Details on NCAA Process for UM w/r/t Sign Stealing Investigation

In light of today's news, it is fairly clear that the current investigation is of a much greater severity than many on this Board (including me) initially thought and will likely lead to some penalties being imposed on UM by both NCAA and possibly Big10. Based on my past experience handling investigations with the NCAA, and the number of somewhat crazy statements being made on the Board, just wanted to outline some general principles of the NCAA process and what next steps realistically will be for UM. 

As of now, the NCAA's investigative staff is in the fact compilation process, by which they are developing the record for the ultimate hearing that will be held to determine liability and, if liability is found, punishment. As many have mentioned, staff do not have subpoena power or any clause that requires UM to cooperate, turn over devices, provide staff for interviews, etc. With that being said, compliance with requests, unless they are grossly disproportionate, is expected and usually given and Staff can request from the panel intermediate penalties to try to induce cooperation. A lack of cooperation, in turn, can be used inferentially by the hearing panel to suggest culpability.

After the investigation completes and the investigators determine the exact nature of the underlying alleged infractions, there's a very complicated and long pre-hearing process. Most importantly, during this process, the actual panel that will hear the case is determined. Contrary to public belief, this is done by a computer, and the target institution may challenge panel members that appear to have a conflict of interest. All charges are brought on an institutional level, meaning UM will be the target institution even if this matter stays just with Stalions. 

There are a number of methods of resolution of an NCAA complaint. First, there can be a negotiated resolution (think: settlement) within which the parties agree on the outcome and avoid a disputed resolution through a hearing. Second, there can be summary disposition, where the parties basically rely on their briefing and the hearing panel reaches a conclusion. Finally, there may be an actual hearing, within which relevant parties will present their cases, witnesses will testify, evidence will be shown, etc. Of note, third parties can attend and participate, which can include conference reps, interested institutions, etc. 

After all of this, there may be post-hearing briefing, but then you receive a decision from the panel. There are six major types of penalties the NCAA can impose:

• Show Cause Orders. General show-cause orders are flat-out bans from all activity. Specific show-cause are . . . specific bans from specific activities. 
• Financial Penalties - these can include fines as well as reducing revenue sharing proceeds. 
• Scholarship Reductions
• Suspensions
• Vacating Wins and Records
• Banning the Institution from Participation

Many on the Board have noted that recent by-laws impose a Head Coach Responsibility penalty. Unlike the mainstream reporting, however, that Responsibility is not automatic, and instead is based on a holistic assessment of a number of factors, including: (1) whether the Coach was involved; (2) what compliance and "spot-checks" were implemented at the program generally; (3) history of affirmative reporting of wrongdoing; (4) educated staff on relevant NCAA rules. 

Whatever punishments are reached are then subject to a potential motion for reconsideration and possibly an appeal as well. 

My conclusion: this is a very long process that usually takes years and even on an expedited timeline should take 6-9 months. UM's season should thus technically be safe, and any punishments will either be retrospective or for next season but not interfering. There is too much unknown at this point, but the major question is (1) who funded the activities; (2) how long did it occur; (3) was it understood to be occuring. Harbaugh is not necessarily going to get hit with Head Coach Responsibility, but given NCAA views him as a "bad actor" already, the chips are stacked in that regards. 

The one silver lining is timing. This came out before we played PSU or OSU, and any competitive injury that could have been suffered has been mitigated by the public disclosure weeks in advance. Thus, comprehensive victories against both would go a long way to suggesting whatever benefit this created was marginal and ultimately was not responsible for the program's success over the last few years. If this had been released at end of the year, enemies of UM would be able to claim everything was tainted. This is a rare opportunity to sanitize a very unsavory narrative.