Thanks to Raj, who OCRed the Michigan response to the Big Ten after Dan Wetzel posted it on twitter.

-----------------------------

November 8, 2023

VIA EMAIL

Chad Hawley
Senior Vice President, Policy and Compliance
Big Ten Conference
5440 Park Place
Rosemont, IL 60018

Dear Chad,

This letter responds to your November 4, 2023 email regarding the Big Ten Conference's investigation of the University of Michigan football program under the Conference's Sportsmanship Policy (Agreement 10).

At the outset, let me assure you that the entire Michigan community, including the University President, Board of Regents, Vice President & General Counsel, football coaching staff, and I, are treating the allegations about our football program with the utmost seriousness. We are fully cooperating with the NCAA investigation-which enforcement staff indicated is due to be completed tltis fall-and we are committed to accepting responsibility for what the evidence ultimately shows. Michigan remains dedicated to follo,ving all rules of the NCAA and the Big Ten Conference, and stands firmly behind the Conference's Sportsmanship Policy. Agreement 10.1.3 requires the Commissioner to presume Michigan's commitment to sportsmanship in applying the policy, and on behalf of the entire university I unreservedly reiterate that commitment to you today.

As explained below, however, any disciplinary action in this matter at this time is procedurally improper, premature, and unwarranted. But I also must emphasize that the NCAA investigation is ongoing and we have not yet had an opportunity to review almost any of the evidence or to meaningfully respond. And NCAA rules limit Michigan's ability to conduct its own investigation. See, e.g., NCAA Bylaws 19.21, 19.6.1; Enforcement IOP 1-1; COI IOP 4-12-1. Our ability to state our position at this time is therefore inherently limited, and Michigan reserves the right to make additional statements of position as the investigation develops.

[After THE JUMP: lawyerin']

I. Disciplinary Action at This Stage Is Procedurally Improper

Disciplinary action premised on unadjudicated rule violations is a breach of the Big Ten Conference Handbook. And any disciplinary action against Coach Jim Harbaugh on this record would exceed the Commissioner's authority under the Sportsmanship Policy and be factually unwarranted on the current record.

A. Unadjudicated Rule Violations Cannot Be the Basis for a Sportsmanship Action

The Conference Handbook provides critical procedural protections for adjudicating alleged violations of NCAA and Conference rules. Where a Sportsmanship Policy violation is expressly founded on alleged rule-breaking of Conference or NCAA regulations, the Commissioner cannot make an end-run around these protections by redefining the as-yet unproven rules violations as violations of sportsmanship. Allowing such a procedure-in essence, granting the Commissioner unilateral authority to punish all rules violations without due process-would breach the Handbook and gut the procedural protections that all institutions in the Conference and their many constituents rely on. And as precedent reveals, that is simply not what the Sportsmanship Policy is for.

Handbook Rule 32 provides extensive procedural protections for institutions and their constituents when they are alleged to have violated NCAA or Conference rules. First, the Commissioner or representative must perform an initial investigation and determine "whether there is reason to believe a violation has occurred." Rule 32.2.2.A. If that determination is made, the Commissioner must route a "request through the Faculty Representative that t.he involved member university provide the Commissioner with all information which the involved member has which is or may be relevant to the investigation." Id. The investigation continues from there, with appropriate opportunities for the
institution to self-disclose.

Importantly, a "guiding principle throughout the enforcement process shall be that a case, whether major or secondary, shall be administered primarily by either the Big Ten or NCAA," because it is the ''policy of [the Conference's enforcement] program to avoid duplication (and] increase consistency." Rule 6.03.C (emphasis added). In complex cases like this one, the NCAA is often "the preferred organization to determine the facts and penalty" "because of its superior resources and experience." Id. For that reason, when a case has been initiated by the NCAA, the Handbook contemplates that "the Conference will cooperate with university and NCAA representatives in the processing of that case through the normal NCAA investigation, hearing and appeal processes." Rule 32.2.2.C.1. "While the case will be processed through normal NCAA channels, the Conference Compliance and Reinstatement Committee shall review the case and may impose additional penalties, if warranted, subsequent to the NCAA action." Rule 32.2.2.C.2. Thus, the usual process when there is a pending NCAA investigation is for the Conference to "cooperate" with the NCAA investigation while "the case [is) processed through normal NCAA channels," and to impose any additional punishment "subsequent to the NCAA action" -not to conduct a parallel investigation. Rule 32.2.2.C.1.,2. That procedure makes sense, since parallel investigations may interfere with each other and parallel disciplinary processes may reach opposite conclusions, undermining the legitimacy of both. Any decision to impose punishment before the NCA.A investigation and remedial action has concluded would flout these aspects of Conference policy and the values and protections they enshrine.

But even assuming that the Conference can and should initiate its own, parallel investigation of this matter, the Handbook provides respondents with significant procedural protections before they can be held accountable for rules violations. Rule 32 provides escalating procedural protections depending on the nature of the investigation and infraction. Informal inquiries require "a letter of inquiry regarding the possibility of secondary infractions of Conference or NCAA rules." Rule 32.2.2.D.1. Preliminary inquiries require "written or in-person inquiries regarding the possibility of major infractions of NCAA or Conference rules," with appropriate notice to university officials. Rule 32.2.2.D.2. Official inquiries require "a written document outlining major allegations of NCAA and/or Conference rules [violations}." Rule 322.2.D.3. And prior to either a preliminary or official inquiry for a major violation, the "Compliance and Reinstatement Committee" -not merely the Commissioner-must "determine if a 'reasonable basis' exists to believe that a major violation may have occurred," again with appropriate notice to interested parties. Rule 322.2.D.4.

The Commissioner must also provide a Commissioner's Report to the Chair of the Compliance and Reinstatement Committee, including a summary of the allegations, relevant rules, involved sports, and other information. Rule 32.4. The Compliance and Reinstatement Committee is tasked with "recommending and imposing penalties" for rules violations "when appropriate." Rule4.4.2.1.C.2; see also Rule 6.02. The Committee's punishment decision is then communicated by the Commissioner or another Conference designee to the Faculty Representative of the involved member university. Rule 3210.2.A. The Faculty Representative must in tum provide notice of appeal to the Conference within ten days. Id. An appeal may stay the effects of a punishment. Rule 19.5.A.

The Handbook then provides an extensive appeal process involving a notice of appeal, responses from affected institutions, documentary submissions, and a hearing at which parties have the right to make oral presentations to the Joint Group Appeals Committee OGAC). See Rule 32.10. JGAC members, faculty representatives, the Commissioner or designee, the Conference General Counsel, and any others whose presence is requested may participate, and JGAC members then deliberate and determine whether to "set aside, modify, remand, or reverse" the decision made by the Compliance and Reinstatement Committee. Rules 32.10.7, 32.10.10. Penalties are governed by an express rule. See Rule 19.

Your email expressly premises the Sportsmanship Policy investigation on alleged violations of NCAA and Conference rules. Specifically, your basis for a potential offensive action is alleged violations of NCAA Bylaw 11.6.1, Football Rule 1-4-11-h, and Football Game Management Manual Section 14.A. But Michigan and any involved individuals are entitled to nil of the Conference Handbook's protections to determine whether such violations were committed in the first place. Until violations have been determined under the NCAA's interpretive and/or infractions process, or Rule 32's provisions, the allegations of rule breaking are unproven.

To state the obvious, none of these procedural protections has been followed in this case, from the initial vote by the Compliance and Reinstatement Committee finding a reasonable basis for a major violation, to the extensive appeals process guaranteed to institutions and their constituents. All of the rules violations that underlie your email are therefore unproven.

Instead of undertaking the prescribed process for investigating and proving the rules violations on which you expressly base the asserted offensive action, your email appears to claim that the Conference can ignore all of these protections simply by bootstrapping unproven rules violations through the Sportsmanship Policy. That result breaches the Handbook. Nothing in Agreement 10 gives the Commissioner the authority to find rules violations without resort to Rule 32's procedural protections. Where, as here, you have expressly and specifically premised a potential offensive action on violations of the rules, those predicate violations must be adjudicated as provided for by the Handbook.

That result makes particular sense in light of the Sportsmanship Policy's purpose and traditional use. Conference precedent confirms that the Sportsmanship Policy generally addresses behavior that does not fit squarely into a technical rule violation or to cover the multitude of situations for which it would be impossible to create a clear rule. Agreement 10.3.4 requires the Conference to perform an annual review of Sportsmanship Policy investigations. We have reviewed the last three years' worth of sportsmanship investigations, and they invariably involve offenses such as disparaging public comments regarding officiating, postgame insults, profane language directed at officials, taunting, aggressive actions toward opponents, referees inappropriately addressing players, using a racial slur, scuffles between players, disrespectful social media posts, and obscene gestures. Unlike violations of clearly defined rules, those are the sort of infractions for which a highly discretionary adjudicatory system such as the Sportsmanship Policy makes sense. We are not aware of a single instance in which the Sportsmanship Policy has ever been deployed as a backdoor way of holding an institution or individual responsible for a rule violation that has not been established in accordance with Rule 32 protections. Precedent refutes that the Commissioner can grant to himself the unreviewable power to punish rules violations and bypass the normal process. Claiming that power would breach the Handbook and establish an indefensible precedent.

B. The Commissioner Lacks Authority to Punish Coach Harbaugh Under the Sportsmanship Policy

The Commissioner also lacks authority under Agreement 10 to punish Coach Harbaugh. Imposing disciplinary action would be a clear breach of the Handbook.

The Sportsmanship Policy authorizes the Commissioner to impose disciplinary action on only two, specifically delineated categories of respondents: First, the Commissioner may "h[o]ld individually accountable" a person associated with an institution "if [that person is] found to have committed an offensive action." Agreement 10.1.1 (emphasis added). Second, the Commissioner may "h[o]ld accountable" an "institution" that is "responsible for" the person who committed an offensive action. Id.

That's it. Coach Harbaugh fits in neither category. He is not an "institution" as defined by the Handbook, and there is no reasonable view of either the language of Agreement 10 or the known facts that suggest that Coach Harbaugh himself" committed an offensive action." The Commissioner therefore lacks any authority under the Sportsmanship Policy to impose disciplinary action upon Coach Harbaugh.

Nothing in your email suggests there is any basis to conclude that Coach Harbaugh "committed an offensive action." Your email instead claims that the Commissioner has the power under the Sportsmanship Policy to punish Coach Harbaugh under the NCAA's head coach responsibility bylaw, but that is incorrect. First, as you conceded in our November 3 conversation, the Conference rules do not include a concept of head coach responsibility. And we are not aware of any precedent in which the Sportsmanship Policy has been applied to hold a head coach responsible for the acts of any other person. Rather, if the Conference wishes to enforce an NCAA bylaw such as the head coach responsibility bylaw, it must take that action through the procedural protections of Rule 32. Nothing in Agreement 10 allows independent Conference enforcement of Bylaw 11.1.1.1 or any other rule.

Any other result would be irreconcilable with the language of Agreement 10 and the Handbook. The Sportsmanship Policy expressly identifies only two categories of people who can be "held accountable" under that policy. Agreement 10.1.1. The first is an "institution" that is "responsible for" the actions of its associates; and the second is someone "held individually responsible if found to have committed an offensive action." Id. (emphasis added). It is irrelevant for purposes of the Sportsmanship Policy whether Coach Harbaugh is, under the NCAA rules, "responsible for the ... actions" of his reports, NCAA Bylaw 11.1.1.1; the only respondent who can be held "responsible for" another's actions under Agreement 10 (rather than Rule 32) is the "institution." Agreement 10.1.1.

II. Disciplinary Action Is Premature

Even if disciplinary action were permissible at this stage-which it is not-such action would be unjustifiably premature. There is no reason to shortcut a full investigation in favor of summary punishment.

The Conference Handbook entitles Michigan to due process, a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations, and an impartial decisionmaker. There remain significant factual questions, as well as disputes about the application of the rules. Those outstanding issues are material to whether an offensive action occurred, the nature and gravity of any offensive action, and the proper scope of any disciplinary punishment. We are aware of no justification that would permit the Conference to ignore these outstanding issues and impose an immediate sanction. Your email troublingly asserts that disciplinary action is being based on "evidence available at the moment," and reserves the right to take "further action in the future" based on "other evidence" that may arise. But Agreement 10 envisions the imposition of disciplinary action at the end of an investigation, see Agreement 10.3.1, not in piecemeal fashion as the investigation develops.

Indeed, we are concerned that the rush to punish Michigan before the facts have been determined and the rules carefully applied by the NCAA or the Conference's Rule 32 process suggests that this action is more about reacting to pressure from the public and other Conference members rather than a desire to fairly and impartially apply the rules. We are aware of no evidence or allegation that violations are continuing or that there is any ongoing harm that requires immediate corrective measures. Your email provides no explanation for why the Conference thinks it must impose disciplinary action without waiting for a full investigation and adjudication of rules violations. The Commissioner is required to wait until the facts have been fully determined and the rules applied. Any other procedure violates Michigan's due process and other rights under the Handbook. Indeed, any rush to judgment or collective punishment here, particularly at this late stage of the season, fails to take account of the interests of our student-athletes who have poured their hearts into the program and deserve a fair and thorough process. That is unacceptable.

The scope of unknown or disputed facts demonstrates why disciplinary action at this stage is premature. For example, at this stage of the investigation there remain major outstanding questions about the scope of Connor Stalions's "scheme" (to use your word). As far as we are aware, there is no current evidence suggesting that Michigan coaching staff knew about or participated in the alleged offensive conduct. Coach Harbaugh has denied any knowledge of Stalions's conduct. And Stalions himself, through counsel, has publicly stated that no one on the coaching staff asked him to break any rule or was aware of improper conduct. Stalions has not been interviewed, nor has any member of the coaching staff.  Such interviews and other evidence are critical to understanding not only who else, if anyone, was involved, but the nature and effect, if any, of Stalions's conduct on the integrity of the competition. It defies reason to impose sanctions before the most fundamental aspects of the investigation have been completed.

There are also significant disputes about the application of the rules to the alleged conduct. Those disputes require careful attention and many will likely be adjudicated in the course of the NCAA action. For example, your email cites NCAA Bylaw 11.6.1. But that bylaw bars only "in-person scouting" by "Athletics Personnel." See id.; id. art. 11. Although Stalions himself may qualify as athletics personnel, for much of the conduct your email describes, there is no evidence that the in-person scouting was committed by" Athletics Personnel." You also cite section 1-4-11-h of the NCAA Football Rulebook, which bars "[a)ny attempt to record, either through audio or video means, any signals given by an opposing player, coach or other team personnel." But that rule plainly applies to field equipment deployed during games in which the institution participates-and simply does not apply to any of Stalions's alleged conduct, allegedly on behalf of a team not involved in the contest. To the extent that you are also seeking to impose disciplinary action based on the head coach responsibility rule (which is procedurally improper at any rate under the Sportsmanship Policy), that rule has recently changed-meaning that different head coach responsibility standards would apply to different conduct depending on when the conduct occurred. You do not appear to have considered that issue at all. We are continuing to review the relevant rules and regulations, but disputes about the application of the rules to these facts suggest that immediate adjudication is improper and imprudent.

The state of the evidence, particularly given Michigan's current inability to evaluate and respond to the evidence, also makes disciplinary action premature. We have not seen or been provided virtually any of the evidence on which you purport to rely in your email. We also have not seen any of the videos allegedly taken for scouting purposes-and as far as we can glean from your email, you have not seen them either. The only evidence you have provided us is: (1) records of Stalions's ticket purchases and transfers, and those tickets' usage at games; (2) one unsolicited tip by an unidentified person who claims to have seen someone filming the sidelines at a game, though we are not able to identify either the tipster or the person they claim was filming the sidelines, or confirm any connection to Stalions; (3) a link to a public article that includes a now-deleted video, which we have not seen, of Stallons on the sidelines of a Michigan game, and (4) a short video titled "UMass vs PSU video" that does not clearly show anything at all. The evidence you have actually provided to us is insufficient to prove the violations you allege, much less to allow Michigan to dispute particular points of fact or offer mitigation. Deciding whether to impose sanctions, on whom, and how severe requires an opportunity to actually contest or explain the evidence, which we have not seen.

Instead of evidence, your email relies overwhelmingly on summaries and descriptions of evidence that you yourself are receiving second- or third-hand. But descriptions of evidence by NCAA enforcement staff or other unidentified persons are not evidence within the meaning of the Handbook, and therefore should not be considered. The usual standard for evidence is "testimony, documents, and tangible objects." Black's Law Dictionary, Evidence (11th ed. 2019); United Stales v. Bray, 139 F.3d 1104, 1112 (6th Cir. 1998) (narratives are not "independent evidence of [their] subject matter"); Ninth Cir. Civil Pattern Instructions 1.10(1) (2017) ("[S]tatements by lawyers are not evidence."); id. 2.14 ("[S)umrnaries are only as good as the underlying evidence that supports them."). From what we can tell, your email largely relies on rumor. We are not in a position to evaluate, much less refute or explain, such information.

Your email also makes argumentative assertions that we have no way to evaluate, verify, or respond to, such as unsourced reports about what Stalions instructed others to do, characterizations of video recordings taken by those connected with Stalions that we have not seen, characterizations of purported surveillance footage of an individual "recording the opposing sideline" that the Conference itself apparently has not seen but was simply told "exists," and photos and videos that you describe as in the "public domain" (but have not supplied) supposedly showing Stalions "adjacent to and communicating with coaches during games." We are not in a position to respond to these assertions and characterizations because we have been provided no access to the underlying material. Remarkably, it appears that the Conference itself is relying on recorded evidence that even the Conference has not seen.

Finally, your email also describes at great length purported evidence-that you do not supply-that is perfectly consistent with a benign explanation. You discuss at great length photos and videos that show Stalions "adjacent to and communicating with coaches during games," a photo (that you have not sent us) in which you claim Stalions was "looking intently in the direction of the opposing sideline" during a Michigan game, video of Stalions "watching the opposing sideline" during a Michigan game and then "gesturing to the Michigan defense in reaction," and "video" of Stalions "standing shoulder to shoulder with defensive coordinator Jesse Minter and talking to him while intently watching what was happening on the field and/ or on the TCU sideline." We have no way to evaluate whether you are accurately characterizing these photos and videos or to provide alternative explanations. But more fundamentally, even as you describe them, none of this is evidence of wrongdoing. That Stalions was present on the sidelines of Michigan games, or speaking to coaches, or looking at the field, or looking at the opponent, is utterly meaningless. Without investigating the circumstances of each incident, there is no way to know what Stalions was focused on, what he said to those around him, and whether these incidents had anything to do with the allegations of in-person scouting or decoding opponents' signals. Surely a genuine investigation is required before the Conference relies on these materials to find a rules violation. Indeed, the Conference's willingness to impute nefarious meaning to these materials strongly suggests prejudgment and bias. The process of enforcing the Sportsmanship Policy should rest on facts and evidence, not innuendo and speculation.

We are aware of no legitimate consideration that justifies the Conference's apparent willingness to dispense with a serious and thorough investigation or to refuse to permit Michigan a fair opportunity to learn the facts, discover the evidence, and defend itself. The Sportsmanship Policy is founded on principles of integrity, honor, and fair play. The application of that policy must be conducted in accordance with those principles.

III. Disciplinary Action at This Time Would Be Highly Disproportionate Given the Broader Regulatory Context of the Case

Disciplinary action at this time would be highly disproportionate. The only person at Michigan known to be implicated by the alleged conduct, Connor Stalions, was suspended by Michigan shortly after the allegations arose. He has since resigned in the face of an ongoing disciplinary process, and at the moment there is neither evidence nor allegation that any member of the Michigan coaching staff knew about, directed, sanctioned, or participated in Stalions's actions. We are not aware of any evidence or allegations suggesting that violations are ongoing now that Stalions is no longer part of the football program, or that there are any other circumstances of ongoing or irreparable harm requiring or justifying immediate or interim sanctions. Absent such evidence, there is no discernible reason for cutting short an investigation or refusing to provide due process. Michigan takes the allegations about Stalions's conduct very seriously, is fully cooperating with the NCAA's fast-moving investigation, and will accept responsibility for what a full investigation will fairly show. Michigan will also continue to improve its efforts to ensure that all members of the Michigan community understand and follow all relevant rules and bylaws. Michigan and the Conference are aligned on those matters.

Michigan also urges the Conference to consider the allegations against Stalions in the full context of what the rules do and do not permit, as well as the changing norms in the college football community.

Although much of the public attention related to Stalions focuses on alleged "sign stealing," as you know the actual prohibition at issue here is in-person scouting. Sign stealing, which can also be less pejoratively described as decoding opponents' play signals, is not only perfectly legal under NCAA and Conference rules, but it is standard practice, and by itself is not a basis for either a rules or sportsmanship violation. Scouting the opponent is likewise generally legal, and standard practice. Reviewing video footage of opponents' games-including publicly available sideline footage and all-22 footage showing the sidelines-is legal, and standard practice. Stalions' s alleged conduct, if proven, may have in part violated a remaining, narrow prohibition on in-person scouting of certain games not subject to an exception. But tellingly, the NCAA considered entirely eliminating that prohibition as recently as two years ago. The NCAA's Modernization of the Rules Subcommittee concluded the rule "no longer serve[s] the needs of the membership" and that in-person scouting gives only a "minimal competitive advantage" because an enormous amount of game footage is "readily available." Division I Proposal 2021-32, available at https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/proposa1View?id=106069.

Whether or not the Conference supports reform to this rule in the future, the available evidence suggests that the Subcommittee's evaluation of the effect of the rule was accurate. Over the last few years, Michigan has repeatedly become aware that other Conference teams have extensively decoded its signals, although Michigan does not always know the exact methods employed. For example, Exhibit 1 is a document sent from a former coach at Ohio State to a former coach at Michigan, which shows that Ohio State had extensively decoded Michigan's defensive coordinator's signals, apparently based on broadcast footage. The ability to fully decode opponents' signals based on broadcast footage suggests, contrary to your email's assumption, that there is no reason to think that Stalions' s attempts to gain additional sideline footage meaningfully improved signal decoding from what was publicly available. Indeed, signal decoding is so common that teams consistently deploy countermeasures, such as changing up their signals or using dummy signers, that would frustrate signal decoding whether performed via in-person scouting or based on broadcast footage.

Moreover, the Conference should act cautiously when setting precedent given the reality that in-person scouting, collusion among opponents, and other questionable practices may well be far more prevalent than believed. Recent reporting in the Associated Press suggests that, according to a former employee of a Conference member, various Conference members have been "colluding to steal signs" from opponents, including Michigan. Larry Lage, Ex-college football staffer shared docs with Michigan, showing Big Ten team had Wolverines' signs, Associated Press (Nov. 6, 2023). lf Stalions coordinating with third parties to perform in-person scouting on opponents violates the scouting rule, then it appears that other teams may also be violating the rule by employing each others' employees to scout their opponents in person. Indeed, Exhibit 2, which Michigan received from a former coach at Purdue, is another example of a Conference opponent successfully decoding Michigan signals with alarming success. Unlike Exhibit 1, Michigan does not know what methods Purdue used to steal these signs. The current investigation may call for a broader investigation and reckoning on how teams across the Conference and NCAA engage in signal decoding.

The significant success that all teams have had at decoding opponents' play signals also refutes your email's unfounded and inflammatory suggestion that Stalions's conduct compromised player safety. If signal decoding really were a significant safety concern, the NCAA and Conference rules presumably would not allow almost every form of it, including the extraordinary decoding that Ohio State was apparently able to achieve based only on broadcast footage. If the Conference truly believes that signal decoding compromises player safety, it should ban it entirely and require that teams use coach-to-player technology, as in the NFL. Cloaking this action in player safety concerns lacks credibility.

In addition, there is simply no evidence that Stalions's actions had a material effect upon any of Michigan's games this season. What we do know is that Michigan won its closest game this season by 24 points, and its average margin of victory is 34 points. Since Stalions was suspended, Michigan's average margin of victory has been 38 points, including one 49-point victory and another 28-point victory without
Stalions on the sideline.

Moreover, coaching staffs have and evaluate an enormous amount of information about opposing teams in the course of planning for or coaching games, including significant amounts of video and other analysis of the opposing team's expected playbook and play patterns. During games, coaches are constantly trying to anticipate the opposing side's tactics based on all the information available to them, including which players are on the field, how they are lining up, and sideline behavior in plain view across the field. And even absent the in-person recording of sidelines alleged to have occurred here, teams have access to views of the sidelines of their opponents' games through all-22 footage, television coverage, and video posted to social media, making the footage at issue here at most a reflection of information that teams can and do easily obtain through public and permissible sources. In the context of all that information, it is highly dubious that a junior analyst's observations about the other side's signals would have had a material effect on the integrity of the competition-particularly when, according to present evidence, the other coaches did not know the basis for those observations.

* * *

Michigan takes all rules violations seriously and is fully cooperating with the NCAA's apparently thorough but expedited investigation. Based on what that investigation shows, Michigan is prepared to accept responsibility for its employee's conduct and its institutional responsibilities. But fundamental fairness - not to mention the Conference Handbook- requires a robust, fair process for adjudicating rules violations, providing mitigation, and determining punishment. For the reasons stated above, disciplinary action at this stage would be procedurally improper, extraordinarily premature, and disproportionate based on the context of the case.

Respectfully submitted,
Warde Manuel
Donald R. Shepherd Director of Athletics