Calling MgoLawyers: Review of Evidence
Pettiti seemed to take significant issue with Michigan saying they haven’t had time to review the evidence. I re-read our letter and I don’t believe we said that at all. What we said was that Michigan hasn’t had a chance to review much of what the B1G is relying on, namely (or so it seems from Petitti’s letter) the evidence that the NCAA said they have, but haven’t provided to either party and other hearsay. here’s our most relevant quote:
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.
What say the lawyers to this? Is Petitti’a claim that “it’s troubling we haven reviewed evidence” just a lawyering tactic since it’s pretty clear that’s not what we said.
November 10th, 2023 at 7:59 PM ^
I am taking that quote thank you.
November 10th, 2023 at 8:36 PM ^
You're welcome, but it's not mine. It's called Hanlon's Razor, named after former Red Wing goalie Glen Hanlon, probably.
November 10th, 2023 at 7:38 PM ^
So this is an exhaustive list of the evidence they've provided.
November 10th, 2023 at 7:43 PM ^
Yep. Noted in Tony’s letter too.
November 10th, 2023 at 7:39 PM ^
Tony, fuck you, you fucking fuck!
November 10th, 2023 at 7:40 PM ^
So exactly how do you attend any NCAA and B10 function without a reaction to being stabbed in the back. This is a forever move and they must find out the names of who is trying to seal UM's fate?
All dirt on any NCAA teams including SEC teams must be gift wrapped to the NCAA ala how they got this story. All must simultaneously be leaked to UM friendly media decimating any and all teams doing things offering a competitive advantage.
Only someone compromised ignores evidence for the world to see, due process and their own rules to render competitive advantage to select patron teams at what's acknowledged to be the "season" moment for these last three games (according to all pundits).
November 10th, 2023 at 7:47 PM ^
It seems to me the only new evidence in Petitti's letter is a reference to interviews with Michigan staff members where he indicated they were aware of Stalions' offsite activities. I'd like to learn more about that.
November 10th, 2023 at 7:54 PM ^
Which Tony even notes can’t be discussed in the letter because of ncaa confidentiality. So how the hell is Michigan supposed to address it in the letter if things are always shared publicly?
November 10th, 2023 at 7:49 PM ^
I'll add to my point below: the Big Ten's letter and basis on the evidence talks about how they asked Michigan to give them what the NCAA gave to Michigan and other reviews. This is in direct response to Michigan slapping them back about their "investigation" (in my definition, it's a stretch to call this a meaningful investigation by the Big Ten), and they needed to respond to it.
None of it refutes the point that essentially the Big Ten reviewed some "evidence" from the Big Ten and public domain and made a decision, which UM's letter stated was not good enough. They can't say they did a better investigation because they didn't. They suspended him based on what they read and saw online and from what the NCAA told them. That's not an investigation. It's aggregation to make a decision.
They still have some absolutely meaningless stuff in there like: Stalions was standing next to a coach, which is completely meaningless and every other school does it. I'm still shocked they keep trotting out BuckNutz-level message board justification for disciplinary action, but if this has shown me anything it's that people just sometimes aren't very good at their job.
November 10th, 2023 at 7:52 PM ^
I'm not a lawyer, but I had two main takeaways of the B1G message:
- They focused a lot on the evidence, gathered by the NCAA, that proves the scheme Stalions was running. But that hasn't been the point of any of this. UM acknowledged what he did, but they called into question whether the noted NCAA rules were actually broken. Petitti did nothing to advance or further clarify how Stalions' actions broke the noted bylaws. Petitti's message was the proof shows he did this thing, and that thing broke the rules, therefore punishment.
- They also focused heavily on the justification for immediate action, based on Michigan's supposed competitive advantage. They misinterpreted Michigan's pointing out OSU and others stealing signs as deflection or whataboutism. But what that actually demonstrates is the relatively negligible advantage Michigan gained from Stalions' scheme. In context, Michigan was treading water with their opponents rather than gaining some competitive upper hand. One could even make the case that Michigan would have been at a competitive disadvantage without the work done by Stalions.
November 10th, 2023 at 7:58 PM ^
I guess there’s a couple different ways the Big Ten’s crappy evidence could be an issue.
First, it’s not clear to me whether under Big Ten rules M was supposed to have any sort of hearing or right to respond to the allegations before a sanction could be imposed under the sportsmanship policy. If so, then for that hearing or response opportunity, they should have been given a chance to first see the evidence against them so they’d understand what they needed to respond to. This is fundamentally a due process concept even though technically due process really only applies to governmental actions and not the Big Ten.
Second, whether or not M had a right to respond or object, the conference would need to have some minimum amount of proof before they could penalize M. I don’t know what that standard is; it’s probably lower than a preponderance of evidence—could be “substantial evidence,” could be some kind of “good faith” standard, but something. Since the league’s evidence is so ridiculously weak, there’s a possibility a court might make some finding like “no reasonable person could determine from the evidence available that a sportsmanship violation occurred” or something to that effect.
November 10th, 2023 at 8:06 PM ^
Here's just one possible example...
The rule Michigan is alleged to have broken is NCAA Bylaw 11.6, which prohibits off-campus, in-person scouting of a future opponent. Most people assume that recording your opponent constitutes scouting. However, if you look at the history of the rules, the NCAA has treated video recording and scouting as two distinct things. See below.
So the B1G could be saying, "We have stadium surveillance footage showing someone sitting in the seat that Stalions purchased a ticket for and pointing an an iPhone at the future opponent's sideline the whole game. That's concrete proof of in-person scouting." But Michigan's defense could be, "Well, even if the person was in fact recording video of the team's signal calling, if that's all he did, then that's not scouting...that's just recording, which is not prohibited." But Michigan can't really raise that defense until it sees the actual evidence to see if there is any indication whether the person did or did not do anything more. That said, Michigan did assert in the letter that "[t]here remain significant factual questions, as well as disputes about the application of the rules."
*****
Before 2001, Bylaw 11.6.3.1 expressly permitted schools to “obtain videotapes” of a future opponent’s games from a commercial entity “for scouting purposes” subject to a handful of restrictions. One of the restrictions was that the commercial entity “does not analyze the videotape or provide any other services that could be construed as scouting activities.” This provision made it crystal clear that recording is categorically different from scouting.
In 2001, Bylaw 11.6.3.1 was amended to eliminate all but one of the restrictions on obtaining videos of future opponents. (https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/proposalView?id=197) The only remaining prohibition at that time was against the school paying for the video.
The stated intent and rationale provided by the Bylaw 11 Deregulation Subcommittee for the 2001 amendment were as follows:
Intent: To permit an institution to obtain videotapes of a future opponent's athletics contest, provided no cost is incurred by the institution other than postage costs.
Rationale: This proposal would significantly simplify legislation related to obtaining videotapes of an opponent's contest. If adopted, the proposal would retain the principle that obtaining videotapes would not result in added expenses for an institution and is consistent with Division I deregulation efforts.
Bylaw 11.6 was further amended in 2013 to remove altogether all restrictions related to obtaining videos of future opponents.
November 10th, 2023 at 8:06 PM ^
I laughed when I saw who Michigan retained to represent the University.
I'm not laughing now. Who made that call? This week's trusted agent?
Beat Penn State!
November 10th, 2023 at 8:19 PM ^
For UM, I think that by far the most concerning parts of the letter are those that convey how serious the NCAA is taking this.
JH is suspended for 3 games, or not suspended for 3 games-- it probably doesn't amount to anything. He'll be able to coach all week, and he'll finalize the gameplan. He doesn't call the plays anyway. The position coaches decide who's going in and going out. As a practical matter, he's deciding when to go for it on 4th down (which should be an almost automated decision anyway, based on Analytics and that week's gameplan), and when to call timeout (which can occasionally be a real question and have an impact, but in the vast majority of games, doesn't decide the outcome.) For some coaches, you'd include being able to work on the referees, but if anything, I think a temporary coach is going to garner more sympathy from the refs than Harbaugh, who many of the Big10 refs seem to dislike.
The NCAA on the other hand... the President of the NCAA himself arranged and participated in the call to inform the Big10 and UM of the investigation, which (according to the letter, anyway) was highly unusual, and only done because the NCAA had "highly credible evidence" about the scheme, which was "unprecedented in scope" and could have "a serious impact" on games-- enough of an impact that the NCAA was concerned about the integrity of the remaining 2023 games.
I think the conference punishments pale in comparison to what Petitti's letter implies about what the NCAA might do. If they seriously took the unusual step of informing the conference about an ongoing investigation into a member school (which is apparently not normal), because they felt that the outcome of Michigan's remaining 2023 games could be altered by this sign-stealing operation, then you have to be concerned about how they'll look back on the already played games from 2021 to present. If they truly believe, as Petitti claims, that the impact is great enough to make it impossible to ensure a game is fairly played, it's hard to imagine the NCAA allowing the outcome of the games played in those years to remain on record.
Of course, it's impossible to know until the NCAA has had time to complete their investigation. but in terms of what UM fans should be concerned about, I think JH's suspension isn't even in the same solar system as what Petitti implies about the NCAA's investigation.
November 10th, 2023 at 9:45 PM ^
But Cam Newton being paid to go to auburn (back when that was against the rules) had no impact on Auburn winning a NC. Got it.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:12 PM ^
Meh. The NCAA would have to
-have proof that the marginal benefit of CS’s scheme was significant
-that a punishment orders of magnitude greater than the actual violation for in person scouting was warranted
This whole thing is ridiculous, run by a literal PR/PI firm until UM could respond.
Do I think JH will get something for the new “buck stops there” rules about HC’s? Sure.
Do I think that there will be vacating of wins, etc? No
Why? For the simple reason(s) that that the actual actions here were isolated to one (crazed) individual, it didn’t provide a competitive advantage at the level claimed given how rampant collusion and other “legal” methods are.
November 11th, 2023 at 12:50 AM ^
You're speculating. We don't know what an impact it had, because there has never before been an operation (that we know of) like this. We know what an impact it can have if you just try to decode the opposing signals on game day, or if you use the rare signal caught by broadcast television plus what your learn on gameday, or any of the other legal ways of gathering data about opponents' signs. What we don't know is what the effect is of putting over 500 plays, with the signs and what play was run, into a single database, and then analyzing it, using either statistical models or machine learning (or both). It is simply not possible for anyone other than a few people at Michigan to say what impact that had (assuming that the allegations are true). If it allowed UM to know all the details of every play for long stretches of the game-- say, for example, the entire 2nd half-- then you can take every quote you've heard about the impact of sign stealing and throw it out the window, because all the examples of sign stealing that people have up to this point are much, much less useful than that.
We simply don't know the impact, and probably won't until the NCAA finishes their investigation. But it's ridiculous at best, and deliberately misleading at worst, to take comments about the historical effectiveness of sign stealing, and claim that they apply to the sign stealing operation that Michigan was allegedly running. There is a greater than zero probability that for some games, Michigan knew literally every play the opposition was calling, and that is NOT the result that you get when you successfully steal signs when collecting information just from legal sources.
I honestly have no idea what the impact was, but I don't think anyone else, including ex-players and ex-coaches, do either, because that level of information is unprecedented, and some of the techniques for analyzing it (e.g. using off-the-shelf Machine Learning) haven't even been practical for more than a few years. I do think that the other Big10 coaches believe that Michigan was gaining a much larger benefit than normal sign stealing. Despite what a vocal minority of crazy fans and commentators are claiming, the rest of the conference didn't get together and conspire to make up fake complaints and then do great acting jobs on a call with the commissioner. That's fake-moon-landing level conspiracy theory thinking. The coaches are genuinely upset and angry about the advantage they think Michigan was getting. Now, it could certainly be the case that they're wrong, but again, I don't think we'll know until the NCAA investigation wraps up.
November 11th, 2023 at 4:17 AM ^
1) What makes it unprecedented has been the media coverage of it (which can absolutely be unrelated to the actual, eventual amount of harm caused- see Hilary’s servers or Romneys taxes or any number of other examples you prefer). If one wants to argue that the orchestrated rollout of the news stories and leaks to the public (which I would also argue is unprecedented) hasn’t impacted public perception in ways that have magnified the entirety of this story, well, good luck with that one
2) The problem for the NCAA and for Michigan is that proving it provided a clear advantage will be really hard and you can never NOT prove something was advantageous. For the NCAA, they will have to likely rely on the “head coach is culpable” codisel that was recently enacted, along with some sort of thing about multiple infractions; etc. For Michigan, for any tribal fans who enjoy watching them lose, they can always point to the unprovable counterfactual which (by definition) UM can’t disprove
At least we know that OSU changed its signs before last years game, which meant that UMs unprecedented 22 point win was not tainted by this situation.
3) Words like “operation Michigan was running” implies that a) more than one person was involved this.
4) “There is a greater than zero probability that for some games, Michigan knew literally every play the opposition was calling and that is NOT the result that you get when you successfully steal signs when collecting information just from legal sources. ”
Have you ever played or coached football? If you have, you know that by making that statement as a potential indictment of the impact here you are being disingenuous. If you haven’t, you should know that that statement, if shared with Ross Fulton or any other OSU bloggers who actually “know ball”, would elicit the same reaction from them.
Why? Because shared game planning and a whole host of other “legal” (but not, um, particularly sportsmanship- friendly, eh B1G?) can all be incredibly powerful ways to know what a team might do in a given situation. Again, this was an successfully orchestrated PR campaign to take what is a minor violation of NCAA rules with ambiguous benefits to a team whose involvement beyond one clearly weird (if not disturbed) employee has not been proven in any way.
The only solace for UM fans like me can take is that if UM beats PSU and OSU (again) in these circumstances, arguments about the actual impact of CS s actions will be further disproven.
November 11th, 2023 at 12:45 PM ^
If all it took was a team to change signs for a game to make the alleged information Michigan gathered useless, this would be a non-story. This is just one of many ways in which what Michigan is alleged to have done is significantly different than what is possible using only legal scouting.
Michigan recorded at least 10 Ohio State games, that we know of. Why? Why would Stalions feel the need to record that many?
I believe that the most likely explanation is because he wasn't just stealing the signs, he was building a model. That's certainly what I would do, and what any of my co-workers who work in cryptography would do. That model is able to detect correlations and patterns; in the case of Machine learning models, it can detect patterns that humans can't even understand (that is, they don't correspond to any reasoning or explanation that we can articulate.)
So if Ohio State changes the signals they're using, because that's normally sufficient to defeat advanced scouting, but they don't change the underlying system being used, they have a very good chance of figuring out the meaning of those signals at some point during the game, as they continue to feed each signal and the corresponding play that was run into the existing model built from over 500 previously recorded plays.
If this is the hypothesis, one can make several predictions about how this would play out. One of those predictions is that Michigan would gain no, or very little, advantage from the time the game starts up to the time where they've finally entered in enough data about that day's signals/plays, such that the program "cracks" what the signals mean today. Then, you'd see a sudden and dramatic impact, as Michigan would know what all or most of the signals mean for the rest of the game. An example of what that might look like would be if they were trailing Ohio State 20-17 at the half, and leading PSU at the half by a slim 16-14 margin, and then went on to outscore those two teams by a cumulative 53-6 score in the second half. Is sign stealing the only explanation for that difference? Of course not! But it is consistent to what we would expect to see if Michigan (or Stalions, if you prefer) was benefiting from a model built from a truly massive amount of data.
Nothing that the other Big10 teams who were responding to Michigan's advantage by beginning to share signal stealing data about the Wolverines with one another could accomplish would be even remotely as effective as this hypothetical scenario. The coaches were not sharing game film, nor were they sharing detailed descriptions about every signal they observed on every play; they were sharing their observations/guesses about what the signals meant. That's just not even vaguely the same thing.
I will say this, unambiguously: if, as a result of coaches cooperating, any team was able to know the exact play Michigan was going to run, accurately and consistently, for a substantial portion of any game, that is unsportsmanlike behavior, unethical, and deserving of punishment.
I will also say that I think suspending Harbaugh was a bad decision by the Big10. My reading of the rules is that they are allowed to do it, because the rules explicitly give the commissioner broad power to act in matters of sportsmanship, and explicitly include coach suspensions as a legal remedy; I think that's ridiculous, and hope they spend the offseason giving a lot more thought to how the sportsmanship rules are written. I think it creates the impression (accurate or not) that the Big10 is in a rush to judgement; I don't think it actually has all that much of an impact (if he couldn't coach during the week, that would be a different story); and it casts doubt on any game that Michigan might lose during this three game stretch, which would be frustrating for both Michigan fans and the fans of the team that managed to beat them. That being said, I think the University's response has been insanely over-the-top. This punishment is a slap on the wrist, and if it is unfair, I think they would have been better off using that unfairness at a later date, when the NCAA finishes their investigation and begins discussing punishments, as a way to lessen those penalties, which are almost certainly going to be much more severe than a 3 game (gameday only) suspension for Harbaugh. A "reduced sentence for time served" type argument. But I recognize that I don't have access to all of the information that the Michigan President and AD did, so it's possible there are consequences that I'm not aware of.
November 10th, 2023 at 8:51 PM ^
Dear Big 10,
Please help me with the following:
- what Conor actually did.
- who submitted what to the NCAA?
- did Conor or his assignee record signs and decode?
- If so, what did he do with info?
- If so, who did he enlist?
- what did NCAA determine?
- who did NCAA interview?
- what did NCAA review?
- who sent the original complaint to NCAA?
- what is the evidence?
- has MI been provided any of the submissions?
- what did MI submit to Big 10?
- will Big 10 open an investigation into other Sportsmanship violations?
- was Big 10 complicit if it had info of numerous teams doing the same things over the years and not taking action?
Unlike ESPN, upon receipt of this info I will have additional inquires.
GRRBlue
November 10th, 2023 at 8:56 PM ^
Evidence obviously isn’t important. They said as much in their letter. I guess we’ll have to ask a judge - which you tried to thwart by delaying notification. Except the media leaked it first. Grade A shitbag stuff my friend.
November 10th, 2023 at 9:05 PM ^
Question for all, not just the MGoLawers, what value does the B1G provide us? Other sports? Research-sharing for MGoScientists? I don’t get why we don’t Notre Dame this stuff.
November 10th, 2023 at 10:58 PM ^
research sharing can be - and is - done across conference boundaries.
November 10th, 2023 at 9:46 PM ^
We can’t stay in the big as is. Pettite needs to go or sanctions on all teams but we can’t stay under current conditions. And whatever we do we do not take osu w us. As far as I’m concerned THE GAME can end after we destroy them this year.