The NCAA's rules & bylaws are on Michigan's side
Copied from Erik_in_Dayton's diary above because when I tried to access this critical information on my phone I couldn't find the Diary Section but navigating the Message Board was easy. Someone please make sure Erik's excellent interpretation of the NCAA's bylaws is known by the UM athletic department / compliance office today before their meeting. Well done Erik!
- Introduction/High-Level Takeaways
The NCAA might not be on Michigan’s side when it comes to the current allegations about sign stealing, but its rules and bylaws are. This diary is about to get long, so here are the high-level takeaways:
- There is no rule against sign stealing as such.
- The rule that forbids recording an opponent’s signals only applies to a team when it’s on a field for a game.
- A football program can hire third parties to scout future opponents in person.
- Seth and the poster who goes by Ghost of Fritz Crisler found the most important points below.
Okay, let’s go through Michigan’s supposed rules violations.
- The Rule that Categorically Prohibits Sign Stealing
There is no such rule. You can steal signs in at least some circumstances.
- Rule 1-11-h of the NCAA Football 2023 Rules Book
It says this:
Any attempt to record, either through audio or video means, any signals given by an opposing player, coach or other team personnel is prohibited.
That seems cut and dried, but it cannot be read alone. As a preliminary matter, it’s worth noting that Rule 1-11-h is part of Rule 1, which is titled The Game, Field, Players, and Equipment. Next, per Rule 1-6-b, the Rules Book—the entire thing—applies to the following:
Everyone in the team area, players, substitutes, replaced players, coaches, athletics trainers, cheerleaders, band members, mascots [!], public-address announcers, audio/video/lighting system operators, and other persons affiliated with the teams or institutions.
In case there is any confusion about what the above means by “the teams,” Rule 1-1-1-a tells us that “(t)he game shall be played between two teams of not more than 11 players each…” So, we’re talking about the two teams that are playing a given game, not all D-1 football teams everywhere. And, for the rules to apply to a person, that person must be affiliated with the teams playing the game and in the “team area.”
What is the “team area”? Rule 1-2-4-a defines it as being “(o)n each side of the field” in the back of a “limit line” (I won’t subject you to that definition) and between the 20-yard lines. The major point is that it is to the sides of a football field where the two teams play. Thus, to be subject to Rule 1-11-h, you have to be on the side of a field. People who are watching games from the stands are not that.
- 2022-2023 NCAA Division 1 Manual Bylaw 11.6.1
Okay, let’s move onto the big one. Bylaw 11.6.1 says this:
Off-campus, in-person scouting of future opponents (in the same season) is prohibited, except as provided in Bylaws 11.6.1.1 and 11.6.1.2 [these two exceptions aren’t relevant].
We don’t have the nice, clean explanation of whom the Bylaws apply to that we had in the Football Rules Book. But Article 11 of the Bylaws, of which 11.6.1 is a part, is titled Conduct and Employment of Athletics Personnel. More, in Bylaw 11.1.1, we’re told that “Institutional staff members found in violation of NCAA regulations shall be subject to disciplinary or corrective action…” Also, we have common sense to tell us that the NCAA cannot mean 11.6.1 to apply to all humans everywhere. If nothing else, the average fan does not have “future opponents.” It seems safe to say, then, that the rule applies on its face to employees of athletic departments (or schools, if you like). If you think there is ambiguity there, however, we go to our next point.
And here is where we encounter what Ghost of Fritz found and the biggest point of confusion: typically, we’d be correct to think that you cannot absolve yourself of punishment for a prohibited act by paying someone else to do it. Agency liability and criminal conspiracy charges come to mind. But that logic just doesn’t seem to apply here.
Prior to August 2013, Bylaw 11.6.1 prohibited schools from off-campus, in-person scouting of opponents for football, basketball, and women’s volleyball—but not for other sports. This was balanced out to some extent thanks to then-Bylaw 11.6.2, which said that football, basketball, and women’s volleyball enjoyed a carve-out from the following prohibition:
…a member institution shall not pay or permit the payment of expenses incurred by its athletics department staff members or representatives (including professional scouting services) to scout its opponents or individuals who represent its opponents…
In other words, you couldn’t scout an opponent in person for your football, basketball, and women’s volleyball teams, but you could pay “representatives” to scout opponents for those sports.
Then, in August 2013, the NCAA changed the rule and prohibited off-campus, in-person scouting of future opponents (in the same season) for all sports but balanced that by completely discarding the prohibition against paying for scouting. In doing so, it published the following rationale:
In the interest of simplicity and consistency, it is appropriate for one rule regarding scouting to apply to all sports. In most cases, video of future opponents is readily available either through institutional exchange, subscription to a recording/dubbing service or internet sites accessible to the general public.
There is only one reasonable interpretation of what happened in August 2013 when the rule was changed: schools could pay for scouting services for football before the rule changed and can still do so now (the rule hasn’t been amended since). It would make absolutely no sense to repeal the rule that banned payment for scouting for most non-football sports as a way of banning payment for scouting for football. The explicit rationale for the rule change also wouldn’t make sense. Accordingly, schools can pay third parties to scout opponents.
Let me say this in a different way: there is only ambiguity in 11.6.1 if you’re not convinced by its text that it only applies to school employees. And the legislative history of the rule makes clear that you should be convinced of that. As seen in 11.6.1 prior to August 2013, the NCAA knew what to say to ban third-party scouting. And, rather than applying that to football, the NCAA did away with that ban for all sports.
- The Rule Against Hiring Third Parties to Scout & Record Opponents in Person to Steal Signs
You can steal signs. You can hire third parties to scout opponents in person. You can record opponents’ signals if you’re not on a football field playing against them. There is no rule suggesting that combining these things makes them a collective rules violation.
October 26th, 2023 at 6:03 AM ^
Well the meeting with the NCAA is scheduled to happen today, right? I hope Michigan drops all of this on the table and just stares at them waiting for a response. And then appropriately provides enough proof that other schools also play the gray area game and that there’s no reason to continue pursuing this any further.
October 26th, 2023 at 6:25 AM ^
I wish they would but the doomer in me feels like Warde just wont do it that way. I don't know whos best interests Warde has in mind but it doesnt seem to be the athletic department
October 26th, 2023 at 6:46 AM ^
Michigan has a Top 5 Law School and Business School.
Start using the intelligence and savvy.
October 26th, 2023 at 8:00 AM ^
Sadly not a top 5 law school, but top 10 is still pretty good.
October 26th, 2023 at 9:29 AM ^
Doesn't need to be top anything to get this done. Just competent.
Thamel running with it the day that he and the NCAA got it from OSU is irresponsible. It would be awesome if the NCAA was forced to say "there's nothing here," and Thamel got fired. Reece, too, for that matter.
There's too much money in college football for ESPN to be able to afford for some of their talking heads to be shills for Ryan Day.
October 26th, 2023 at 9:44 AM ^
It is what they wanted to do. Responsible journalism it wasn't supposed to be.
October 26th, 2023 at 10:23 AM ^
Yellow journalism and the 20s, name a more iconic duo
October 26th, 2023 at 11:36 AM ^
"Deflategate" is all you need to know about responsible sports journalism. It doesn't exist. It's TMZ reporting now and we're just left to laugh in the faces of the whiny losers. The best thing to do is embrace the hate and keep kicking ass.
October 26th, 2023 at 11:59 AM ^
Reece has always been one of the best, but I am truly disappointed in how he is handling this.
October 26th, 2023 at 8:05 AM ^
Yep! Knew it'd get back to "Warde". Jim could Any Given Sunday shoot a kid at the 50 yard line and you all would blame it on "Warde". LOL
October 26th, 2023 at 8:36 AM ^
Why would Jim be on the field on a Sunday? Are the Raiders back in play?
October 26th, 2023 at 9:32 AM ^
Wrong movie.
October 26th, 2023 at 9:36 AM ^
Who mentioned anything about Jim? Obsessed about the coach a bit much? Warde is indeed head over the athletic department right? That's why his name gets brought up so much in circumstances like this because now is his time to shine. Unfortunately, there have been one too many instances like this where Warde seems to be no where to be found.
October 26th, 2023 at 11:49 AM ^
Just another lickspittle troll. Can’t argue the point of the OP, but can only hurl silly putty at the wall. GTFO.
October 26th, 2023 at 12:55 PM ^
That would be the Last Boy Scout!
October 26th, 2023 at 8:07 AM ^
This blog contributes great insight through diligent analyzation and research. Unfortunately, I have no faith that our Athletic Department (Warde) is doing the same.
Sometimes I think the University would be better off if they allowed MGOBLOG to provide defense and clarification for the actions of its athletic teams.
October 26th, 2023 at 9:31 AM ^
If only they made better use of their vast network...
October 26th, 2023 at 10:26 AM ^
I realize that many on this board don't like Warde Manuel for some reason and you're entitled to feel that way.
To suggest that he does not have the best interests of the Athletic Department as a whole is unfair. You might disagree with some of his actions or perceived inactions at times, but with whom do you agree 100% of the time?
In this particular post, you infer that Warde is doing nothing on behalf of the Athletic Department as it pertains to this matter, but I doubt that is the case and you don't know that to be true. As opposed to the leakers, he's making no public comment as per the guidelines. Entirely appropriate.
October 26th, 2023 at 11:51 AM ^
My intent wasn't to infer that he does nothing. However, my impression is that he does not fight vehemently to defend all of his coaches with all of the information and resources necessary. Could I be wrong? Sure.
There have been many rumors of Warde and Harbaugh not being on the same page, and I just question how "out in front of this" he is getting, regardless of whether or not he makes a public statement.
For being a random message board guy, you're awful sensitive of me having a less than favorable opinion of Warde. I didn't castrate the man, but I'm also not the only one that doesn't think he serves our AD to the highest capacity.
October 26th, 2023 at 2:20 PM ^
From harbaugh’s high school/ Ann Arbor childhood friends group I do know the following:
warde and harbaugh are at odds
Stapleton is a confidant of warde’s.
My friend in that group called him his whisperer.
He believes warde is literally an administrator afraid to step outside any lines and completely submissive to perceived authority.
Take it for what you want.
But to me that all says warde will do his job within the job description and scope of Michigan and the ncaa. So he will just let it play out and follow what the ncaa tells him unless Santa says differently. My opinion but seems to be what’s happened. That along w a whisperer in his ear potentially saying “ I told you “.
October 26th, 2023 at 3:01 PM ^
Many board posters say they agree with the idea of "Don't make a one day story into a two day story", but in reality they think scorched earth is the way to achieve that....it isn't.
October 26th, 2023 at 10:58 AM ^
In this case, Warde needs to simply shut up and let the lawyers speak and make the big decisions for him.
October 26th, 2023 at 12:07 PM ^
Warde is going to walk into the meeting hat in hand and ask how he should punish the team to resolve this scandal. There’s no dog in him
October 26th, 2023 at 12:17 PM ^
Warde needs to man up, put the big boy pants on and don't pussy foot around.
October 26th, 2023 at 7:33 AM ^
More so, have your attorney, Tom Mars, say it. Then make a specific request of them to eradicate their public image destroying leaks of these false charges and launch an investigation of rival members paying for illegal computer hacked information on University computers and the resulting defamation since it isn't in the "spirit" of fair competition.
October 26th, 2023 at 8:26 AM ^
I copied the post text and its link and pasted it to the contact form on Mars' website. Hopefully he'll see it sometime this morning.
October 26th, 2023 at 2:47 PM ^
He's pretty active on twitter, just fyi.
October 26th, 2023 at 3:33 PM ^
I thought of that. Might have gotten it to him quicker.
I actually sent him a second note that included some clarifying information from Ghost of Fritz which he thanked me for in a reply email.
It feels great knowing he's got that information.
October 26th, 2023 at 8:00 AM ^
You all are exhausting. Just let it go already.
I came here hoping for some good faith discussion and many are still talking sign stealing cheese burgers. Smh
October 26th, 2023 at 8:06 AM ^
I have a simple solution for you. Don’t click on a post titled “The NCAA's rules & bylaws are on Michigan's side”.
October 26th, 2023 at 8:32 AM ^
Yet you took the time to post above this and also with a snark. Have your coffee this morning and go for a walk.
October 26th, 2023 at 8:34 AM ^
You are a Spartan fan, based on looking at your comment history. Just a few weeks ago you were not having "good faith discussions" about Mel Tucker, and you were really really stating over and over that Brenda Tracy lied. So fuck off.
October 26th, 2023 at 9:15 AM ^
I said something a little like this below, but I said it much nicer.
October 26th, 2023 at 9:38 AM ^
But he has to click because he is obsessed with the Leaders and the Best and his team will never fit that mold because there is only ONE. Go Blue!
October 26th, 2023 at 10:12 AM ^
You need to get laid.
October 26th, 2023 at 12:20 PM ^
You are so full of shit.
October 26th, 2023 at 8:49 AM ^
Great work. Everyone the ability or access needs to do by any means necessary get this out to everyone they can. Everyone associated with the program u may have access to whether it be email or personal relationship whatever. Any half way honest member of the media. Anyone that covers UM, Wetzel and everyone at yahoo. This needs to get out there beyond just the MGO community
again great work and let’s get to work people. We may be the last hope
October 26th, 2023 at 9:15 AM ^
Seconded, awesome work. And while the two exceptions to 11.6.1 (same event and tournament games) may not apply factually, their drafting history could be relevant. Those exceptions first were only going to apply to coaches but were then extended to “institutional staff members” because it would be ridiculous to make the Director of Operations or someone like that leave an NCAA tournament session before or after their team plays. So I think it stands to reason that 11.6.1, absent saying otherwise, doesn’t go beyond “institutional staff members.” And realistically, how could it if they don’t give specific examples?
October 26th, 2023 at 9:11 AM ^
Some message board posters are saying the meeting was postponed.
October 26th, 2023 at 9:59 AM ^
I would pay ungodly amounts of money to witness that meeting in person. Hope we go full “fuck you, you have no evidence” mode.
October 26th, 2023 at 10:52 AM ^
Part of me wonders if the meeting with the NCAA is to try to figure out who gave them illegally obtained information, rather than whether Michigan might have violated a rule no one cares about. I'm sure that's just wishful thinking, though.
October 26th, 2023 at 6:08 AM ^
This is fantastic.
October 26th, 2023 at 7:40 AM ^
Technically correct - the best kind of correct.
October 26th, 2023 at 9:29 AM ^
Don't you quote regulations to me!
October 26th, 2023 at 6:11 AM ^
I don't know if this is right or not but officially I am in love with you
October 26th, 2023 at 8:56 AM ^
I don't know if it's right or wrong either, but if Michigan somehow evades punishment after all this nationwide hoopla, I would laugh my ass off
October 26th, 2023 at 9:14 AM ^
O.k, as OP Erik cites my posts from a different thread I am going to chime in on this thread too.
1. Erik's OP gets it basically correct, but there is one important point that he leaves out (more on that below).
2. Bottom Line: Nothing in current NCAA rules prohibits an institution from paying 3rd parties to record future opponent games (including sidelines).
3. The legislative history of 11.6 is important here. That history shows that the NCAA switched the way they wanted to regulate an institution studying future opponents.
Pre-2013 Rule 11.6 regulated and mostly banned (with small exceptions) paying third parties to record video of future opponents. So the pre-2013 rules regulating how institutions study future opponents took a 'do not pay 3rd parties for video recordings' approach (with narrow exceptions).
But in 2013 the NCAA repealed that version of the rule and replaced it with an entirely different regulatory approach--new Rule 11.6 which bans in-person scouting. As Erik points out, the 2013 amendment to Rule 11.6 got rid of the ban on paying 3rd parties for recordings/videos of future opponents. Thus, the 2013 to today approach to regulating how teams study opponents takes a 'do not in-person scout' approach.
5. But here is the important point that Erik does not seem to sufficiently highlight: A crucial piece of this is the fact that the NCAA rules have treated and thought of 'video/recordings' as a completely different thing than 'scouting.' The NCAA rules themselves speak of 'recording' versus 'scouting' as entirely different phenomenon.
Sooo many in the media have wrongly assumed that 'recording' and 'scouting' are just synonyms. They have essentially said 'well Rule 11.6 bans in-person scouting of future opponents and...it appears that Stalions arranged just that thing.'
No. Stalions did not arrange for 3rd parties to do in-person scouting. He instead arranged for 3rd parties to do in-person recordings of the games of future opponents. And the NCAA rules themselves treat these as very different things.
They dudes Stalions bought tickets for were NOT scouts. They were guys with iPhones recording games. They were recorders. They would not have the first clue on how to scout an opponent. And, of course, this is crucial because the NCAA got rid of its ban on paying for 3rd party recording and replaced it with a ban on in-person scouting.
So the legal fight should really center on in-person 'scouting' (prohibited) versus 3rd party 'recording' (formerly prohibited but no longer prohibited).
Keep in mind the bigger picture. The NCAA wanted to have rules on how teams study future opponents. And they wanted such rules mostly to allow lower budget programs and ADs to be able to study future opponents more or less as much and as well as the big budget ADs/programs.
Pre-2013 the NCAA, therefore, banned paying 3rd parties for game video (with limited exceptions). But starting in 2013 they got rid of that regulatory approach and switched to a different approach: ban in-person scouting.
And they even told us why they made this switch in the explanatory notes to the 2013 change: "In most cases, video of future opponents is readily available either through institutional exchange, subscription to a recording/dubbing service or internet sites accessible to the general public." In other words, by 2013 game video is cheap and everywhere, so it makes no sense to ban paying 3rd parties for it anymore. OTOH, in-person scouting can be more costly, and allowing that really could be a disadvantage for low budget ADs/programs.
October 26th, 2023 at 9:47 AM ^
If a recording falls in the woods…
October 26th, 2023 at 10:51 AM ^
One more thing...
The anti-Michigan world has been leaking to the press and Michigan's reputation has been damaged.
After the meeting with the NCAA today, Michigan needs to get its own leak operation going and get the basic gist of the legal argument that I have laid out into the media-sphere.
Leaks to journalists cannot be directly from Michigan AD personnel. But...they can come from friends of the program and friends of JH.
October 26th, 2023 at 11:05 AM ^
I totally agree on the tarnished and damaged reputation of the Michigan football program from this circus. Heads need to roll, of course not in the literal sense but you get the point. I want the people that have made this thing their personal jihad to be held accountable.