y thread title while doing so to boot.
People generally get annoyed by that stuff.
Totally agreed. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills as a lot of our American media (especially the Barstool types, but not just them) have tried to downplay Lacava’s behavior and treat it as part of the Ryder Cup experience, but it was downright shocking. To be clear: there’s zero problem with taking off your hat and waving it (just like Cantlay) to give it back to the crowd — that’s classic Ryder Cup banter and totally in the spirit of the tournament environment — and that’s how people are trying to paint it. But it was considerably more than that.
From the camera angles that came out, Patrick had moved off the green and Rory had started looking at the side profile read of his putt during a critical attempt to tie the match on the 18th green. Your only job as a caddy at that point is to get the heck out of the way — and you are certainly never supposed to engage in conduct to even remotely interfere with your opponent’s ability to play golf. But we can actually see Lacava remaining alone in the middle of the green and Rory asking Lacava to step out of the way so he can progress through his routine, and Joe not only doesn’t move but actually pauses when he’s asked to move, then takes several steps towards Rory and starts directing what look like agitated words at him, and then proceeds to stand behind Rory while he is behind his ball lining up his putt and starts chirping at Lowry from over Rory’s shoulder.
I appreciate and love watching me some Tiger every opportunity I get, and I’ve long appreciated Joe as a great caddy for him. But that behavior was simply trash and incredibly embarrassing for our team. And if a European caddie did something like that to Scottie or JT on the 18th green while they’re trying to save a match, I know I would be very heated.
It feels like we have this same issue every year with people posting TDF spoilers before it’s been broadcast for most people, and a lot of us come on a Michigan blog not expecting to see unrelated sports spoilers for events we enjoy and aren’t able to watch yet. Last year someone even posted about Vingegaard’s cracking of Pogacar as their thread headline and spoiled the most exciting stage of the entire TDF for a lot of people.
It is truly not that hard to keep it more discrete with an “OT: Tour de France Stage 9 + Michigan connection [Spoilers]”. Please be a bit more considerate.
This image is not from his account. And Sam Webb just deleted the tweet.
Are you sure this is accurate?