SI article on Connor Stalions (with text conversation from 2021)
I really hate to add another thread to this whole b.s., but... there is actually some new/relevant information in this article. Provides insight into Stallions previous duties and his character.
The guy seemed a bit... too emotionally invested, for quite some time.
October 25th, 2023 at 12:46 PM ^
This is really good for the "he was an overzealous individual actor" narrative. It also feels like if this is todays news the story is already petering out and worst revelations have come to light.
October 25th, 2023 at 12:52 PM ^
Yes, FWIW, I think this helps Michigan from a PR perspective, as does his boast that he "stole opponent signals during the week watching tv copies." Even in private, he's saying that he got his info from television.
October 25th, 2023 at 1:17 PM ^
If he got hired as an overzealous fan who analyzed TV tape, that's absolutely a boon for Michigan's defense. As long as the staff was unaware that his methods had changed since he was hired, it's easier to rationalize why they didn't know (assuming they didn't know, because that's the biggest issue at play right now).
October 25th, 2023 at 1:36 PM ^
The methods Stalions used are permitted. This is the thing all of the media and most posters here are missing.
1. NCAA rules prohibit in-person scouting of future opponents by institution staff. Stalion did NOT violate this rule. He got 3rd parties to record future opponents. They were not 'scouts' and they are not 'institution staff.' In-person scouting by institution staff is prohibited. But that is not what happened.
2. NCAA rules PERMIT programs to acquire game recordings from third parties. This is allowed. And this is what Stalions did.
Stalions (and Michigan) are in perfect compliance with what NCAA rules prohibit and allow. Even if Jim Harbaugh himself knew about it, so what? All of Stalions' methods are allowed. Stalions did nothing that is prohibited.
This entire thing is driven by other schools that either (1) don't understand the rules, and/or (2) are just upset that Michigan had a guy that was clever enough to gain an edge in a way that is, in fact, in compliance with the rules.
October 25th, 2023 at 1:45 PM ^
NCAA rules PERMIT programs to acquire scouting recordings from third parties. This is allowed. And this is what Stalions did.
Which specific NCAA rule is that?
October 25th, 2023 at 1:55 PM ^
I don't know that to be true. If it is, he is right. This is ... wait for it... a NOTHING BURGER.
However, I don't know how he is coming to that conclusion.
October 25th, 2023 at 2:13 PM ^
The unwritten spirit one.
October 25th, 2023 at 3:52 PM ^
Picturing the Spirit of NCAA Rules as a chain clanking Jacob Marley
October 26th, 2023 at 11:46 PM ^
So close...
October 25th, 2023 at 2:15 PM ^
Current rule 11.6 (the one relevant here) was adopted in 2013. It replaced the former version of 11.6.
That former version of 11.6 spoke to acquisition of scouting recordings of future opponents. It was allowed as long as an institution did not pay for it (with a basketball tournament related exception). IOW, the former version of 11.6 regulated and generally prohibited paying a 3rd party to acquire recordings of future opponent games.
Anyway, the NCAA replaced that older version with the current version of 11.6.
And the current version of 11.6 says nothing about acquiring recordings of future opponent games, and instead merely bans in-person scouting of future opponents by "an institution's coach staff." IOW, the current version of 11.6 de-regulated and, therefore, permitted the thing that the old version prohibited--paying a third party to acquire video of future opponents games.
Moreover, in explaining why the NCAA amended 11.6 to the current version, the NCAA stated" "...with a view toward reducing the volume of unenforceable and inconsequential rules that fail to support the NCAA's enduring values.... This proposal is part of a package recommended by the Rules Working Group... In the interest of simplicity and consistency, it is appropriate for one rule regarding scouting to apply to all sports. In most cases, video of future opponents is readily available either through institutional exchange, subscription to a recording/dubbing service or internet sites accessible to the general public.
TL:DR...Old version of 11.6 prohibited what Stalions arranged. Current version of 11.6 intentionally got rid of that exact prohibition and, therefore, allows the exact thing Stalions did.
October 25th, 2023 at 2:38 PM ^
Where did you find that language? I don't see it in the 2022-23 NCAA D-1 Manual.
EDIT: Never mind. Found it here: https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/proposalView?id=3017
October 25th, 2023 at 3:12 PM ^
You need to read the 1998 amendment and comentary. It basically says it’s okay so long it’s not paid for by the institution. So in many ways it comes down again to following the money. https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/proposalView?id=432
When Bylaw 11.6.1.1 (1994 NCAA Convention Proposal No. 24) was adopted as a cost-savings measure to prohibit off-campus, in-person scouting of opponents in the sports of football and basketball, the legislation was silent on the ability to purchase videotapes for scouting purposes. During the discussion of Proposal No. 24 on the Convention floor, it was clarified that the legislation would also preclude an institution from employing or paying the expenses of someone else, including professional scouting services, to scout the opponent. This clarification recently was confirmed by the membership services staff, but has not been widely known or adhered to as numerous institutions have purchased videotapes of opponents from scouting services.
October 25th, 2023 at 3:17 PM ^
But that rule was struck in 2013. See my link.
October 25th, 2023 at 3:21 PM ^
The original 11.6.1 was silent on videotaping, just like the current one. But the commentary basically says it was understood to apply except in certain circumstances and it’s all those certain circumstance (for women’s volleyball and lacrosse, of all things) that were struck. A good attorney would say the intent to not allow the institution to pay a third party has always been understood to be part of the rules. Now another good attorney would say you had the chance to amend this many times to make that clear so why didn’t you? I’m not saying your analysis doesn’t hold water. I’m just saying it can be argued the other way too.
October 25th, 2023 at 3:30 PM ^
They made the prohibition against paying for scouting explicit but then removed it in 2013 and provided the rationale that Ghost of Fritz pasted into his post. It seems very clear to me that the intent was to allow programs to pay for scouting. The removal of the prohibition and the rationale make no sense otherwise...That said, to some extent we get back to whether Stallions' compatriots will be seen as an extension of him or as more akin to third party scouting vendors. To the extent that I understand the history of the rule, I think this comes out in Michigan's favor. The rule was about saving money. But it doesn't cost anything if some random Joe who's not being paid by the school relays what he sees at a game. That random Joe also likely doesn't have the expertise of a coach or analyst to size up what he's seeing. For example, I'm sure that Jim Harbaugh would notice things watching a game that are lost to me. Therefore, I think, Stallions' buddies--who were not Michigan AD employees to our knowledge--were much more like people who work for Scouting Service X.
October 25th, 2023 at 3:32 PM ^
I disagree.
NCAA's own reason for amending the rule is that 3rd party recordings are readily available, and the former prohibition was unenforceable.
So they intentionally abolished any prohibition of paying for 3rd party recordings of opponent games. They instead prohibited in-person scouting.
This was an explicit choice: Stop the ban on paying for 3rd parry game recordings. Replace it with a ban on in-person scouting by institution staffs. NCAA's own explanation says they did this because the old ban on paying for 3rd party recordings had become 'unenforceable and inconsequential.'
There is no plausible argument a lawyer could make for the idea that the NCAA really intended to continue the ban on paying for 3rd party game recordings. None. The exact opposite is the truth.
October 25th, 2023 at 3:35 PM ^
I’ll stick with I think it can be argued both ways, but I like (and not just because I want to) your analysis better. I think you’d have trouble finding this discussion on elevenwarriors or RCMB.
October 25th, 2023 at 5:03 PM ^
Anything can be argued but there is no arguing that the language was changed, that change was to remove a stated restriction and it was done for reasons explicitly stated.
/case closed.
October 25th, 2023 at 3:43 PM ^
I too came across that. However, that is from 1998, and it is giving an interpretive gloss on the pre-2013 version of 11.6. All of the pre-2013 language that it is discussing has been abolished. That language no longer exists. It has been replaced (in 2013) by the current version of 11.6. Therefore, what you posted is no longer applicable.
Moreover...even if that clarifying gloss were still applicable (which it is not), it speaks ONLY about paying for a 3rd party to do "in-person scouting services." As I have already explained, the NCAA rules do not treat 'scouting' and 'recording' as the same thing. So...even if the current rule were to ban paying a 3rd party to do the in-person scouting, that says ZERO about paying a 3rd party to merely record a game.
October 25th, 2023 at 2:24 PM ^
I don't know about this specific but Steve Clark was on Sam's show today. He said that any team in B1G can get copies from B1G that even shows sidelines. It didn't seem like he was referring to All-22. If that is true, all of this is over nothing burger. My God. OSU is such a wimp.
October 25th, 2023 at 3:03 PM ^
Would love to see this followed up on and reported on.
October 25th, 2023 at 3:23 PM ^
Is it a "over nothing burger" or "over nothing cheeseburger"?
Big difference!
October 25th, 2023 at 5:47 PM ^
Only if the money trail leads to Coach.
October 25th, 2023 at 3:24 PM ^
If that's true, why would Stalions do this?
October 25th, 2023 at 3:41 PM ^
Apparently because he’s a complete psycho with a Michigan football manifesto.
October 25th, 2023 at 1:51 PM ^
2. NCAA rules PERMIT programs to acquire scouting recordings from third parties. This is allowed. And this is what Stalions did.
Ehhhhhh if you had no part in making/requesting/hiring the people who made them, absolutely yes that is fine. That's like finding footage on YouTube and analyzing, which anybody can do. But if Stallions is paying these "scouts" to be there on his behalf, I think the NCAA can pretty clearly argue that's again the rules.
If Michigan gets off with a light punishment, it won't have anything to do how Stallions organized his scheme, it'll come down to how much of it the staff at Michigan was aware of
October 25th, 2023 at 2:17 PM ^
Did he actually pay anyone to do anything though? I know there are Venmo records but if it's just reimbursement, then those people aren't actually earning any money.
October 25th, 2023 at 2:57 PM ^
Paying for tickets might be considered in-kind payment. Irrelevant. NCAA rules in fact permit paying a 3rd party for recordings of future opponent games. That is 100% certain. And it is 100% absent of all media reports on l'affaire Stalion.
October 25th, 2023 at 2:29 PM ^
Absolutely not. NCAA rules make a clear distinction between in-person scouting and recordings of future opponents' games. IOW, according to the NCAA, recording is not the same thing as in-person scouting.
These are different things. One is prohibited (in-person scouting). The other is allowed (looking at recordings from third parties).
Further, as explained above, the NCAA intentionally abolished its former prohibition on paying 3rd parties for recordings of future opponent games. Paying a third party for a recording they captured of a future opponent game is permitted. All schools in fact do purchase game footage of future opponents. Stalions simply devised a better way of doing the thing that all teams do (and which is allowed).
October 25th, 2023 at 3:32 PM ^
If you can find this, so can Mars. I sure hope Harbaugh sticks Mars on NCAA when they visit.
Ed: And thank you for sharing. That is some good info.
October 25th, 2023 at 4:45 PM ^
As "not as lawyer", I'm now more confused than before. You appear correct, in that paying for 3rd party footage seems appears to have been permitted with the 2013 amendment, given that it's impossible to stop 100,000 people with video cameras in their pockets from filming stuff and that stuff ending up at a school (say via YouTube), so they appear to narrow it down to merely banning the staff from physically attending.
So, I guess you may be right. I'd like to see Tom Mars' or some other attorney's take because if you are as correct as you think, yeah this whole thing is a nothingburger based on people not knowing about a rule change. But I'm not gonna hold my breath until somebody much more smarter than I is chimes in
*something else to look at is rule 4.1.h which pretty conclusively prohibits any attempts to record team signals. That may end up the bigger deal than the loose regulation around in-person scouting
October 25th, 2023 at 2:18 PM ^
I am a staunch Michigan defender predisposed to make these kinds of arguments, but I do not buy the "he didn't do it, he paid people to do it for him." It is still insider trading if your wife or your grandma makes the trades instead of you. This is not a serious argument.
October 25th, 2023 at 2:33 PM ^
Here is what you are missing: Former rule prohibited paying to acquire 3rd party recording of future opponent game. Current rules abolished that prohibition and, therefore, allows it.
October 25th, 2023 at 3:12 PM ^
In other words, and to keep in line with the insider trading example, this would be like if there was a law that made it illegal to inside trade or to tip an inside trade to another person (whether family or third party). If the new law amended the old to make it illegal to inside trade and removed the "or to tip an inside trade to another person (whether family or third party)", then tipping inside trades to others would tacitly be permissible.
October 25th, 2023 at 3:28 PM ^
There is a reason that the term "independent contractor" is so popular in modern industry.
Heck, Seth here even said that *he* is technically an independent contractor of MGo, not an employee.
October 25th, 2023 at 3:21 PM ^
can you cite the year and specific text you are referring to. I looked at both the 2023 bylaws and the 2013 bylaws and I don't see a mention of 3rd party recordings.
October 25th, 2023 at 3:26 PM ^
I am a defense lawyer, and have done a fair amount of work involving statutory construction and legislative history.
Even wearing my maize and blue glasses, removing the below permissible activities from the rule and leaving "no in-person scouting" does not mean "deploying an agent to videotape what you are prohibited from doing in-person" is permissible:
11.6.1.2 Purchasing Video -- Postseason. In basketball and women's volleyball, following the selection of any postseason championship field until the conclusion of the championship, it shall be permissible for the participating institution to pay the costs of purchasing video for scouting purposes from individuals or professional scouting services.
11.6.4 Cost of Exchanging Video. It shall be permissible to pay the costs of exchanging video for scouting purposes in any sport, including the expenses of an individual traveling to pick up the video.
11.6.4.1 Use of Commercial Entity. It shall be permissible in all sports for an institution to obtain video of a future opponent's athletics contests for scouting purposes from a commercial entity that provides video recording/dubbing services, provided the institution requesting the video pays no fees or expenses related to obtaining the video of the future opponent's athletics contests, except for providing a blank videotape or DVD (or other medium) and paying postage costs.
Not to mention, legislative history only comes in when the "statute" is ambiguous. While you can of course argue it has ambiguities, I do not think a neutral read of 11.6 invites an ambiguity as to whether you can send non-staff scouts to do something the staff is explicitly prohibited from doing. You would have an argument if Michigan used "Sign Stealing Incorporated" which was an existing commercial entity that offered their video broadly, but someone on staff directing an agent to make recordings just for our purposes is not that.
This is doubly the case when the enforcement body is going to interpret its own rules. I would love to be wrong, but I do not see this as a magic bullet defense to what is charged.
October 25th, 2023 at 3:32 PM ^
So what is left? Michigan paid the expenses for a third party to provide video that would have been permissible if the third part had bought his own tickets?
Level 3. At the absolute most.
And not that you were saying this, but there is a lot of “spirit of the rule” chatter in here. Enough with all that. This isn’t 8 year old coach pitch. This is about winning titles.
October 25th, 2023 at 3:35 PM ^
My personal opinion is that penalties should not be in the realm of a post-season ban, instead a fine and scholarship loss, show cause for Connor/those involved makes sense to me. But that is an entirely separate question as to whether the NCAA changed its rules to allow what Michigan is accused of doing.
October 25th, 2023 at 3:39 PM ^
So the pre-2013 rule is 11.6.4.1 Use of Commercial Entity - meaning pre 2013 this was allowed. 2013 removed that rule and left "off campus in-person scouting of opponents is prohibited."
So am I reading this backwards? Or is Ghost? To me it seems like the exact opposite of what he said. The 2013 rule removed the commercial entity carve out.
October 25th, 2023 at 3:50 PM ^
Michael, you have cut and pasted the pre-2013 version of 11.6. That language had been repealed and replaced by the current version of 11.6.
You are missing the main point. With the pre-2013 rule, the NCAA regulated and largely banned (with certain exceptions) paying for 3rd party recordings of games. But the NCAA intentionally decided that a ban on paying 3rd parties for game recordings was dumb, and they therefore got rid of that very ban.
October 25th, 2023 at 4:41 PM ^
I am aware that the language I quoted was removed, I stated it was removed.
I think you can fairly read, based on the plain text of the current rule, that they simplified the question by removing the reference to third parties and different sports, and made it clear that what was outlawed was in-person scouting. I cannot make a good faith argument that removing examples of permissible video services with limits then allows for an institution to create its own "commercial entity" and use a cut-out to conduct otherwise impermissible in-person scouting. Again, if Connor used an existing service, maybe there's an argument.
I think this whole saga is fairly overblown, but I disagree that we can say "in person scouting" is prohibited, but "paying people to go scout your opponent in person and record and send back to you" is permitted. You don't have to agree with me, and your argument is not totally off the wall, I just do not think it flies in the real world, before the NCAA (or most judges).
October 25th, 2023 at 5:07 PM ^
You can’t make thus as a good faith argument? Really. If you represented Michigan you would violate your ethical obligations if you failed to raise this argument.
Your argument is perhaps what the ncaa might want to argue. Tough to do though when they have treated scouting and paying for game recordings as different things, and also explicitly stated that the were getting rid of regulation of paying fir game recordings because everybody was using 3d oath game recordings snd they were super easy to get, even from public sources.
If the NCAA tries to argue this in the ‘3d party in person scouting = 3d party recording’ then…they are on very weak grounding. NCAA itself has treated these as separate phenomenon.
October 25th, 2023 at 5:49 PM ^
I am sorry. Maybe "good faith" was not a fair descriptor. It is an argument, I do not think it is a winning argument. It requires a reading charitable to Michigan for every aspect of the analysis.
11.6.4 Cost of Exchanging Video. It shall be permissible to pay the costs of exchanging video for scouting purposes in any sport, including the expenses of an individual traveling to pick up the video.
This subsection is clearly in reference to costs for exchanging videos with opponents. "Exchange" is the important word. Removing that section is not relevant to the proprietary of Stalions's alleged conduct.
11.6.4.1 Use of Commercial Entity. It shall be permissible in all sports for an institution to obtain video of a future opponent's athletics contests for scouting purposes from a commercial entity that provides video recording/dubbing services, provided the institution requesting the video pays no fees or expenses related to obtaining the video of the future opponent's athletics contests, except for providing a blank videotape or DVD (or other medium) and paying postage costs.
This subsection is pretty obviously in reference to TV Networks. What Stalions allegedly did (at least from publicly available information) is also not within the confines of this subsection by its plain meaning. So again, its removal does not address the circumstances at play.
What we are left with is the current version of 11.6:
"off-campus, in-person scouting of future opponents (in the same season) is prohibited." Pretty clear a team is prohibited from going to an opponents' games. Now, "in-person" is certainly doing some work here. But, unless I am missing something (would not be the first time), "in-person" is not addressed by the prior versions of the rule now stricken, nor in the legislative history. I think most third-party neutrals would look at counsel making your argument at this point and say "really? they cannot go scout in-person, but they can send an agent to do that for them, record a perspective that would be available to an in-person scout, and share that recording with the team for scouting purposes?"
I would love to be wrong. But having advanced/seen opponents make arguments like these and watched them get quickly brushed aside by judges over the years, I just can't bite.
October 26th, 2023 at 12:30 AM ^
Again, the the key here is that 'scouting' and 'paying for recordings' are not treated as synonyms under NCAA rules. They are different things.
The old version of the rule regulated and mostly prohibited paying for recordings created by 3rd parties.
The 2013 version if the rule (still in place) was a decision to abandon prohibition of paying for 3rd party created recordings, and replace it with an entirely different regulatory approach--banning in-person scouting instead.
Why did the NCAA abandon one regulatory approach (banning paying for 3rd party recordings) and embrace a different regulatory approach (banning in-person scouting)? The gave us their explanation. The former was "unenforceable and inconsequential" because "video of future opponents is readily available either through institutional exchange, subscription to a recording/dubbing service or internet sites accessible to the general public."
To repeat, the NCAA consciously decided to stop prohibiting paying for third party recordings of opponent games. They replaced it with a ban on in-person scouting of future opponents.
While you may say that a program will get the same competitive advantage from the purchase of 3rd party recordings as they would from in-person scouting...so what? The main purpose behind these rules was to prevent the lower budget programs from being at a disadvantage. EMU does not have the budget to send GAs to in-person scout opponents, but Michigan does. And that is the very reason the NCAA banned in-person scouting. But because by 2013 3rd party game video was available to all at affordable prices (even free), allowing all to purchase it would not put the lower budget schools at a disadvantage.
Now, in 2013 when the NCAA changed its rule, did they foresee a Connor Stalions type exploiting the letter of the new 2013 rule in the way he did? Of course not. But that is too bad. They legislated the way the legislated. They abolished the ban on paying for 3rd party created game recordings. Stalions found a way to pay for 3rd party generated game recordings in a way that the NCAA probably did not foresee or anticipate. But the fact of the matter is that the NCAA abolished its ban on paying for 3rd party generated game recordings.
October 25th, 2023 at 5:07 PM ^
You can’t make thus as a good faith argument? Really. If you represented Michigan you would violate your ethical obligations if you failed to raise this argument.
Your argument is perhaps what the ncaa might want to argue. Tough to do though when they have treated scouting and paying for game recordings as different things, and also explicitly stated that the were getting rid of regulation of paying fir game recordings because everybody was using 3d oath game recordings snd they were super easy to get, even from public sources.
If the NCAA tries to argue this in the ‘3d party in person scouting = 3d party recording’ then…they are on very weak grounding. NCAA itself has treated these as separate phenomenon.
October 25th, 2023 at 5:44 PM ^
Can they be defined as non-staff "scouts" though? They were just tasked with making video. Do they even know what they're supposed to be looking at beyond "that side of the stadium"? Plus, the rule against sending scouts has no purchase on gaining an unfair on-field advantage; it has to do with budgetary concerns for smaller schools being able to afford the sending of scouts or not. Honestly, the Venmo trail is what is probably the most damning thing here.
October 25th, 2023 at 3:11 PM ^
That is not apples to apples. If the rules do not expressly prohibit what he did this is nothing.
October 25th, 2023 at 3:24 PM ^
Honestly, after studying not only the current rule, but also the prior version it replaced and the reasons the NCAA gave for replacing the prior rule....there is only one plausible conclusion. Stalions did not violate the rule, and he did not even violate the spirit if the rule.
This is much closer to the satellite camp thing than any actual rule violation. Stalions found a better way to do things that is still within the rules. Naturally, other programs are upset about it. Nonetheless, no rule was violated.