The Impermissible Scheme
The Big10 suspension document is not about the Master of Disguise moment, but leans heavily on "the impermissible scheme is proven" and our failure to deny wrongdoing.
I do not understand the "impermissible scheme" , would ask this Board to help me understand the violations.
Buying tickets for a competitors games and sending "lay" individuals to shoot cell phone video from the stands seems to comply with rules. My understanding is the NCAA has already decided the "recording is not scouting" issue, and third party video sales are legal. So unless Stallions, or other Michigan affiliated individuals went to games, I am not seeing the big issue.
I also would like your thoughts on weather OSU/Rutgers provided in person scouting services to Purdue, when they (allegedly) supplied Michigan signals and info gleaned from playing us. Should the Big10 be suspending OSU/Rutgers coaches?
November 14th, 2023 at 11:30 AM ^
I mean really, doesn't almost any violation of the rules become a Sportsmanship issue?
I'm not even sure it has to be a violation of the rules. That's how broad it is.
November 14th, 2023 at 11:39 AM ^
I think the B1G is leaning heavily on a 'totality of the circumstances' type of argument. That is, there is no smoking gun, no direct rule violation(s) supported by clear evidence - rather, every small anecdote and various evidence, when viewed together, is in contravention of the rules. Accordingly, that is why the vague, tenuous argument is being made under the apparent catchall of Agreement 10 (Sportsmanship).
I fundamentally disagree with the B1G's position and, more importantly, believe their legal arguments are very flimsy but unsettling nonetheless because there is no relevant precedent under Agreement 10.
November 14th, 2023 at 4:19 PM ^
And Michigan is arguing that the Sportsmanship clause cannot be used as a vague catchall to bootstrap unproven rules violations into punishable offenses, because that’s insane.
November 14th, 2023 at 11:42 AM ^
And when osu/purdue/etc. use another program as their "advanced scouting" intermediary, everything as ok.
No integrity of the game is compromised.
No player safety is jeopardized.
What a wonderful discovery.
November 14th, 2023 at 12:19 PM ^
I assume the reason the stadium footage has not been leaked or released is because it all shows thousands of people all doing the exact same thing: having bought a ticket to attend in person, they are standing there with their phone out, filming some of the action.
November 14th, 2023 at 12:22 PM ^
I am super interested in all this "evidence" from Stadium security cams. What does it show? How clearly does it show it? We've heard a lot of talk about what teams have, but for some reason, no one has given us an example.
I'm wondering the same. People say "There are cameras all over" but are there really? How close up of a view can they get?
November 14th, 2023 at 11:27 AM ^
Can we just not? Do we really need another new post about his nonsense that just offers opinion and no new information?
November 14th, 2023 at 11:28 AM ^
My main worry is that the sportsmanship policy of B1G is just way too broad. I worry a judge will say something along the lines of "It's a VERY broad policy, but you B1G members approved it. If you don't like how broad the policy is, YOU need to change it."
But, I'm hoping that comes in regular hearings AFTER a judge grants a PI.
November 14th, 2023 at 11:34 AM ^
Broad or not, it's being used to enforce and NCAA rule. This is still the NCAA's bailiwick.
November 14th, 2023 at 11:41 AM ^
I think they will say it isn't being used to enforce the NCAA rule. They may have used the evidence that NCAA provided, but they'll say that evidence alone is enough to deem the sportsmanship policy violated, even if NCAA rule wasn't. With this wording, I feel the commissioner could say Harbaugh gave him a dirty look and sentence him to two game suspension, all by himself, if he so chose.
Actions that are offensive to the integrity of the competition, actions that offend civility, and actions of disrespect are subject to review and are punishable in accordance with the terms of this policy. Although this policy will apply most commonly to actions that occur within or around the competitive arena, the scope of its application is intentionally left unrestricted in order to accommodate any behavior, which may occur in any setting, deemed by the Commissioner to offend the underlying objective this policy seeks to achieve.
November 14th, 2023 at 11:42 AM ^
Now that Harbaugh has been punished and the dumbasses got what they wanted, those same dumbasses are going to say the commissioner has far too broad of control and will unanimously vote to limit his ability to punish schools going forward, thus preventing anything Michigan leaks about the dumbasses past transgressions to have any ramifications on the dumbasses themselves going forward. All of this proving once again, people are dumbasses and having ethics and morals is only good for your own sense of wellbeing because everyone else is a dumbass.
November 14th, 2023 at 11:32 AM ^
I think the idea is that because the whole thing was arranged, with tickets paid for by a U of M staffer, the laymen attending the games in effect became U of M staffers -- at least as far as the rule is concerned.
November 14th, 2023 at 11:46 AM ^
I agree that that's what it really comes down to.
I think they could argue that staffers around the country pay for ESPN subscriptions. Those subscriptions in turn pay the cameramen at the games. Are the cameramen now considered staffers?
I think they should just do away with anything that even makes it sound like "sign stealing" is against the rules. It's just part of the game. If you're worried, improve your sign use policy. The game isn't all brawn.
November 14th, 2023 at 12:23 PM ^
ESPN is available to everyone for substantially similar terms.
Stalion's randos were not.
November 14th, 2023 at 12:29 PM ^
Yes, but so what? That exception isn't carved out of the bylaw prohibiting in-person scouting.
If Stalions is breaking the rule by paying someone else to video the game, so is Ryan Day(if he subscribes to ESPN)
November 14th, 2023 at 1:25 PM ^
And summarized lists of play signals compiled by other teams, given to future opponents?
November 14th, 2023 at 4:21 PM ^
I am pretty sure that if Michigan asked to join the B1G sign sharing club, they would be denied. Because it seems like the purpose of that club was to disadvantage Michigan. You know, collusion.
November 14th, 2023 at 11:34 AM ^
The M lawyers will no doubt argue that a) what Stalions did is technically not a violation because he didn’t do the scouting (except at CMU); that sign-stealing is so widespread and easy as to make it an unenforceable “unwritten rule”; and c) the rule itself was absurdly outdated because it was written in a time before iphones and widely televised games. Now ANYONE can record and view games, thus again rendering the rule moot and unenforceable.
November 14th, 2023 at 11:48 AM ^
So, looking for an MGoLawyer to chime in here, but I would think that claiming that player safety is compromised by this scheme and the fact that in-game scouting is allowed and common, would open the B1G to a lawsuit if a player gets seriously hurt. Not automatically a loss, but they have to be compromising their legal defense in the future. Maybe the ability for players to sue the system is signed away as part of the deal of actually playing though, I don't know.
November 14th, 2023 at 11:59 AM ^
One of the problems with all of this is the fog of noise that comes when you are bombarded by such an overwhelmingly, one sided narrative of negativity for so long that it becomes harder and harder to know what to believe. WE as UM fans may HATE ESPN but unfortunately for a LOT of fans that is the primary source and if you are just a casual fan and not looking too closely at this and you have Pete, Paul, Steven A, etc. YELLING at you with words like 'stolen', 'scandal', 'cheating' and linking all of that to UM then Michigan is at a MAJOR disadvantage is the realm of public perception.
Hell, even I at times start to wonder...hmmm, maybe UM is wrong, maybe they should they accept some responsibility, maybe a little suspension of JH..before I snap out of it :) and think the rogue dude was fired...and there is no way what he was doing was worse than what OSU, RU and Purdue did with UM's signs.
The damage all of this noise has, and is doing to the value of UM's reputation should in itself be grounds for a lawsuit.
November 14th, 2023 at 11:59 AM ^
When Petitit refers to an "impermissible scheme" he is saying that Michigan violated NCAA Rule 11.6 (prohibition in in-person scouting). Violation of an NCAA rule is the thing that makes it "impermissible."
See my Diary above for more details... It is all covered there....
November 14th, 2023 at 12:03 PM ^
The NCAA isn't even sure its a violation yet. Definite grey area that I'm sure they know other schools also take advantage of.
November 14th, 2023 at 12:30 PM ^
Right, which is why Petitti adjudicating it to be an NCAA violation is bonkers....and contrary to Big Ten Handbook Rule 32. Again, see my Diary post on this.
November 14th, 2023 at 12:02 PM ^
This was 100% about setting a narrative. ITs been achieved, the mouth breather fans who can't think for themselves will forever label Michigan and Harbaugh as cheaters.
So next year when 20 Michigan players are off to the NFL and we face our most brutal schedule in decades with a ceiling of probably 8-4 or 9-3 they all gleefully scream "sseeeee we told you"
November 14th, 2023 at 12:08 PM ^
Yes, because that violations actually in the bylaws. With Connor, it doesn’t appear. He violated the bylaws unless they can prove he was at that game in person and that he did something with a trail indicating we knew about it or he did anything with it. How would we know that if he did it on his own?
November 14th, 2023 at 12:10 PM ^
Adam Carolla has a bit about the moment in movies where some referee gets out the rulebook, flips back and forth and says "Well, there's no rule that says a dog can't play football." Carolla's point is that you don't need a rule to say that a dog can't play football.
In this case, you have someone on staff who is buying tickets for people and maybe giving them some money on top of that to go to games and scout the other team.
I love Michigan and I think the B1G suspension is BS, but I can see someone concluding that a Michigan paying people to scout games in person constitutes "in-person scouting" by Michigan.
The B1G has it a little easier than the NCAA - they just have to find that the vast network is a violation of "sportsmanship" and they can impose penalties, and sportsmanship can mean whatever they want it to mean.
November 14th, 2023 at 12:14 PM ^
The letter's usage of "impermissible scheme" is an example of the fallacy of begging the question. The NCAA has not delivered its determination on this, which would come in the form of a notice of allegations to Michigan.
November 14th, 2023 at 12:16 PM ^
From the upcoming musical "Man of La Michigan"
To scheme the impermissible scheme
To fight the unfightable foe
To bear with unbearable sorrow
And to tape the where normal guys dare not go
To right the unrightable wrong
And to film enemies from afar
Hold the phone when your arms are too weary
To steal the unstealable sign
This is my quest!
To pilfer that sign
No matter how little
It helps cover the line
OK this is dumb, I'm stopping now.
November 14th, 2023 at 12:19 PM ^
When I finally come to power matters like this will be settled via cage match between the parties, in this case Harbaugh v Pettiti.
November 14th, 2023 at 12:35 PM ^
Normally, I’d put money on Harbaugh in a cage fight, but I’m married to a Sicilian and if that’s Petitti’s ethnicity (or if he’s Calabrese) I’m taking Petitti 3:1.
November 14th, 2023 at 12:22 PM ^
Non lawyer opinion here, but I think one of the issues with the B1G's case is that the scheme has yet to be determined as impermissible. My comment from the Official B1G Statement Announcing Suspension thread:
Tony refers to the Wyld Stallions’ actions as an “impermissible scheme” forty times in his notice. He even tries to put those words in the mouth of the NCAA in section I.E.:
E. The NCAA Provides Its Evidentiary Conclusions to the University and the Conference About the Scheme
On November 2, a senior Conference staff member and I participated in a call with NCAA President Baker, other senior NCAA staff members, and the University’s Athletic Director, General Counsel, and outside counsel. During that call, the NCAA informed the Conference and the University that, based on its investigation and the evidence it had collected, the NCAA “knew and could prove” the following:
- the staff member participated in and coordinated a vast off campus, in-person advance scouting scheme involving a network of individuals;
- he purchased and forwarded tickets for games involving future University football opponents, and the tickets were for seats strategically located for stealing the future opponents’ signs;
- he and others acting at his direction video recorded signs used by future University opponents while attending the opponents’ games in person;
- information, including videos of future opponents’ signs, was delivered back to the staff member by those who had attended the games and taken the videos at his direction; and
- during the time in question, including through the University’s seventh game of the 2023 season, the staff member was present on the University’s sidelines, dressed similarly to University coaches, in close proximity to University coaches, and he communicated directly with such coaches.
In light of this information, the NCAA informed the University and me that the existence of the impermissible scheme by this University football staff member was “uncontroverted.” The NCAA indicated that it was continuing its investigation to determine, among other things, who else knew about and/or was involved in the scheme
Notice what is absent in the bullet points about what the NCAA “knew and could prove”?
The NCAA definitively calling the actions of the Wyld Stallions impermissible.
November 14th, 2023 at 12:57 PM ^
Of the five bullets included 4.5 of them are utterly immaterial and really begs the question, does Pettiti understand that decoding signs is 100% legal and an accepted part of the game? There is zero line drawn anywhere connecting the in-person scouting prohibition being in place to prevent decoding signs. This reeks of a small man in a big suit ruling on vibes of rival, competing programs (lol, jk on the competing part for 11/14ths of the B1G).
November 14th, 2023 at 12:28 PM ^
It's going to be the case that there's a long, ugly, and unpleasant discussion on what the letter of 11.6.1 says vs how it's clearly been applied.
11.6.1 says the activity of "In person scouting of future opponents" is banned.
There's no carveout for how you go about it; it's not allowed by the letter of the rule.
So, the fact that coaches think it's okay to get other coaches on other programs to do this for them is a matter of established practice but it's not explicitly allowed anywhere I can find in NCAA bylaws. It's probably technically against the rules but nobody wants to enforce breaking up an old boys' club, so they don't. But it's not materially different, and not any less against the letter of the rule, than what Stalions did.
November 14th, 2023 at 12:43 PM ^
The argument that "in person" means both in-person and not-in-person (given that Stalions was arranging for filming when he was not in person) means an assumption that the words "in person" are not effective in this rule.
Watching video is not "in person scouting" even if the video was taken by a person "in person."
The prohibition is on coaches and staff. The NCAA lacks the authority to ban the taking of video by the general public.
November 14th, 2023 at 1:36 PM ^
There is a carve out though, specifically mention earlier in that section regarding the use of "third party services".
November 14th, 2023 at 12:29 PM ^
I sent the B10 compliance department an email requesting permission to attend a game but I have not heard back...
Dear Tony and Gil,
I’m a Michigan alum living in Ohio and I have an opportunity to attend the Ohio St v Minnesota football game.
I want to be sure it is ok if I take pictures during my visit and that I can share my game observations on my Michigan fan board.
I would like to gather conference approval prior to my attendance as I understand that my insights could provide my alma mater with an insurmountable advantage in The Game (M/tOSU)
Thank you for your prompt attention
November 14th, 2023 at 12:29 PM ^
Michigan stadium has a policy against any video recording.
https://mgoblue.com/sports/2022/8/23/michigan-stadium-football-information
So does Ford field, Ohio Stadium, and probably every stadium in the country.
While no institution would enforce this policy against personal cell phone use, as they are ubiquitous and there is no general right to privacy at a public event, they would absolutely enforce against various unauthorized commercial uses. I doubt they would come after Stalion's minions in this specific case, but "they are allowed to record" is not true.
November 14th, 2023 at 1:40 PM ^
That is the individual institution policy - not fundamentally different than a museum asking for no photography inside their building. If you violate it, you will be asked to leave... but no laws are being broken (or rules for any organization to which that museum belongs).
November 14th, 2023 at 12:42 PM ^
Harbaugh bad. He cheated!!!!! Rules are rules. That's the argument.
November 14th, 2023 at 12:51 PM ^
Has been addressed many times.
We assume NCAA will interpret their rule to mean that Stalions vast network is Michigan affiliate, and that Rutgers is not Purdue scout. The Big Ten already has.
"They haz dum reading of rulez and inkonsistancies"
Yes.
November 14th, 2023 at 1:02 PM ^
I've been thinking about this more (I'm a sports/RE attorney, but certainly no litigator) and the whole basis of the rule was to provide a level playing field for teams in terms of the spending for off site scouting. So, when the BIG went to punish Michigan as an institution, the appropriate penalty (if anything at was permissible at that point) would have been a fine, not a suspension.
November 14th, 2023 at 3:11 PM ^
Respectfully, I think "selling" a third party video is illegal.
The NCAA guideline - as I've seen it, and - it's aged (going to the 90's, I think) - is to create a level playing field. So, teams can acquire third party captured video for the cost of postage. Teams cannot PURCHASE a video from a third party.
Regarding Rutgers / OSU providing information / video / signs to Purdue in advance of the B1G CCG - this is an interesting question. I don't think it would be "advanced scouting" if the only video images shared were of the games where they played Michigan. Specifically, Michigan at Rutgers on November 5th, and Michigan at Ohio State on November 26th. However, if there was any "other" video - OR - if there was an analysis of the video of those games - it does seem to cross the line from video recording to "Scouting". Doesn't it?
November 14th, 2023 at 3:30 PM ^
Respectfully, I think "selling" a third party video is illegal.
The NCAA guideline - as I've seen it, and - it's aged (going to the 90's, I think) - is to create a level playing field. So, teams can acquire third party captured video for the cost of postage. Teams cannot PURCHASE a video from a third party.
I'm not recalling the exact language in the NCAA rules. But all the teams subscribe to whatever service provides the all-22 films, which I thought was permitted under whatever purchase of third-party video rule the OP is referencing.
Whether or not the NCAA rule clearly would cover what Stalions was doing--or even could be finessed into covering it--I don't know.
Also, Rutgers and OSU did not provide video to Purdue. NCAA rules prevent them from making recordings during the games in which they play. The signs provided by Rutgers/OSU to Purdue were presumably decoded and captured in their November games without the use of video.
The OP's point is that the Rutgers/OSU coaches, in effect, acted as advance in-person scouts for Purdue. NCAA rules prevent advance in-person scouting.
In other words, what Stalions did was permissible and what Purdue did was in violation of NCAA rules (although OP suggests OSU/Rutgers violated the rule).
November 14th, 2023 at 3:38 PM ^
Yup. We've all been saying this for weeks. The PR campaign worked. "Sign stealing", "cheating" verbage is the only thing they are listening to
November 14th, 2023 at 4:06 PM ^
I took a quick look at the Michigan v PSU game from last season. At halftime, Michigan led 16-14.
Two data points from the box score caught my attention.
- Donovan Edwards - 16 carries, 173 yards
- Blake Corum - 28 carries, 166 yards
Are these numbers because of play calling - or "lack of tackling"?
Or, maybe as Peter Quill (aka "Star-Lord") from Guardians of the Galaxy stated - "A bit of both."