"One thing it does not clarify is what the nature of the "drive" is"

This is one of the nice benefits of having your signature blog run by an engineer who has the rare gift of being a math geek who is also gifted at writing. Been enjoying your work for many years now, Brian.

So Michigan doing zero PR control…..is that because they are not allowed to comment on this while it’s ongoing? Or are we really just that inept?

How exactly does one person who was just doing the in person spying know who had access to, and used the server? I mean unless there is a list of active logged in users like some kind of phpBB internet forum.

What was Jim Harbaugh's user name *~~=Kool-Daddy-Jim=~~* ?

I'll say it again:  Warde Manuel doesn't do anything.

No, he's not running counter-PR in a PR war.  That requires doing something.
No, he's not fighting the NCAA.  That requires doing something.
No, he's not vetting hires.  That requires doing something.

We were initially enamored with Manuel's do-nothing approach because we were traumatized by a narcissistic go-getter who turned everything he touched into dung.  When the absolute best thing to do is nothing, Manuel will do nothing.  That worked for us, for a while.  But when you desperately need action and leadership, Manuel will. . . still do nothing.  Because that's all he does.

While I support Brian's narrative that Stalions is a rogue bad actor - does anyone at this site ever think to Google things?  I spent 5 minutes - so voracity is unverified which would take another 5 minutes that I don't have - but there is a Brock Stalions that has a picture with Connor on his Twitter handle and a Google search of Brock brings up that he and his family live in a $340K condo in Lake Orion and he made $100K in 2020, as an employee of the Lake Orion School District.  Not exactly a high roller.

I am shocked that there is not more attention being paid to the fact that according to the by laws this whole 'scheme' may not be illegal.  It was in fact this blog including Seth that have laid this all out.  

yes, commitcrimes.docx is hilarious but we shouldnt be taking for granted that this IS in fact against NCAA rules.  OSU and their investigation firm thinking that all of this circumstantial evidence has us dead to rights and letting it out slowly could ultimately culminate in Michigan didnt do anythign wrong.  Meanwhile we are all taking it as a foregone conclusion that we broke rules and hoping for a light punishment.  The process hasnt even started and we actually dont know how this will be ejudicated if it even is.  I am not even sure it would be right to call it a loophole. Sending people to record videos instead of coaches yes that would be a loophole.  But, the fact that the exclusion of 3rd party video was removed from the by laws, in 2013, makes this not a loop hole. its simply not an injunction on that activity. 

Here is my expert forensic analysis:

Number 75 -- checks notes -- Thayer Munford? He's getting his ass kicked because of piss poor technique and coaching.

Hutch tells him to his face that he is coming to knock him on his ass...and then he does it.

Is Hutch having the sign the reason that Munford is shying away from the block and has his weight completely overbalanced behind his feet...thus facilitating his ass kicking?

That clip has potato resolution and I can see it. The signs of poor technique are right there.

Childers and Neuheisel were refencing that osu video and saying shit like..."guilty" and "case closed".  I mean, what the fuck guys?  It's a video of Stalions next to the DC.  No proof whatsoever these signs were stolen by illegal means.  And again to all you teams out there - change your fucking signs!  It's not that hard.  

Based on the review of the bylaws, I think the only potential issue here for a technical rules violation is if Stallions sent football team interns/personnel to do the recording. I think that could technically qualify as in-person scouting (though there is a not facially absurd argument that this is simply "recording" rather than "scouting") because it is done by persons formally affiliated with the program rather than a third-party. If the only real violation turns on the fact that, instead of sending Joe Schmoe to the games to record, a few times Stallions sent an intern (probably without any appreciation for the difference), I don't really see how even the NCAA could try to turn this into a major violation, and that's true even if this went higher up than Stallions.

If there were adults in the room handling this I wouldn't be worried but it's this stapleton douche who is trying to make everything as bad as possible meanwhile Michigan just plays it all straight.

Former Ohio State OL Dawand Jones says the Buckeyes suspected that Michigan had stolen their signs and made some changes, but “couldn’t change everything.” pic.twitter.com/Md2aCT4fey

— The Silver Bulletin (@tSilverBulletin) October 25, 2023

They ain't come to play school, you know

there are a few people on this board for whom #firewarde is a raison d'etre, and it's almost always for silly, silly reasons.  hutch retiring, beilein leaving, bakich, some on-field screwing ("why isn't warde burning B1G offices to the ground over this official's terrible call" stuff).

this is literally the first time i've seen anything remotely resembling a justification.  he's the boss, he HAS TO VET EVERY SINGLE HIRE.  even if this is a giant nothing, even if it gave us no real edge, it makes us look stupid and lessens the regard for our very real accomplishments.  it just seems like this (whatever "this" is), just like the shemy fiasco, was entirely avoidable. that's what pisses me off.

If the video clip of Minter, Stalions and the Michigan sideline that’s being floated as proof that Michigan has a vast network scouting for opponent’s signals was from the phone of an Ohio State staffer (which I read on an OSU board that it’s from a staffer who gave it to a local Columbus TV station), is this proof that OSU was using illegal electronic means to spy on the Michigan sideline during an actual game?

If so, this is clearly against the NCAA bylaws. They only showed the video of that one play, but was someone filming Minter the whole game, and for what reason other than to spy and steal signs electronically while the actual game is happening? And if they say it was to prove that Michigan was stealing signs, why did they wait nearly a year to turn Michigan in? Why not do it after the loss to improve their odds of getting into the playoff if Michigan won in an unfair manner?

Warde and the Michigan Athletic Department need to start lobbing accusations at OSU. OSU likely broke the rules in plain site and no one is calling them on it. They are likely using the footage of their own breaking of the rules to accuse Michigan of breaking the rules that they are actually breaking themselves. Michigan is in the gray area, and OSU actually crossed the line.

Questions:

1.  Who was the last guy connected to Michigan to write a mutliple-100 page manifesto?  Did I see his shack at the Newseum before it closd?

2.  Has anyone read this manifesto?  Does it conclude, "Make Michigan follow Chicago's model?"

This all-encompassing document is the final clue I needed. We now know WD's real name!

Harbaugh falls on his sword.

https://twitter.com/dannykanell/status/1717508828902588810

This is starting to remind me of that scene in Broadcast News when Albert Brooks asks Holly Hunter how was it possible that William Hurt’s crying in response to the woman he was interviewing was caught on camera when there was only one camera? He says, “I’m fairly sure i was right to tell you this.” So she goes and looks at all the footage and lo and behold, there’s William Hurt conjuring up fake tears in the outtakes to make the story more juicy and him more sympathetic. All in the name of a better story.  

Warde is not helpful to much of anything let alone the Golden Goose 

Stalions appears to have been as reckless as this guy:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-air-national-guardsman-suspected-le…

Stallions seems like the ultimate Walmart Wolverine. Absolute fanatic who didn’t go to Michigan and has a creepy stalker like devotion to the team and is now going to be responsible for our downfall. 

As you’re reading coverage of this story and you see information attributed to unnamed sources, consider whether it upholds basic standards for granting anonymity. Here’s the Associated Press Stylebook entry covering anonymous sources. (Note: I attempted to recreate the formatting of the original here — my intent was not add any emphasis of my own. The AP uses bold text in body copy to links to other parts of the stylebook; I have tried to preserve that formatting here, but have not attempted to recreate those links.)

anonymous sources

Whenever possible, we pursue information on the record. When a source insists on background or off-the-record ground rules, we must adhere to a strict set of guidelines.

Under AP's rules, material from anonymous sources may be used only if:

— The material is information and not opinion or speculation, and is vital to the news report.

— The information is not available except under the conditions of anonymity imposed by the source.

— The source is reliable, and in a position to have accurate information.

Reporters who intend to use material from anonymous sources must get approval from their news managers.

Explain in the story why the source requested anonymity. And, when it's relevant, describe the source's motive for disclosing the information.

The story also must provide attribution that establishes the source's credibility; simply quoting a source is not allowed. Be as descriptive as possible about the source of information. If space is limited, use source as a last resort. Official or a similar word will often suffice, including in headlines. See source.

Examples:

Speaking on customary condition of anonymity in line with government rules, the official said the two sides were engaged "in very fierce" battles near the border crossing, and that one woman was wounded by a stray bullet.

Incorrect: Granting anonymity "on customary condition … in line with government rules" is insufficient. Readers need a plausible explanation of such a condition, and why we're accepting it. For instance, "The rules of the official's job did not allow him to be quoted by name."

A security official, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case, said the suspect was monitoring and recording the movements of tourists before his arrest in July.

Incorrect: First, we grant anonymity only to those who insist on it, not those who request it. Second, granting anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case is insufficient explanation. Did the official insist on anonymity because he was not allowed to speak with reporters? Because he was not authorized to release information in advance of a public announcement of details of the case?

Speaking privately, a senior Foreign Ministry official said any further increase in tension could strengthen "warlike" sentiment on both sides and make a resolution of the problem even more difficult.

Incorrect: Speaking privately isn't the same thing as insisting on anonymity, so we cannot use the privately explanation. Moreover, the official is speculating on something that might happen. We grant anonymity for factual information, not speculation or opinion.

Sometimes a government or corporation intentionally leaks information, but insists we publish it attributed to an anonymous official. If we cannot convince the government or company to go on the record, it's best to use a formulation that implies that the release of the information was official, even though anonymous. For instance: … according to the official, who insisted on anonymity because he was not allowed to use his own name in releasing the findings.

For additional guidance, see Statement of News Values.

The OSU complaining about sign stealing is just ridiculous.  Reminds me of a quote it heard many years ago when Freep workers went on strike it was something like "This has been a bad place to work for 25 years.". At some point it is on you to fix it.

I’m just afraid Stalions is going to be our Steve Bartman.  

Hutch flattening that guy and Sainristil taking away a sure TD are my two favorite recent plays against OSU.  Still waiting for any evidence that anything the Stallion did violated any NCAA rule.  So far just a Stapleton-created "scandal" with no actual scandal.  We stole signs. Sign stealing is legal and done by every single college football team in existence, and probably most high school teams. We are good at it.  We are also good at tackling, blocking, running, passing, coaching, and all the other skills needed for success in football.  Where is the beef?