What are the arguments supporting B1G/Petitti’s suspension

Submitted by carolina blue on November 9th, 2023 at 6:12 AM

We’ve heard all the arguments in Michigan’s favor, and how it seems likely that we would be granted an injunction should it come to that. However likely that may seem, there will be arguments presented in court for the conference.  What is the legal defense that could persuade the court to deny the injunction? 

Alton

November 9th, 2023 at 9:58 AM ^

You say "Regardless of why, that's a violation."

No, I disagree with the "regardless of why."  If Stalions passed information he obtained at that game to University of Michigan coaches, then you could argue that's a violation. If he attended the game at CMU's invitation and only was there to steal MSU's signals for CMU, then that's not a violation.

So it's very important to answer the "why" question 

mGrowOld

November 9th, 2023 at 6:24 AM ^

There are none really.  Other coaches are super mad isn’t a reason but that’s what he basically using as his rationale.

He’s capitulating to a mob and he knows it.  We’ll see if the courts agree with the “eat shit, 10 trillion flies can’t be wrong” decision making.

jmblue

November 9th, 2023 at 7:14 AM ^

And what Pettiti fails to realize is that by capitulating on such a trivial issue, he's setting a dangerous precedent for more of this. This will not buy him peace.  Schools will learn that they can push him around.   What happens when they demand immediate action on an allegation that's actually serious - like recruiting violations or tampering?

BananaRepublic

November 9th, 2023 at 8:16 AM ^

He's setting a precedent that might be angrily repeated in stern letters sent by teams who want him to punish xyz opponent team for something, but that's about it. Precedent doesn't matter all that much in actual law, much less fake B1G bylaws...law. The reason he is even considering acting is because there was an absolute firestorm coming from the media, the fans, and every other member school all at once. THAT is the actual precedent he's setting and that's a fairly rare set of circumstances.

meeashagin

November 9th, 2023 at 6:31 AM ^

None.

This shit is ridiculous.

 

Note to all B1G coaches.

Every teams signs can be collected watching film. Every team knows this. Its completely legal to steal signs therefore you should alter your signs at a minimum when facing the best team in the conference if you want the best chance at winning.

So if you're trying to sell me that Michigan or any other team knew your plays then you're a dummy/or a liar and should be fired.

Bluesince89

November 9th, 2023 at 6:34 AM ^

Michigan isn't going to seek an injunction on the merits (i.e., sign stealing is wrong). This will be a process thing. The biggest factor is and will be success on the merits. If Michigan can demonstrate that the Big Ten violated its own standards so egregiously that it is likely to prevail in a full case, not sure what the Big Ten can say. It'll all come down to reading the authority of TP from the by-laws. 

The other factors weigh in Michigan's favor too. The NCAA has come out and stated there is no known connection between Harbaugh and the Stalions thing, so there is no prospect of ongoing future harm. Basically, you're not trying to prevent something bad from continuing to happen B1G, you're rushing to judgment for an alleged past crime. Additionally, Michigan is likely to suffer more in the absence of an injunction in this instance for the same reason. 

EGD

November 9th, 2023 at 6:37 AM ^

Basically the following:

  • as B1G commissioner, Pettiti has authority to levy certain punishments on member institutions for sportsmanship violations without further process;
  • Petitti determined there was a sportsmanship violation and levied a punishment;
  • The punishment was within the range of authorized sanctions.

The subtext of all these arguments is that a court will be reluctant or altogether unwilling to second-guess Pettiti’s judgment on these points. The Big Ten rules are ambiguous? True, but Pettiti will argue that they are the Big Ten’s rules and a court should defer to how their own commissioner interprets those rules. The evidence against Michigan is weak? True, but Pettiti gets to decide what he believes. Other schools committed similar or worse infractions against Michigan? True but that’s not a defense. The violation didn’t give M any significant competitive advantage? True but it can still be a sportsmanship violation and the commissioner has full authority to decide the correct punishment for that.

M has a formidable case but it’s important to understand that a court will likely evaluate what Pettiti’s authority is, not dig into the merits of who stole whose signs.

los barcos

November 9th, 2023 at 6:49 AM ^

Yes, this exactly. 

people saying it’s a slam dunk case for M don’t understand how the legal system works - in these situations, it’s all about how one random judge thinks. Are they basing their opinion on the “four corners” of the contract or the spirit of the contract? Are they more protectionist of the aggrieved party or deferential to whatever has been negotiated?

I think most reasonable people agree - the merits favor M, but the reality is the commissioner has a lot of leeway. Which is why, if they choose a suspension, M should really be considering leaving…

SwampFox43

November 9th, 2023 at 7:20 AM ^

Michigan joins the Ivy league.  With the current TV money being thrown around these schools decide, fuck it, with NIL our Alumni base could EASILY afford to bring in the top recruits and say we're back into football like it's 1911.  Harvard alone could outraise the whole of the SEC.  Completely destroying the current NCAA system in record time. 

A man can dream can't he...

WestQuad

November 9th, 2023 at 8:02 AM ^

I like the direction of this fantasy.  Michigan decides the B1G and NCAA are a waste of time and forms it's own spend all you want football league.  A few other wealthy schools join us.  Our medical schools perform experiments on the athletes creating genetically altered cybernetic athletes who can communicate through telepathy and/or encoded bluetooth.  Football is cast aside for CYBERBALL!

There was bar (arcade?) near blue front back in the day that had one of these.  I only played a few times, but I had some friends who got pretty good at it.

goblu330

November 9th, 2023 at 7:32 AM ^

A judge is also going to consider the possibility of harm in allowing the suspension to take effect v. staying in while the merits proceed.

This aspect strongly favors Harbaugh/UM.  The BIG isn’t acting to prevent current on-going wrongdoing, but alleged misdeeds of the past.  There is literally no reason other than animosity that they would need to act this fast and without proper process.

EGD

November 9th, 2023 at 9:38 AM ^

Correct. If I am the Big Ten, here is how I respond to this:

  • The sportsmanship policy is necessary to ensure the fairness and integrity of the competition on the field;
  • The B1G commissioner needs the authority to act quickly in response to violations of the sportsmanship policy, otherwise teams may be incentivized to gain advantages through cheating and win championships this year--then pay the penalties in some future season; and
  • The league rules give the B1G commissioner the discretion to decide what violates the sportsmanship policy and when to act unilaterally.

I think these arguments make some sense because you could have violations that give teams ongoing advantages. For example, imagine there was evidence of rampant PED use by some team and the league wanted to suspend the players involved, but the team denied it and insisted the league await the outcome of an investigation. Well in the meantime, that team gets the benefit of players hopped-up on steroids. Even if they were to stop using PEDs after the exposure, they still have the strength and size gains from when they committed the violation. Or you could have defiant teams that intend to carry on with improper conduct. Like, imagine that some team was egregiously misusing some kind of technology to affect the game--perhaps shining strobe lights or something to blind opposing receivers when the ball was in the air, and the league ordered them to stop doing so but the team was like "well nothing in rulebook says we can't do this." That's why you need to have some kind of independent authority on the part of the league commissioner to decide that something is a violation and stop it immediately in the name of sportsmanship. 

I think those arguments lose here because whatever advantage M might have been gaining through Stallions' sign-stealing activity no longer exists now that Stallions has been exposed and everyone knows to either change their signs or use wristbands. It's not an ongoing advantage, Stallions no longer works for M, and there is no reason to think M plans to resume the same kind of activity. I suppose the Big Ten might argue the "but changing signs takes practice time" thing but yeah, that seems like small potatoes compared to suspending M's coach--especially when there are reports M's opponents changed their signs anway.

 

 

 

WolverineGoneTerp

November 9th, 2023 at 7:18 AM ^

In some ways this is unfortunately reminiscent of the Tom Brady "deflategate" mess.  Brady ultimately lost in court not on the merits of whether footballs were deflated, but on the basis that NFL rules allowed Rodger Goddell to impose whatever penalty he did.  Michigan could wind up in the same situation here.  If Pettiti follows B1G rules he's probably in the clear.

That being said, as many college students learn, just because you CAN do something doesn't mean it's a good idea.  It might feel good in the moment, but there will be regrets the next morning.  Hopefully some sanity breaks out soon...but I'm not holding my breath.

Catchafire

November 9th, 2023 at 7:05 AM ^

The evidence that has been flying in the media, although I'm curious why we haven't seen more videos of people actually filming games.  

I don't believe what has been presented is strong enough to warrant an in season suspension from the BIG.

I would also think that Michigan might seriously entertain a move to the SEC.  Not that it would happen, but I'm sure after this it will be entertained.

Hensons Mobile…

November 9th, 2023 at 7:20 AM ^

 I'm curious why we haven't seen more videos of people actually filming games.

More videos? You mean any?

As has been pointed out elsewhere, just envision what that would look like. Surveillance camera footage zoomed in on what as far as any viewer would be able to tell is a random seat with a random person holding up a cellphone (at what? we don't know) at a college football game, probably surrounded by a handful of people sporadically doing the same thing.

Imagine Ryan Walters (since he was so invested in their evidence) putting this out there and saying, "Do you see what we were up against now?!"

It's pathetic. The NCAA/B1G would be mocked.

Michigan hasn't even been given these videos to review, I believe, because they're so not compelling.

jpo

November 9th, 2023 at 7:06 AM ^

I find the claim someone made that Pettiti will issue a suspension in the anticipation that the injunction will be successful to be a fairly convincing one. Given the weakness of his position he might likely see that as the most effective way to split the baby. This way he gets to tell the ADs and coaches that he tried. 

M-Dog

November 9th, 2023 at 8:31 AM ^

He still looks like an absolute fool across the entire nation for having a judge slap down the first meaningful decision he has made as the Big Ten commissioner.  There is no face saving there.

There are two sticks on the table:

Stick 1) He looks like a fool for creating all this mess and then backing off at the last moment.

Stick 2) He looks like a fool for creating all this mess and then having a judge make him back off at the last moment.

He's going to get hit with a fool stick no matter what, he just gets to pick which one.

BlueTuesday

November 9th, 2023 at 7:16 AM ^

Not a lawyer here.
 

There are facts in this case that haven’t been made public. If the request for injunction fails, my guess would be because of preponderance of evidence.

Also, the court may find they lack jurisdiction.

 

would love to hear from actual lawyer regarding this matter.