Member for

11 years 2 months
Points
1872.00

Recent Comments

Date Title Body
Now I have a new pro team to…

Now I have a new pro team to hate

Fuck the Chargers 

Are you seeing evidence that…

Are you seeing evidence that programs are strategically using the transfer portal to bring in players from rival school so as to get access to their rival’s  gameplans?  

BLOWWWW!

GLUUUUUE!

BLOWWWW!

GLUUUUUE!

Fuckitty Fuck Feinbaum the…

Fuckitty Fuck Feinbaum the Fucker 

BET

BET

MOAR MUPPETS!!!’ 

MOAR MUPPETS!!!’ 

Can we cut out the homer…

Can we cut out the homer commentary in the headlines? Save it for the comments. You don't know what they discussed. This strategy could very well help preempt more aggressive penalties from the NCAA. We don't know.

Another argument that…

Another argument that Michigan could make would be something akin to a field preemption argument with respect to the NCAA's own sportsmanship rules. The NCAA has its own sportsmanship policy rule at Rule 10.01.1. As part of its investigation into alleged impermissible advance scouting, the NCAA investigation will presumably also evaluate whether Michigan violated this NCAA's sportsmanship policy rule. We won't know if this is the case until the NCAA notifies Michigan of the alleged violations. But it makes sense that it would. Based on a quick review of NCAA violation notices, it appears that the NCAA invokes violations of Rule 10.01.1 primarily as an aggravating factor to other rules violations, rather than as a stand-alone violation.  The NCAA also appears to take sportsmanship principles into account at the penalty and enforcement stage. If I'm reading it correctly, the NCAA's historical approach would seem particularly appropriate here where the alleged violation of the advanced scouting rule is in dispute, as well as the magnitude of the alleged unsportsmanlike conduct.

As Michigan points out on page 4 of its letter, the B1G, on the other hand, has historically enforced its sportsmanship policy for bad behaviors (social media posts, taunting, racial slurs, publicly criticizing refs, etc) that meet the common sense understanding of unsportsmanlike conduct but don't fit nicely into rules violations. It has not historically been used as a vehicle for independent enforcement of alleged NCAA rule violations with sportsmanship implications. And more specifically, the B1G sportsmanship policy has not been used to preemptively adjudicate violations of the NCAA's own Rule 10.01.1 sportsmanship rule. The B1G extension of its sportsmanship policy into the NCAA's domain appears to go against recent precedent.

In sum, Michigan can argue the B1G's enforcement actions in this case have disrupted the current balance that has been struck among the NCAA and the conferences when it comes to sportsmanship. The NCAA has primary responsibility for adjudicating rules violations, including potential violations of its own Rule 10.01.1 sportsmanship rule.  As part of that, the NCAA also takes into account sportsmanship factors at the penalty stage for rules violations. The conferences can then enforce their own sportsmanship policies for unsportsmanlike behaviors that don't fit well into the NCAA rules. The conferences can also add on their own violations and penalties -- including alleged violations of its own sportsmanship policy -- once the NCAA has completed its own investigation and issued its findings. The B1G appears to be suffering from a case of premature adjudication.

This whole argument would probably be better raised by the NCAA than by Michigan. One thing we know for sure about the NCAA is that they are very protective of their jurisdictional turf. Perhaps for selfish reasons alone, the NCAA may be willing to push back against the B1G's preemptive power grab as an intrusion on the NCAA's jurisdiction and enforcement authority. 

 

Good question. Michigan…

Good question. Michigan addresses the historical application of the BIG sportsmanship policy on page 4 of its letter. They point out that the policy has traditionally been used for bad behavior that doesn't fit well into rulemaking, like racial slurs, profanity, social media posts, fighting and publicly commenting on officiating. It has not customarily been used as a way to shoehorn in a NCAA rule violation.

From a jurisdiction and…

From a jurisdiction and venue standpoint, I suspect it might work out better if the judge doesn't rule on whether Harbaugh can attend an out-of-state game in Maryland but instead limits their order to whether Harbaugh can participate in an in-state game in Michigan where the plaintiffs have much more substantial contacts. 

bet

bet

BET

BET

Erik_in_Dayton, I'd be…

Erik_in_Dayton, I'd be curious to hear your feedback my comment further down looking about whether Purdue may have inadvertently violated the "Countable Coach" limits under the NCAA rules. It may be a bit of a stretch, but it seems more on point to me than trying to shoehorn sign stealing into an advance scouting rule designed for an entirely different purpose. 

[I thought I would add this…

[I thought I would add this here instead of creating a separate legal analysis thread. Please move elsewhere if more appropriate.]

 

Potential Violations of Countable Coach Limits

I want to propose the the following argument for discussion:

The institutions that received Michigan's signs may have violated NCAA limits on the number of football coaches an institution can have. As outlined below, the opposing coaches who provided the signs and play calls to Michigan's future opponent may have unwittingly qualified themselves as a "Countable Coaches" under Rule 11.02.2. They would then count against the receiving institution's maximum number of coaches under Rule 11.7.3.* 

Rule 11.02.2 defines a "Countable Coach" as "an institutional staff member or any other individual outside the institution (e.g., consultant, professional instructor) with whom the institution has made arrangements who engages in off- campus recruiting activities or provides technical or tactical instruction related to a sport to a student-athlete at any time. (Revised: 1/8/14 effective 8/1/14, 1/18/23 effective 7/1/23)"

A few notable aspects of Rule 11.02.2 are worth highlighting here:

First, it includes within its scope "any other individual outside the institution". Therefore, Countable Coaches can potentially include coaches from other teams "with whom the institution has made arrangements." A one-off call or unsolicited text may not be enough. No doubt coaches talk informally all the time. But a coordinated effort among several outside coaches and the host institution documented by the exchange of text messages, as the news articles indicate happened here, would meet the common sense definition of "[making] arrangements".

Second, the sharing of information that cross-references Michigan's signs against its play calls would undoubtedly fall within the definition of "technical or tactical instruction related to a sport." This type of cross-referencing is highly technical and tactical in nature. It is way more involved that just being a human tripod hanging out in the bleachers and pressing the "record" button.

Third, Rule 11.02.2 does not specify whether the "technical or tactical instruction" must be provided in person directly to the student athletes. Rather the rule is silent on the issue. Therefore, I would argue that, if an opposing coach provides its compilation of Michigan's signs and playcalls to a future opponent's coaching staff, and then that coaching staff shares that information with their players, then that opposing coach becomes a "Countable Coach" against the host institution's coaching cap. It is not necessary that the opposing coaches instruct the players directly.

One might argue that a more sensible interpretation of Rule 11.02.2 is that an outside party only qualifies as a Countable Coach if they provide technical or tactical instruction in person directly to student athletes. I don't disagree. However, the same logic would apply to the interpretation of Rule 10.6.1's prohibition on the in-person advanced scouting of future opponents. In both instances, an institution's coaching staff is arranging for a third party to provide sign stealing information on their future opponents that it could not lawfully obtain directly.

The clutching of pearls should be equally tight in both instances, or not at all.

 

* I'm assuming here that the receiving institution already employs the maximum number of Countable Coaches allowed by Rule 11.7.3.

[I thought I would add this…

[deleted]

Any MgGoLawyers out there…

Any MgGoLawyers out there want to speculate as to whether this constitutes a violation of federal antitrust laws? 

My quick take is that the…

My quick take is that the NCAA prohibition on staff in-person scouting of future opponents was never intended to address sign stealing, so probably not. But if the NCAA decides to expand the scope of the rule though some agency theory to cover hiring third parties to record games, then this would amount to a much more egregious violation. There may be other NCAA rules (or even federal anti-trust statutes) that this violates though. 

Is it even a “grey area”…

Is it even a “grey area” defense? Once you dig into the details, it’s pretty clear the rules are being misapplied here because OMG sign stealing is bad. I’d characterize it more as an “it’s complicated” defense.

See my comment above and the…

See my comment above and the Fox News article about the so-called spirit of the rule. I think you can make a strong argument that the virtual scouting practice actually helps smaller programs and thereby furthers the spirit of the rule

So why isn’t anyone making…

So why isn’t Michigan’s side making this argument publicly? That article raises a very important historical point. At the time the rule was enacted in 1994, sign stealing wasn’t even a thing. It only became a competitive issue once teams started switching to no huddle offenses and using signs —rather than huddling— to send in plays. 

 I’m repeating myself here, but the best solution is for the NCAA to legalize the practice for everyone. And then slap Michigan on the wrist for building a better mousetrap without telling anyone as a way to save face (although Michigan sign stealing was probably the worst kept secret since Taylor Swift’s dating life).

Once you take into account the enforcement implication of prohibiting the practice, the most sensible option is simply to permit it, at which point everyone adjusts and the competitive advantage becomes trivial. Conversely, prohibiting the practice will lead to Big Brother levels of surveillance among fans and ridiculous outcomes: “Hey! Why is that random dude filming the dumpsters behind the Big House? He must be scouting for Iowa’s offense. Dox him on Twitter and call security!”

Perhaps it doesn’t make…

Perhaps it doesn’t make sense strategically for UM to raise a grey area defense at this point. But why aren’t others like Michigan Insider and MGoBlog making the argument for them? The argument can be done in ways that acknowledge nuance. There has to be a legal affairs reporter somewhere who would love to dig into the rules and scoop the story. 

I disagree that there is…

I disagree that there is conflict here between the spirit vs letter of the law. If anything, the “spirit of the law” is on Michigan’s side, while the letter of the law is less clear. Allowing schools to arrange for non-staff to sit in the stands to record games would actually further the purpose of the rules by leveling the playing field between the larger and smaller programs. The financial savings of this “virtual scouting” practice would most help the smaller programs save on staff time and expenses, which was the whole purpose of the prohibition in in-person staff scouting to begin with. 

Do you know if there are any…

Do you know if there are any efforts underway to get the analysis in this thread out to the media and public? It seems like it would be a beneficial counter-narrative. It’s complicated, but the message could be “It’s complicated.” I’m a little surprised Bryan hasn’t picked up on it in his sign-gate updates. 

Agreed. I was thinking…

Agreed. I was thinking Michigan should file a proposed rule change or clarification with the NCAA given the controversy. They could provide the legal basis for the practice and assert that the greatest beneficiaries are likely to be the smaller programs.

Plus, the opposite approach of prohibiting the practice would lead to Big Brother levels of surveillance by private citizens of other private citizens. I can see it now: “Hey, why is this dude taking pictures of the dumpsters at the Big House? He must be virtual scouting for the Iowa offense. Call security!” 

Perhaps the biggest irony is…

Perhaps the biggest irony is that Stalions actually figured out a creative way to remedy the very inequity that the NCAA rule 11.6.1 was designed to address. Maybe it was unfair for the larger programs to be able to scout their future opponents with professional staff in person when the smaller programs lacked the personnel and resources to do the same. But Stalions figured out a dirt cheap way for these smaller schools to scout their future opponents virtually without having to devote staff time and resources to making the trip. ANY program can afford to arrange for local sports fans to record the sidelines or some other parts of their opponents' games on their cell phones in exchange for free tickets, pizza, etc. The network could be vast! From a scouting equity standpoint, this is an example of technology leveling the playing field. If all teams can easily do it, there is no longer any harm done or unfair competitive advantage to be had.

It seems the crux the public scandal here is that Stalions figured out a 21st Century workaround (virtual scouting using fans with their cell phones) for an outdated 20th Century rule, but without telling anyone, in order to gain competitive advantage for Michigan. As Al Borges explained in his conversation with Sam Web, that competitive advantage was likely minimal. But it sounds scandalous that the competitive advantage, however small, was gained through enhanced ability for legal but shady sign stealing. Had he used the same virtual scouting practices to gain competitive advantage for another aspect of the game like punt coverage, then it would sound a lot less scandalous.

Perhaps the biggest irony is…

[comment moved]

I think you raise a good…

I think Murder Wolv raises a good point about the difference between live scouting versus sign stealing. The leaked allegations are that the live scouting was about sign stealing, but perhaps the alleged live scouting was more about reading body language and spotting tendencies rather than stealing signs. After listening to Al Borges discuss the limited value of sign stealing with Sam Webb yesterday, I question the value of sign stealing when signs can be so easily changed, obfuscated or gamed. But getting a live read (or at least a constant video feed) on unconscious coach and player tendencies, which by definition are difficult to hide, is an entirely different matter. The ESPN article suggests this was a chief complaint of some coaches as well with not being allowed to attend games in person. 

I’m thinking of that video clip circulating where Stroud signals an audible at the line of scrimmage, and a bunch of Michigan players on the sidelines immediate start jumping and pointing that it is a pass. It just doesn’t t make sense to me that this was an example of sign stealing. First off, it was an audible, not a play called in from the sidelines. Second, if a team is engaged in a vast clandestine sign stealing network, it is probably best not to tell a bunch of back-ups and have them yelling and jumping up and down about it. But if the players have all been schooled on OSU coach and player tendencies, then it makes perfect sense intellectually and emotionally that the players would respond that way.

But as Murder Wolv points out, the prohibition is on in-person scouting, not sign stealing. But it doesn’t sound as shady to say that Michigan picked up Stroud’s tendencies for when he audibles into pass plays, or if a lineman changed his stance, etc. Granted both could be true. It may have been both sign stealing and scouting tendencies, but the evidence so far on the sign stealing part just doesn’t make sense to me. 

 

Rutgers spelled backwards is…

Today’s Pointless Factoid:

Rutgers spelled backwards is Sregtur.

Now bang me. 

Rutgers Scarlet Knights

Rutgers Scarlet Knights

Birthplace of College Football

But yet they still suck 

Perhaps an assessment of how…

Perhaps an assessment of how key rivals are adjusting their schemes and personnel to address Michigan’s success. What lessons are they going to be taking away from Illinois and TCU? 

If a tree falls in the…

If a quarterback falls in the forest, but nobody is there to see it, would the officials still penalize Jaylen Harrell for unsportsmanlike conduct? 

This is a thread on…

This is a thread on officiating. That is why people are talking about officiating. Grow up. 

I logged in just to upvote…

I logged in just to upvote this 

My grievance is that the gif…

My grievance is that the gif’s in Seth’s last UFR did not work on my iPhone. I’m sure I wasn’t opening them properly, and I was too lazy to switch to my laptop, but I’d rather just blame it on those damn kids and their TikTok nonsense. 

Purdue? Sure, why not.

A…

Purdue? Sure, why not.

A difficult school to hate. 

Like eating oatmeal. 

Ryan Day is the bastard love…

Ryan Day is the bastard love child of John Cooper

J.J. and Juwan

left…

J.J. and Juwan

left Illinois to Go Blue

and drink their milkshake 

Illini looked fierce 

they…

Illini looked fierce 

they turned out to be a farce

they are falling fast

I had changed channels to…

I had changed channels to the game right as he got the pic. 

You’re welcome. 

It’s only fair that…


 

Bring back Hoke! 

Bring back Hoke! 

I wonder why Haskins doesn’t…

I wonder why Haskins doesn’t show up in the rushing box score. 
 

I predict that Simpson is…

I predict that Simpson is going to be a kick-ass college basketball coach some day.

I don't see what the big…

I don't see what the big deal is with De Sousa. At least he didn't do something really serious like smoke weed.       

depends

I think it depends on how you go about it. Make the reality for people who live there part of the educational experience, rather than trying to insulate them from that reality. Contribute back in some way, perhaps through participation in a community water conservation project.

There are plenty of other local issues also worthy of attention.

GOOOOooooo

BLLUUuuuuuu

Goooooo!

Bluuuuuee!

guts for brains is a thing

Intuitive knowledge can be highly rational if it comes from a place of self-awareness. OP's perspective reflects an outdated and overly simplistic understanding of emotional intelligence. A complete human being has access to both faculties and they are mutually reinforcing. That goes for Sam's gut feelings too. He has the objective knowledge but also a good feel for how high school kids behave.

Don't you mean...

runner-up to the Lifetime Achievement Award?

This

is why I love Michigan.