Michigan and Harbaugh under NCAA investigation

[Micheal]

23 hours ago, nic said:

If true, we have a bunch of hypocritical coaches in the league, but I am still skeptical of the reporting on this topic. 

 

https://apnews.com/article/michigan-sign-stealing-452b6a83bb0d0a3707f633af72fe92ac

 

 

"A former employee at a Big Ten football program said Monday it was his job to steal signs and he was given details from multiple league schools to compile a spreadsheet of play-calling signals used by Michigan last year.

The employee said he recently shared the documents, which showed the Wolverines’ signs and corresponding plays — as well as screenshots of text-message exchanges with staffers at other Big Ten schools — with Michigan. He spoke with The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he feared the disclosures could impact his coaching career.

The spreadsheet was compiled with details from a handful of coaches and programs across the Big Ten, the person said. He also said gave the details to Michigan last week because he hoped it would help Jim Harbaugh’s embattled program and he believes Harbaugh and his coaches are being unfairly blamed for the actions of a rogue staffer.

The alleged actions by conference schools potentially violate the Big Ten’s sportsmanship policy, which could lead to punishment by the commissioner’s office."

This whole thing is a mess. For all we know Michigan could have created that spreadsheet and it could be fake.

 

"These are definitely the real meanings of our signals, yep definitely." How would we prove they aren't? How do they prove they are?

[Mavric]

13 minutes ago, nic said:

Yup. That is a new rule this year. The head coach is only off the hook if the team can show proper training and continual oversight in the area of the violation...which even if Harbaugh didn't know... I doubt Michigan did that oversight. You would have to scrutinize all material used by the signal stealer 

 

Yeah, not at all a new rule this year.

 

Quote

11.1.1.1 Responsibility of Head Coach. An institution's head coach is presumed to be responsible for the actions of all institutional staff members who report, directly or indirectly, to the head coach. An institution's head coach shall promote an atmosphere of compliance within the program and shall monitor the activities of all institutional staff members involved with the program who report, directly or indirectly, to the coach. (Adopted: 4/28/05, Revised: 10/30/12, 7/16/14)

Link

[Mavric]

18 minutes ago, nic said:

That makes sense. I guess it's going to look bad one way or another. I watched the reply. It did not look like a fair catch signal  to me, but maybe just waving your arm back and forth below chest level counts.

 

It's what is termed an "invalid fair catch signal."  It's not what a fair catch signal is supposed to look like, but it's close enough that they don't want the returner to gain an advantage by making some action that the coverage team thinks it's a fair catch signal so they stop and then the returner takes off.  But it is treated like a fair catch signal for that reason.  It used to be a five yard penalty but I'm not sure if it is anymore.

[nic]

I will see if I can gather the links, but the boards and bloggers are blowing up about what is about to come out of the Michigan athletic department. This is step one. Naming names.

Summary:

Michigan has been collecting violations by other teams in the Big Ten for years. A 'break in case of emergency' if you will.

 

The claim is that Michigan brought some of these violations to the Big10 and NCAA, but nothing was done.

 

Its not just the signal stealing above. Most are pay for play pre NIL, and the most recent are paying kids to visit. Names of the kids, how much and when.

They have started leaking slowly and will go full throttle depending on the actions of the Big10. 

 

The latest conspiracy is ....that ESPN wants this to happen. Imagine a world were Michigan gets pissed and leaves. It wouldn't  be the first time. Not sure what the GOR is for Big10 teams, but I wonder if they tie into the start of new TV contracts. With the new teams coming in this is probably not a big issue, but I guess The Game would be done, and FOX might get a little peaved. MSU would have to find a new nemesis. 

 

Edit: Sorry that NU was clued into the dirty Big10. Maybe NU is one of the few clean programs.

[nic]

1 hour ago, Micheal said:

This whole thing is a mess. For all we know Michigan could have created that spreadsheet and it could be fake.

 

"These are definitely the real meanings of our signals, yep definitely." How would we prove they aren't? How do they prove they are?

It came from the guy who did the spreadsheet for ....now we know...OSU and Rutgers. Coach Schiano was at OSU before going back to Rutgers. This guy came forward to Pete Thamel (ESPN) 1.5 weeks ago, but Thamel did not report on it. Perhaps Pete found the source not credible...or this reporting is all BS. I mean the media tends to report now and let the facts fall out later.

[nic]

1 hour ago, Mavric said:

Yeah, not at all a new rule this year.

 

Well shoot me. Below is what I read on Mgo on Oct 30th. They are usually thorough. The rule was changed this off season according to them.

 

 

The big question. The NCAA changed their rules this offseason to make it harder for head coaches to dodge responsibility when their underlings break rules. The text of the change:

“NCAA Bylaw 11.1.1, “Head Coach Responsibility,” imposes a presumption of head coach accountability for impermissible acts committed by assistant coaches and administrators within their program.

Saying "I didn't know" is no longer good enough, and the punishment is now mitigatable but draconian:

If there is a Level I or II violation(s) in a sport program, the enforcement staff will charge a head coach responsibility violation at the same level as the underlying violation(s).

Connor Stalions is getting a billion-year show cause and without mitigation the NCAA can just slap that same penalty on Harbaugh. How do you mitigate?

…head coaches must rely upon a three-prong strategy: A demonstration that the coach adequately monitored the activities of employees under their supervision, actively engaged in rules education activities with employees under their supervision, and actively communicated compliance concerns and reported information that could constitute a NCAA compliance issue.

There are a bunch of individual bullet points that can be taken in a coach's favor ("Actively soliciting feedback to determine if compliance systems are functioning properly," etc.) that both links in this section list. The NCAA released a guideline about how they're going to enforce this rule:

First, enforcement will consider factors related to the coaches’ education, monitoring, and communication efforts in deciding whether an 11.1.1 violation exists, and the severity of the violation.

Second, the head coach will have the opportunity to present information to the Committee on Infractions panel demonstrating that the coach satisfied these three areas of obligations.

Finally, the Committee on Infractions Hearing Panel will consider NCAA enforcement’s allegation and the coach’s rebuttal in making its determination as to whether Bylaw 11.1.1 was violated and what the appropriate classification of the penalty should be.

Takeaway: Head coaches will need to commit significant time to not only engaging in the three areas of presumption rebuttal, but also documenting and filing those efforts. It is strongly encouraged that all Division I Head Coaches begin to coordinate the creation of a filing system documenting their efforts, if they have not already.

[nic]

One man's opinion, but it plays into my 'legal action to delay the penalties' theory

 

Michigan has received notice from the Big Ten indicating specific sign stealing allegations but it does not indicate what penalties would be administered, UM sources told 
@ActionNetworkHQ
. UM has until Wednesday to respond to Big Ten, source said. The Big Ten’s pursuit of penalties against Michigan and/or Jim Harbaugh is viewed as a “PR stunt” in response to public pressure & in light of the conference’s lack of action up to this point, source said. UM will legally fight any disciplinary actions, which potentially would block any suspensions from occurring this season, sources said

[Mavric]

 

[RedDenver]

7 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

Michigan is clearly in deep s#!t and is now going to try the old SWAC approach of ratting out everyone else. SMU got the death penalty back then - Michigan probably going to get off a whole lot easier.

[Red Five]

I don’t think what Rutgers or Ohio St did was against the rules though. They got Michigan’s signs and from watching TV and all-22 game film, not going to game sites and filming them.

 

And sharing signs between programs isn’t against the rules either.

 

He said it took him 10-12 hours per week to decode opponents’ signs off of TV copy and other film.

 

A staffer at another Big Ten school who spends time decoding opponents’ signals said the existence of such documents isn’t incriminating, noting the difference between legal sign-stealing and the elaborate in-person scouting ring Michigan is accused of operating.

 

Trading information about other teams’ signals is common practice, three current and one former Big Ten staffers said. Like Stalions, the staffers involved in decoding signals are often young and ambitious, eager to acquire information that can help them move up the ranks. For some, it’s the best way to add value as a relative nobody who isn’t allowed to coach during the game. It’s typical for those staffers to communicate with friends on other staffs and assist each other in preparing for games, a former Big Ten staffer said.

 

 

 

[Mavric]

 

 

[Mavric]

 

[nic]

so why don’t teams want headsets?
 

https://newsletters.yahoo.net/H/2/v60000018baecf39de90c17d6e96638858/cb4183be-f1a9-450c-8abf-c0e1887ce359/HTML
 

Last Friday, however, Michigan presented the Big Ten with evidence that someone on the Rutgers football staff provided Michigan’s defensive signals to Purdue in advance of the Boilermaker-Wolverine 2022 Big Ten title game. Meanwhile, someone at Ohio State handed over U of M’s offensive signals.

 

So in the Big Ten Championship Game, both teams had the other’s signals, both of which were gathered via advanced scouting. (Michigan won, 43-22.)

 

In Michigan’s case, the “advanced scouts” were Stalions’ band of iPhone-toting buddies. 

 

In Purdue’s case, the “advanced scouts” were the professional coaching staffs of two other Big Ten teams that had just played the Wolverines, and thus could battle-test the signs they stole as accurate.

 

Which would you rather have? Raw cell phone footage that still needs to be broken down, or highly experienced coaches just handing over their work?

 

Everyone would choose the Purdue option.

 

Even if Ohio State and Rutgers acquired Michigan signs via NCAA-legal game film or during game action, it doesn’t matter. Purdue didn’t do that work. The Boilermakers received stolen signs from advanced scouting. They cheated as much as Michigan.

[Mavric]

1 hour ago, nic said:

so why don’t teams want headsets?
 

https://newsletters.yahoo.net/H/2/v60000018baecf39de90c17d6e96638858/cb4183be-f1a9-450c-8abf-c0e1887ce359/HTML

 

Everyone is making quite the deal of the helmet communications - including Rhule - but I'm not sure that really changes much.  The helmet communication lets a coach talk to the QB.  But that would do nothing to change if teams are wanting to line up then look to the sideline for the coaches to adjust the play.  Unless they're going to allow speakers in every player's helmet.  But that's not how the NFL does it.

[Red Five]