Amicus brief - any SignGate experts want to fact-check and suggest citations?

Submitted by rym on November 14th, 2023 at 7:34 AM

Who wants to give me a hand with the background section of the amicus brief? Here is an early draft of part of the section on which you can comment, fact-check, and suggest citations. Note that I’ll be closing this draft in a few hours, at which time the link will no longer work.

The amicus brief has over 1500 alumni co-signers. Thank you all for spreading the word. For anyone who wants to add their name in the next few hours, the link to the form is http://bit.ly/harbaughbrief

rym

November 14th, 2023 at 7:45 AM ^

It’s the first time I’ve tried crowdsourcing a section of a brief — I wonder if it has ever been done. This is a one-of-a-kind situation that doesn’t raise any issues of confidentiality. And there are no doubt many people on this board who know more than I do on this particular topic. I hope people have fun getting an early glimpse and contributing.

bdsmvdch

November 14th, 2023 at 7:50 AM ^

Thanks for doing this!

Fourth non-bolded paragraph:  claims that Stalions was fired (vice resigned).  It's very possible I missed something, but I thought this was communicated as a resignation.

Mtuba75

November 14th, 2023 at 7:51 AM ^

Given what I think I know to be true, this is sloppy on its face.  Michigan’s response to learning of Stalion’s activities was to suspend him with pay with Harbaugh immediately issuing a formal statement disavowing any knowledge of or participation in the so-called “scheme.”  There has be  zero evidence that has suggested otherwise and Stalions’ subsequent resignation was accompanied by statements supporting that disavowal. 

Mtuba75

November 14th, 2023 at 8:55 AM ^

I did read it and It did initially say he was “fired.”  
 

It will be fascinating to see how this product evolves and I applaud your efforts.  I fear, however, that this may well be a fool’s errand. Your prior work points out accurately that the SP is written so as to provide virtually “meaningless” restrictions as to that which the Commissioner can deem unsportsmanlike conduct or what penalties he can assess. Metaphorically, we are arguing the “fairness” of the referee’s call rather than his authority to have thrown the flag and make the call in the first place, having been thoroughly and effectively jaw-boned by those on the opposing bench…

goblu330

November 14th, 2023 at 9:04 AM ^

Kind of arguing that a contract that allows one party to act unilaterally at its pleasure without consideration of the rights of the other party with no appellate remedy available is not really a contract.  That hasn’t been the precise argument yet but I think it will morph into that.

UcheWallyWally

November 14th, 2023 at 12:07 PM ^

Not a lawyer but this is one of the directions I’d like to see this case go.  Seems like a lot of these powers that be around the country are losing there court cases based on contracts that don’t align with individual rights to fairness just because the contract says so.  Contracts in general don’t seem to have the overwhelming absolute authority they once did. 

glewe

November 14th, 2023 at 7:53 AM ^

I'm curious--does the brief address the speculation that Michigan could, in theory, circumvent the discipline by temporarily demoting Harbaugh and promoting a low-level staffer to be HC, then letting the low-level staffer stay home? I've speculated about that and I just think it has to be true if this is in fact an "institutional" punishment. I really want someone to tee that question up for the judge because the Conference's answer will say everything the judge needs to hear to rule in Michigan's favor. If they say, "Yes, they could do that," then you have to next ask why the B1G is pounding the pavement so hard on this discipline, and why they would allow such a silly circumvention of this punishment (not to mention whether it is allowable to let Sherrone Moore act as Head Coach, which creates the same problem), and if they say, "No, they can't do that," then they are admitting it's a personal punishment under the guise of an institutional punishment, not to mention that it ostensibly narrows the scope of the alleged disadvantage by "competing without its head coach." Either way, the answer to that question will make them look less credible.

I believe I am not able to sign, unfortunately. But thank you for putting it together.

s1105615

November 14th, 2023 at 8:01 AM ^

IANAL or alum, but I had very similar thoughts.  I am sure the B1G response would be some sort of legalese that basically says UM can’t do that because Harbaugh is still the face of the program.  
 

Does it hold any legal water?  Probably depends on the judge, but when the end goal of the B1G is to not have Harbaugh on the sideline it seems obvious to any observer that it’s a personal attack.  I get why the judges punted over the weekend, and I know it’s not a slam dunk that Harbaugh is allowed to coach these next two games, but it really feels like it should be from a due process perspective.

glewe

November 14th, 2023 at 8:05 AM ^

Permit me, but it is my view this fits squarely within "why the Big Ten was wrong." The punishment is a silly maneuver, imo. It leads to an absurd result. Obviously Michigan would never do this--Warde has said Harbaugh *is* the HC. This is the blatant flaw in Big Ten's reasoning, imo. It "invites the question" whether Michigan could creatively circumvent the discipline since it's "not" a personal punishment. 

Blue_Goose

November 14th, 2023 at 8:03 AM ^

I too have thought about this. I thought it would have been baller to hold a press conference and have Harbaugh resign as head coach.  Then have 〽️ hire him an hour later as TE coach (for example).  

So just not have a head coach until after the OSU game where they announce the new HC contract and hire Harbaugh back!

Some things are best for Hallmark movies. But my dreams have been awesome. 
 

 

gbdub

November 14th, 2023 at 10:30 AM ^

The B1G is in this catch-22 by their own convoluted legal reasoning. They claim “Institutional punishment” to sidestep their inability to punish Harbaugh directly via the sportsmanship policy. But if they insist that changing Harbaugh’s title would not allow him to avoid punishment, they admit that Harbaugh specifically is being targeted. 

Blue_Goose

November 14th, 2023 at 7:54 AM ^

This is amazing. Thank you rym!
 

Harbaugh was more right than he knew when he told the team he needed more leaders than Moses needed to step forward this season “more than 90”

rym and all who contribute, may you be  counted among them!


The Michigan Difference

Bet〽️

LloydCarnac

November 14th, 2023 at 7:57 AM ^

Page 2, paragraph 4 fact check opportunity: ". . Stalions refused to cooperate with the investigation, so Michigan fired him. ."

This statement conflicts with reports that Stalions resigned, after the UM suspended his employment, with pay. During the time of paid suspension, Stalions reportedly refused cooperation with UM or NCAA. (ESPN, Detroit News, etc)

LloydCarnac

November 14th, 2023 at 8:07 AM ^

Page 3, paragraph 2 fact check opportunity: ". . The Big Ten admits that it had no evidence that Coach Harbaugh knew about the “sign-stealing scheme". ."

The NCAA stated there was no evidence of coach H's knowledge of Stalion activity, not the B1G. The B1G chose punitive action, disregarding NCAA statement.

4roses

November 14th, 2023 at 8:18 AM ^

Gonna go out on a limb and say that this is the only college football message board post with the words "Amicus brief" in its title. Love this place. Kudos to you rym.