The Advanced Scouting rule wasn't technology related, that was one of the ridiculous things that the Pete Thamels of the world were peddling. The ban on in-game recording is for a game you're playing in (which was never alleged here) and is in that section of the rulebook alongside how many players can be on the field and how your uniform has to be worn.
The rule that Stalions broke was just a simple ban on in-person scouting, and the only concrete proof of that we have is the dumb CMU disguise. All of the iPhone recordings are probably a rule violation as well (the spirit of it if nothing else), but it's still a grey area of an outdated rule that was almost abolished a couple of years ago. The only violation of it on record was a Baylor coach who watched a game and got suspended for a half. It dates back to the mid 90's and was supposed to level the playing field when every game wasn't on TV and videotaping a game yourself was a much more difficult/expensive operation.
Time will tell. But now that the playoff is going to 12 and the first teams out won't have a real excuse, I think the selection process will become more like basketball. Records will be kept more in context and strength of schedule will be rewarded. They have much more latitude now.
Oh yeah, the basketball dialogue here could be better on the board. I just don’t know if there’s much else for Alex to say at this point in his articles. Regardless, I don’t like the implication (and it’s been several people, not just that poster) that anyone unhappy/worried about the current and future state of the program is some kind of simpleton. I wore #5 for Jalen on my grade school team, I’m as pro Fab Five as you’ll find and I’m rooting like hell for Juwan to turn it around. But numbers don’t lie and several bad trends have now developed over an extended period. A few early pros and missed transfers (which are part of the game in college basketball anyway) aren’t the only difference between us and a healthy program.
Someone was paying attention in AP English! Bravo! Are there any other flowery phrases you could regale us with?
The Fab Five might be my favorite sports team of all time and I'll always root for all of them in whatever they do. But since losing to UCLA in the 2021 tournament, the team is 44-48 overall and 9-21 in games decided by 6 or less. Give me a break. That's an actual trend with an actual sample size. This contrarian crap is something you'd say when a team is on the bubble instead of being in the Top 25. Not when the team is struggling like this and experiencing off-court issues as well. I would be thrilled if Juwan could turn this around, but something is very wrong. Sure they would be better with the departed/denied players (there's nowhere to go but up). But they still wouldn't be a tournament team with Love and Shannon this year just like they weren't with Houstan, Jett, and Hunter last year.
I "darkened the door" of Angell Hall as well as Ross and the Law School. So am I qualified to tell you to stop being a prick? These teams are a shared experience for everyone.
It is, and I would worry about that if this ended up in trial. But I do think there's enough grey area in the NCAA rule for us to muck this up with legal action (real or threatened) and negotiate a settlement that avoids serious punishment. It would be a huge can of worms for them to try to codify that grey area on the fly, and I think there's a reasonable deal to be made.
Obviously the Big Ten is off the rails and already gave us a serious punishment, but I at least think we can cut it off there depending on what happens with the injunction.
Yeah good point, I just meant it was likely for a purpose other than scouting for Michigan. It's probably more severe than the Baylor example but still not much in the grand scheme of things. And like I said, he's gone. Plus, for the Harbaugh "should have known" test, there are literally 2 or 3 nights per year when a coach or staffer can even attempt to do this given their responsibilities to attend Michigan games. This rule is unique in that a large part of the monitoring by a head coach takes care of itself.
And this news about the other sign stealing puts other schools in the "grey area" that so many of us have talked about here. This CMU incident seems to be the only differentiator now, and a pretty minor one given that it didn't appear to extend beyond Stalions.
Yeah then you're in the ballpark of that Baylor coach who was suspended for a half for going to a friend's game which also happened to involve a future opponent that year, or something along those lines. And Stalions already resigned.
You're not wrong re: the money. But that's an argument for a middling team in the conference to make, not one of two cash cows that hold all the leverage. And financially, I think Texas is doing pretty well for themselves with the SEC move.
I disagree. I think at some point, we have to ask the question of why we continue to do business with Ohio State and Michigan State when they, and to a lesser extent some other teams in the conference, treat us like the spawn of Satan. It goes way beyond the boundaries of a sports rivalry, and I honestly believe that we don't act that way in return. Michigan-Notre Dame is such a better example of what a college football rivalry should be between two like-minded schools. Plus OSU and MSU wouldn't know what to do with themselves if we were off the schedule. Hating us is their entire identity.
Exactly. And of all NCAA rules to be involved here, on this one, a staff member's literal presence at Michigan games could be argued as verification of following it.
Yeah I'm with you there, the school doesn't seem to be on board with the grey area defense and that may be convenient for them. I just meant it from a technical standpoint and if Harbaugh/Tom Mars wanted to challenge it.
Much respect for Brian obviously, but I'm not buying any large penalty for Harbaugh when Stalions' rule violation still seems firmly in a grey area. I doubt we'll get off scot free, but anything serious strikes me as fertile ground for a lawsuit given how unclear the rule is. There's still a reasonable implication that it stops at in-person scouting by staff members, and Harbaugh and others could easily show compliance by verifying that those staff members were at the Michigan game. Now, I could easily see Harbaugh saying "F this" given the annoyance and the possible lack of support from higher ups at the University. But I doubt that it would be anything forced.
Yes, and that's why I don't think this went very far beyond Stalions. I do think he found a legitimate loophole/grey area in a vague rule. But I'm guessing coaches and/or compliance would have nixed it just to avoid the uncertainty.
"And (probably) Michigan cannot pay a 3rd party to in-person scout a future opponent."
I'm with you on 99% of what you've wrote, but I'm not even sure this is true. 11.6.1 doesn't clarify anything about third parties beyond stopping the exceptions at "institutional staff members" after previously considering the possibly of stopping them at coaches. I think it's a fair interpretation that the main rule stops there too, and couldn't realistically cover any more ground without further explanation. So even if "recording" and "scouting" get conflated, I still think you have a reasonable argument that the rule wasn't violated if staff members weren't there in person. If scouting interns were some of the people there in person, that complicates things of course. But that may have been for a playoff game where the exception already applied. And it's not even clear if anyone was actually paid beyond getting free tickets. You could argue that's just an expense like a blank tape or DVD was under the previous version of the paid recording rule.
Seconded, awesome work. And while the two exceptions to 11.6.1 (same event and tournament games) may not apply factually, their drafting history could be relevant. Those exceptions first were only going to apply to coaches but were then extended to “institutional staff members” because it would be ridiculous to make the Director of Operations or someone like that leave an NCAA tournament session before or after their team plays. So I think it stands to reason that 11.6.1, absent saying otherwise, doesn’t go beyond “institutional staff members.” And realistically, how could it if they don’t give specific examples?
Sign stealing is legal and CAN plausibly be done from a TV broadcast or All-22 film. I don't know why teams would go through such hassle to change up signs just to avoid in-game stealing learned that day. So why in the hell would coaches look a gift horse in the mouth and ask anything else once they knew Stalions wasn't at the opposing games himself (which is pretty easy given that he was, you know, at Michigan games). I think it goes without saying that any actually illegal activity like hacking practice film or whatever isn't permitted. And if you want to extend the coaches' responsibility to confirming no other staffers scouted games in person, sure. But beyond that is unreasonable. The NCAA probably does relish any chance to hammer us, but that doesn't mean you have to go to ridiculous lengths to follow every single rule with no doubt whatsoever. They don't seem to be doing much about schools violating the "spirit" of NIL rules because there's no realistic way to draw the line.
I know you think we committed murder here and will be banned from playing football games for the next decade while Harbaugh heads off to jail. But there's a big difference between "I didn't know that rule" and "this was my interpretation of this vague rule that didn't specify otherwise." They're firmly in the grey area of a 30 year old rule that was originally designed to level the playing field on travel costs and didn't contemplate every game being on TV or everyone having HD video cameras in their pocket. I doubt the coaches were dumb enough to condone or reimburse anything on the record just to avoid the said grey area. But even beyond that, there could be a reasonable and good faith argument by them that "the rule doesn't say who it applies to, and given the enforcement challenges otherwise, our reading was that it only applied to staff." FFS, this isn't Minority Report.
I'm not naive enough to say I'm sure he went rogue. You can't rule anything out. But again, I think it's a decent possibility. The coaches would have to be massively stupid to officially sanction this tactic and/or officially reimburse any expenses. Grey area of the rule or not, you're inviting trouble by allowing this in any traceable way. I'm sure they raised an eyebrow when they saw how good he was at stealing signs, but "don't ask, don't tell" is the more likely scenario and it's hard to prove and punish that. I know the NCAA has the weird rule that head coaches should somehow know everything, but we're not even sure it was a rules violation.
Yep that's a reasonable take too, these are public events we're talking about at the end of the day. And it's not practical to enforce that scouting rule for all third parties at the game. The rule doesn't even mention taping. The Forever Saturday podcast addressed this scenario well: if a coach buys a family member a ticket for another game and that family member tells them that they had a good time and Team X played well, and shared some cell phone videos of themselves at the game, does that violate it too? If a coach talked to their friend who attended a game independently, does that violate it too? I know some have made the point that Connor Stalions directing these people to the games is what made the difference. But the rule doesn't get into that kind of detail. If someone wants to argue that the free tickets were compensation and hence opened the door for these third parties to qualify as "staff" or a commercial entity, that's fine. But you're right, not even the moral angle is completely clear.
I disagree, I think you can make a reasonable argument on either side of it. The legislative notes for the no in-person scouting rule contemplated making the exceptions (for the same event or championship events) only for coaches, but then settled on "institutional staff." Because it would be ridiculous to make the Director of Operations leave an NCAA tournament session after his or her team's game finishes. So that implies that the main rule should stop there as well (nor is it practical to enforce the main rule very far beyond that). The "spirit of the rule" was probably violated, however you want to define it. But that is a giant can of worms to open if it becomes the enforcement standard.
If you're saying the NCAA will hammer us at any opportunity and this grey area gives them an opening to do so, I'm with you. But I don't think it's a straightforward rule violation.
"The problem is that this was...a blatant violation of the rules."
I know people want to be hysterical, but no it wasn't. It was in a grey area of a vague, outdated rule. Reckless, maybe, and morally, not great. But if you're looking for concrete, legislated morality across college football, I have a bridge to sell you.
“If it isn’t going up the chain, and the leak is of the videos of Connor filming, then that is another angle.”
Of all the bombastic and biased articles I’ve seen about this episode (with zero actual confirmation so far), I haven’t seen one of them claim that Connor did the actual filming. So even your attempted walkback is wrong. Stick to the Finer Things Club.
Loophole is right. It wasn't a great thing to do, but I think that's what he found here. Only hiccup might be the free tickets that he moronically bought for people under his own name. If he wanted to go full loophole, the volunteers needed to completely be on their own dime.
I still think there's a good argument that since an actual paid employee, staffer, or contractor wasn't the one doing the scouting and taping, the NCAA rule doesn't apply. Especially given the fact that the rule was enacted in 1994 when you would most likely need a professional camera crew to do this (they didn't want to disadvantage schools with lower budgets). And nobody is alleging that any of this happened electronically during a Michigan game as the rules also prohibit, just in advance. So you could argue that it's a weird alternate version of a TV broadcast if it comes from an unaffiliated person.
However, it could get murky as to the question of whether an actual staffer buying the volunteer "scout" a ticket on his own dime counts as compensation. That was stupid to buy those tickets and involve any money whatsoever, and even more stupid to do so under his own name.
My only point to you though is that the NCAA rule doesn't speak to that one way or the other on direction vs. no direction. All it says is "Off-campus, in-person scouting of future opponents (in the same season) is prohibited." Given the scope and enforcement challenges, I think it's fair to limit that to affiliated/paid people.
I hear you on the spirit of the rule, I just don't know how you draw the line and reasonably enforce it when you have willing volunteers. Your comment on directing them to do it may make sense from a fairness standpoint but again seems difficult to apply when you get unaffiliated third parties involved. I don't know how you'd define where the unsolicited part ends and the direction begins when it could be any fan helping out the team on their own dime. That's why I think it's reasonable to read that rule as only applying to employees or contractors of the school or team.
I think the whole thing could have been done very easily with unpaid and unaffiliated friends/volunteers who bought their own tickets to the games. And those games obviously are open to the public with cell phone videos allowed. There's a strong argument that the (vague) NCAA rule wouldn't apply in that situation.
Correct, and I think you can argue that there isn't even anything wrong with that. A reasonable interpretation of the rule is that it only applies to school/team employees or contractors.
I respectfully disagree on the third scenario. It might not be the most upstanding thing to do. But if the sign stealer isn't affiliated, isn't getting paid, and bought their own ticket to a public event, I don't see any reasonable way to enforce an NCAA rule. That's literally something that any of us could go do this weekend. And I'm guessing that's how Connor Stalions operated here. Even if they were paid (and my guess is no given the likely amount of friendly local volunteers), there's a high probability that it was cash or something else that isn't feasible to prove.
Dan Wetzel noted in an article that information often gets emailed to coaches from (stranger) fans unsolicited. How can you possibly draw that line? It would have to be an actual coach or proven compensated person doing the scouting to trigger any sort of violation in my opinion.
Edit: It appears that Stalions did buy the tickets, albeit on his own dime (great work doing that under your own name, savvy). That makes the compensation question murkier.
Does USC really end up in recruiting battles with those two very often? All great actual schools, but I think USC is a little more, um, relaxed on admission standards for football players. Nonetheless, I think Stanford and Cal would be great additions. Football and basketball struggles aside, they're both awesome academically, they both dominate in non-revenue sports, and the Bay Area is a huge market (with a lot of Big Ten transplants) that's the center of the tech world.
My hot take is that unless it’s Sunday when the championship is at stake, practice rounds are better than regular rounds to attend in person. It’s hard to figure out who’s winning with no phones, etc. anyway, and with the practice round, you’re not worried about it at all (and can then follow the excellent TV coverage on the weekend). You just enjoy the beautiful grounds, concessions and souvenirs. Plus, the players are a lot looser and will even banter with you a little. I went to a practice round in the 2021 reduced capacity Covid year, was walking down 15, and Bernhard Langer just casually walked by and asked me how many people they let in.
As far as restaurants go, I recommend driving the half hour to Aiken, South Carolina. Great little walkable downtown with a bunch of good restaurant and bar options. Prime Steakhouse, Malia’s, the Whitney, and Whiskey Alley are a few good ones.
Seth, it speaks to your character that you would post this. But don't beat yourself up, you're not the Michigan HR Department (who very much should beat themselves up). I hear you because I made a similar comment without knowing the details based on a few nice interactions. I just wanted to share a positive thought from experience and wish I had known more. But those Tweets were outrageous and transcend politics, it's hard for that to always be on the radar. I think most would understand that you didn't know and would have spoken differently if you did. Good lesson for the future.
Yep I don't disagree with you there, Bo would probably be disappointed in himself that he didn't catch it. I just think there's a big difference between that (again, given the lower awareness at the time) and what seems to be the common perception that he knew and covered it up.
Understood, and I don't purport to exonerate Bo (or anyone) because I ultimately don't know. But since we have to sort of read tea leaves to analyze this issue, my only point in bringing up the Army example (which Bo served in) was that it was plausible at the time for someone like Bo to think that a prostate exam would have been part of a required physical. And if he reasonably believed that, I understand how he possibly could have missed the fact that his players were talking about a sexual assault rather than a typical exam.
Thanks for sharing, my dad played with George in that era as well. And I'm glad to hear Shemy is coming back. He's a good dude and has a lot of strong experience as an NFL scout.
As far as the shitstorm that I agree will follow your post, I think a lot of people should redirect their (rightful) anger to the Medical and Student Services Departments instead of Bo for this tragic scandal. They were actually in a position to know that Dr. Anderson's conduct was medically wrong and criminal. We obviously can't say for sure because just about everyone's dead and it's hard to prove a negative. But I think there's a strong possibility that given the climate around medicine and sexual assault awareness at the time, Bo didn't realize what his players were alleging and thought they were complaining about medically required prostate exams (which guys commonly joke about to this day). Those exams of course weren't required for those players and Dr. Anderson was assaulting them even beyond that, but they were required in some other physicals at the time (i.e. Army). It's plausible that was Bo's frame of reference for those complaints without connecting them to the sexual assault that was happening. You can make the argument that he should have known, but it's hard to understate what a different era it was. And sadly, Dr. Anderson had a strong disguise for his criminal conduct. My dad was one of the players who had to get examined by this scumbag, so I take this very seriously. I just don't think Bo understood the allegations.
Again with the caveat that this all conjecture, it just doesn't line up with his conduct in other criminal situations. A few years later, when Bo learned that two of his players were connected to agents with mob ties that were being investigated, he had those players talk to the FBI on the spot, and Bo went on to appear as the star witness in the agents' trial. I think if he knew his players meant that they were being assaulted (which I don't dispute at all), he would have acted similarly with Dr. Anderson. Of course questions should still be asked about everyone involved given the severity and longevity of Dr. Anderson's conduct. But this perception that it can be connected to Bo in a concrete manner, it's similar to Joe Paterno (who admitted while he was alive that he was told about sexual assault), and he should therefore be cancelled is unfair in my opinion.
Edit: I said that about Shemy based on personal interactions where he was a nice guy. I had no idea on the Twitter history and agree with the decision for everyone to move on.
Fair, but if you want to count those two wins, I think you should also toss out the three 5ish point wins against sub-200 teams that you should never be close with in the first place. So let’s call it 3-12 against similar teams in close games.
4-13 now in games decided by 6 or less or in overtime. And three of those wins were EMU, Ohio U, and Minnesota (with Dickinson’s prayer against Wisconsin being the 4th). I’m sure we just need a bigger sample size.
When you think about it, for local teams, hopefully it wouldn't be that expensive. But isn't that probably the most fair type of arrangement ? With local sports channels, it's almost purely for games and there isn't too much middle ground for viewers compared to other channels. Fans are watching regularly, and others don't care at all. But for other cable channels, there are probably 25 of them that I watch in varying amounts, which is a lot more conducive to bundling. It makes sense to separate out local teams and charge people accordingly. But like you said, the leagues won't like that result and it may cause a big shift in the revenue model.
I'm with you on bundling itself. In our (rightful) anger towards the shady practices of cable and satellite companies, I think a lot of us missed how beneficial that concept is. But for me personally, with YouTubeTV, the big game changers were no cable/satellite boxes, the service aspect, and unlimited DVR. Logistically in my house, to just be able to plug a TV in and go was huge. And cost wise, the local cable company here stuck you on additional charges for every box. For me at least, YTTV and internet service still puts me ahead of what a combined cable package would be. For service, being able to add and subtract subscriptions (i.e. RedZone) with the click of a button as opposed to a 12 round fight on the phone every time was a very welcome change. And it's hard to overstate how huge the unlimited DVR is. You can have every single episode of every series you like and a lot of movies you like available whenever as long as they air regularly on cable, which most of them do. And other than the garbage with our local teams (Cavs and Guardians), YTTV has just about every sports channel.
As for Bally, good freaking riddance. They had the worst app I've ever seen. I had to delete it, re-download it, and log in literally every single time I wanted to use it. I think in the cord cutting debate, people focus too much on the cost of it and underestimate the convenience aspect. I'd be willing to pay a good amount for the local teams to be on YTTV (or another streaming cable service) again. But as much of a diehard fan of those teams that I am, my viewing habits changed with how awful that app is.
Yep. The truth lies somewhere in the middle on the overall luck question. But for this team, as I just said above, I look to the sample size. 4-12 in games decided by 6 points or less (or OT), with three of those wins being Eastern, Ohio U in overtime, and Minnesota. It sort of defies explanation for that kind of "luck" to hold up over 16 games, with many of the losses coming against evenly matched teams.
I respectfully disagree with Brian (and several posters) on the luck question. If they were something like 1-6 in games decided by 6 points or less (or OT), I'd have an easier time chalking that up to bad luck. But they're 4-12 in those games. 4-12!! And three of those wins are against Eastern Michigan, Ohio U, and Minnesota. At some point, there's a big enough sample where it goes beyond bad luck and becomes a trend with reasoning behind it. I remember feeling the same way in reverse about Jim Tressel's OSU football teams back in the day. After a while, I had to just accept that they had a knack for winning close games.
Thanks a lot TrueBlue9 for doing yeoman's work, awesome and thorough job. But here's to not needing one of these (at least for bid purposes) next year.
That CMU loss is such a millstone. According to Torvik, if we had just won that game, we would have a bye. But as it stands right now, we're the fourth team out. I was hoping they'd become an average MAC team and make it look a little better, but they've been awful. 326th out of 363 teams on Kenpom and 338th out of 363 on Torvik now. I still like our chances, our presence in the tournament is good for business, and the committee tends to reward hot teams. But I hope that doesn't end up being the difference.
Recent Comments
The Advanced Scouting rule wasn't technology related, that was one of the ridiculous things that the Pete Thamels of the world were peddling. The ban on in-game recording is for a game you're playing in (which was never alleged here) and is in that section of the rulebook alongside how many players can be on the field and how your uniform has to be worn.
The rule that Stalions broke was just a simple ban on in-person scouting, and the only concrete proof of that we have is the dumb CMU disguise. All of the iPhone recordings are probably a rule violation as well (the spirit of it if nothing else), but it's still a grey area of an outdated rule that was almost abolished a couple of years ago. The only violation of it on record was a Baylor coach who watched a game and got suspended for a half. It dates back to the mid 90's and was supposed to level the playing field when every game wasn't on TV and videotaping a game yourself was a much more difficult/expensive operation.
Time will tell. But now that the playoff is going to 12 and the first teams out won't have a real excuse, I think the selection process will become more like basketball. Records will be kept more in context and strength of schedule will be rewarded. They have much more latitude now.
Oh yeah, the basketball dialogue here could be better on the board. I just don’t know if there’s much else for Alex to say at this point in his articles. Regardless, I don’t like the implication (and it’s been several people, not just that poster) that anyone unhappy/worried about the current and future state of the program is some kind of simpleton. I wore #5 for Jalen on my grade school team, I’m as pro Fab Five as you’ll find and I’m rooting like hell for Juwan to turn it around. But numbers don’t lie and several bad trends have now developed over an extended period. A few early pros and missed transfers (which are part of the game in college basketball anyway) aren’t the only difference between us and a healthy program.
Hack names? Apologize to Roy Munson and Big Ern McCracken right now.
Someone was paying attention in AP English! Bravo! Are there any other flowery phrases you could regale us with?
The Fab Five might be my favorite sports team of all time and I'll always root for all of them in whatever they do. But since losing to UCLA in the 2021 tournament, the team is 44-48 overall and 9-21 in games decided by 6 or less. Give me a break. That's an actual trend with an actual sample size. This contrarian crap is something you'd say when a team is on the bubble instead of being in the Top 25. Not when the team is struggling like this and experiencing off-court issues as well. I would be thrilled if Juwan could turn this around, but something is very wrong. Sure they would be better with the departed/denied players (there's nowhere to go but up). But they still wouldn't be a tournament team with Love and Shannon this year just like they weren't with Houstan, Jett, and Hunter last year.
I agree, and 9-3 might even get them into the playoff depending on how things break.
I "darkened the door" of Angell Hall as well as Ross and the Law School. So am I qualified to tell you to stop being a prick? These teams are a shared experience for everyone.
I’m from near Cleveland, how long is the character limit on these posts?
It is, and I would worry about that if this ended up in trial. But I do think there's enough grey area in the NCAA rule for us to muck this up with legal action (real or threatened) and negotiate a settlement that avoids serious punishment. It would be a huge can of worms for them to try to codify that grey area on the fly, and I think there's a reasonable deal to be made.
Obviously the Big Ten is off the rails and already gave us a serious punishment, but I at least think we can cut it off there depending on what happens with the injunction.
Yeah good point, I just meant it was likely for a purpose other than scouting for Michigan. It's probably more severe than the Baylor example but still not much in the grand scheme of things. And like I said, he's gone. Plus, for the Harbaugh "should have known" test, there are literally 2 or 3 nights per year when a coach or staffer can even attempt to do this given their responsibilities to attend Michigan games. This rule is unique in that a large part of the monitoring by a head coach takes care of itself.
And this news about the other sign stealing puts other schools in the "grey area" that so many of us have talked about here. This CMU incident seems to be the only differentiator now, and a pretty minor one given that it didn't appear to extend beyond Stalions.
Yeah then you're in the ballpark of that Baylor coach who was suspended for a half for going to a friend's game which also happened to involve a future opponent that year, or something along those lines. And Stalions already resigned.
You're not wrong re: the money. But that's an argument for a middling team in the conference to make, not one of two cash cows that hold all the leverage. And financially, I think Texas is doing pretty well for themselves with the SEC move.
I disagree. I think at some point, we have to ask the question of why we continue to do business with Ohio State and Michigan State when they, and to a lesser extent some other teams in the conference, treat us like the spawn of Satan. It goes way beyond the boundaries of a sports rivalry, and I honestly believe that we don't act that way in return. Michigan-Notre Dame is such a better example of what a college football rivalry should be between two like-minded schools. Plus OSU and MSU wouldn't know what to do with themselves if we were off the schedule. Hating us is their entire identity.
Yep, that adds up. They would probably need to challenge it in court with the "grey area" defense, and the school may not be interested in doing that.
Exactly. And of all NCAA rules to be involved here, on this one, a staff member's literal presence at Michigan games could be argued as verification of following it.
Yeah I'm with you there, the school doesn't seem to be on board with the grey area defense and that may be convenient for them. I just meant it from a technical standpoint and if Harbaugh/Tom Mars wanted to challenge it.
Much respect for Brian obviously, but I'm not buying any large penalty for Harbaugh when Stalions' rule violation still seems firmly in a grey area. I doubt we'll get off scot free, but anything serious strikes me as fertile ground for a lawsuit given how unclear the rule is. There's still a reasonable implication that it stops at in-person scouting by staff members, and Harbaugh and others could easily show compliance by verifying that those staff members were at the Michigan game. Now, I could easily see Harbaugh saying "F this" given the annoyance and the possible lack of support from higher ups at the University. But I doubt that it would be anything forced.
Yes, and that's why I don't think this went very far beyond Stalions. I do think he found a legitimate loophole/grey area in a vague rule. But I'm guessing coaches and/or compliance would have nixed it just to avoid the uncertainty.
"And (probably) Michigan cannot pay a 3rd party to in-person scout a future opponent."
I'm with you on 99% of what you've wrote, but I'm not even sure this is true. 11.6.1 doesn't clarify anything about third parties beyond stopping the exceptions at "institutional staff members" after previously considering the possibly of stopping them at coaches. I think it's a fair interpretation that the main rule stops there too, and couldn't realistically cover any more ground without further explanation. So even if "recording" and "scouting" get conflated, I still think you have a reasonable argument that the rule wasn't violated if staff members weren't there in person. If scouting interns were some of the people there in person, that complicates things of course. But that may have been for a playoff game where the exception already applied. And it's not even clear if anyone was actually paid beyond getting free tickets. You could argue that's just an expense like a blank tape or DVD was under the previous version of the paid recording rule.
Seconded, awesome work. And while the two exceptions to 11.6.1 (same event and tournament games) may not apply factually, their drafting history could be relevant. Those exceptions first were only going to apply to coaches but were then extended to “institutional staff members” because it would be ridiculous to make the Director of Operations or someone like that leave an NCAA tournament session before or after their team plays. So I think it stands to reason that 11.6.1, absent saying otherwise, doesn’t go beyond “institutional staff members.” And realistically, how could it if they don’t give specific examples?
Not off the top of my head, but a valid argument is great leverage in a settlement discussion, which is where this would likely end up.
Sign stealing is legal and CAN plausibly be done from a TV broadcast or All-22 film. I don't know why teams would go through such hassle to change up signs just to avoid in-game stealing learned that day. So why in the hell would coaches look a gift horse in the mouth and ask anything else once they knew Stalions wasn't at the opposing games himself (which is pretty easy given that he was, you know, at Michigan games). I think it goes without saying that any actually illegal activity like hacking practice film or whatever isn't permitted. And if you want to extend the coaches' responsibility to confirming no other staffers scouted games in person, sure. But beyond that is unreasonable. The NCAA probably does relish any chance to hammer us, but that doesn't mean you have to go to ridiculous lengths to follow every single rule with no doubt whatsoever. They don't seem to be doing much about schools violating the "spirit" of NIL rules because there's no realistic way to draw the line.
I know you think we committed murder here and will be banned from playing football games for the next decade while Harbaugh heads off to jail. But there's a big difference between "I didn't know that rule" and "this was my interpretation of this vague rule that didn't specify otherwise." They're firmly in the grey area of a 30 year old rule that was originally designed to level the playing field on travel costs and didn't contemplate every game being on TV or everyone having HD video cameras in their pocket. I doubt the coaches were dumb enough to condone or reimburse anything on the record just to avoid the said grey area. But even beyond that, there could be a reasonable and good faith argument by them that "the rule doesn't say who it applies to, and given the enforcement challenges otherwise, our reading was that it only applied to staff." FFS, this isn't Minority Report.
I'm not naive enough to say I'm sure he went rogue. You can't rule anything out. But again, I think it's a decent possibility. The coaches would have to be massively stupid to officially sanction this tactic and/or officially reimburse any expenses. Grey area of the rule or not, you're inviting trouble by allowing this in any traceable way. I'm sure they raised an eyebrow when they saw how good he was at stealing signs, but "don't ask, don't tell" is the more likely scenario and it's hard to prove and punish that. I know the NCAA has the weird rule that head coaches should somehow know everything, but we're not even sure it was a rules violation.
Yep that's a reasonable take too, these are public events we're talking about at the end of the day. And it's not practical to enforce that scouting rule for all third parties at the game. The rule doesn't even mention taping. The Forever Saturday podcast addressed this scenario well: if a coach buys a family member a ticket for another game and that family member tells them that they had a good time and Team X played well, and shared some cell phone videos of themselves at the game, does that violate it too? If a coach talked to their friend who attended a game independently, does that violate it too? I know some have made the point that Connor Stalions directing these people to the games is what made the difference. But the rule doesn't get into that kind of detail. If someone wants to argue that the free tickets were compensation and hence opened the door for these third parties to qualify as "staff" or a commercial entity, that's fine. But you're right, not even the moral angle is completely clear.
I disagree, I think you can make a reasonable argument on either side of it. The legislative notes for the no in-person scouting rule contemplated making the exceptions (for the same event or championship events) only for coaches, but then settled on "institutional staff." Because it would be ridiculous to make the Director of Operations leave an NCAA tournament session after his or her team's game finishes. So that implies that the main rule should stop there as well (nor is it practical to enforce the main rule very far beyond that). The "spirit of the rule" was probably violated, however you want to define it. But that is a giant can of worms to open if it becomes the enforcement standard.
If you're saying the NCAA will hammer us at any opportunity and this grey area gives them an opening to do so, I'm with you. But I don't think it's a straightforward rule violation.
"The problem is that this was...a blatant violation of the rules."
I know people want to be hysterical, but no it wasn't. It was in a grey area of a vague, outdated rule. Reckless, maybe, and morally, not great. But if you're looking for concrete, legislated morality across college football, I have a bridge to sell you.
“If it isn’t going up the chain, and the leak is of the videos of Connor filming, then that is another angle.”
Of all the bombastic and biased articles I’ve seen about this episode (with zero actual confirmation so far), I haven’t seen one of them claim that Connor did the actual filming. So even your attempted walkback is wrong. Stick to the Finer Things Club.
Loophole is right. It wasn't a great thing to do, but I think that's what he found here. Only hiccup might be the free tickets that he moronically bought for people under his own name. If he wanted to go full loophole, the volunteers needed to completely be on their own dime.
I still think there's a good argument that since an actual paid employee, staffer, or contractor wasn't the one doing the scouting and taping, the NCAA rule doesn't apply. Especially given the fact that the rule was enacted in 1994 when you would most likely need a professional camera crew to do this (they didn't want to disadvantage schools with lower budgets). And nobody is alleging that any of this happened electronically during a Michigan game as the rules also prohibit, just in advance. So you could argue that it's a weird alternate version of a TV broadcast if it comes from an unaffiliated person.
However, it could get murky as to the question of whether an actual staffer buying the volunteer "scout" a ticket on his own dime counts as compensation. That was stupid to buy those tickets and involve any money whatsoever, and even more stupid to do so under his own name.
My only point to you though is that the NCAA rule doesn't speak to that one way or the other on direction vs. no direction. All it says is "Off-campus, in-person scouting of future opponents (in the same season) is prohibited." Given the scope and enforcement challenges, I think it's fair to limit that to affiliated/paid people.
I hear you on the spirit of the rule, I just don't know how you draw the line and reasonably enforce it when you have willing volunteers. Your comment on directing them to do it may make sense from a fairness standpoint but again seems difficult to apply when you get unaffiliated third parties involved. I don't know how you'd define where the unsolicited part ends and the direction begins when it could be any fan helping out the team on their own dime. That's why I think it's reasonable to read that rule as only applying to employees or contractors of the school or team.
That's exactly why I don't think anything will come of this. It's impossible to draw the line if these were just friendly volunteers.
I think the whole thing could have been done very easily with unpaid and unaffiliated friends/volunteers who bought their own tickets to the games. And those games obviously are open to the public with cell phone videos allowed. There's a strong argument that the (vague) NCAA rule wouldn't apply in that situation.
Correct, and I think you can argue that there isn't even anything wrong with that. A reasonable interpretation of the rule is that it only applies to school/team employees or contractors.
I respectfully disagree on the third scenario. It might not be the most upstanding thing to do. But if the sign stealer isn't affiliated, isn't getting paid, and bought their own ticket to a public event, I don't see any reasonable way to enforce an NCAA rule. That's literally something that any of us could go do this weekend. And I'm guessing that's how Connor Stalions operated here. Even if they were paid (and my guess is no given the likely amount of friendly local volunteers), there's a high probability that it was cash or something else that isn't feasible to prove.
Dan Wetzel noted in an article that information often gets emailed to coaches from (stranger) fans unsolicited. How can you possibly draw that line? It would have to be an actual coach or proven compensated person doing the scouting to trigger any sort of violation in my opinion.
Edit: It appears that Stalions did buy the tickets, albeit on his own dime (great work doing that under your own name, savvy). That makes the compensation question murkier.
“Here’s how this is Jim Harbaugh’s fault.”- 97.1 at 2:00 on Monday
Does USC really end up in recruiting battles with those two very often? All great actual schools, but I think USC is a little more, um, relaxed on admission standards for football players. Nonetheless, I think Stanford and Cal would be great additions. Football and basketball struggles aside, they're both awesome academically, they both dominate in non-revenue sports, and the Bay Area is a huge market (with a lot of Big Ten transplants) that's the center of the tech world.
My hot take is that unless it’s Sunday when the championship is at stake, practice rounds are better than regular rounds to attend in person. It’s hard to figure out who’s winning with no phones, etc. anyway, and with the practice round, you’re not worried about it at all (and can then follow the excellent TV coverage on the weekend). You just enjoy the beautiful grounds, concessions and souvenirs. Plus, the players are a lot looser and will even banter with you a little. I went to a practice round in the 2021 reduced capacity Covid year, was walking down 15, and Bernhard Langer just casually walked by and asked me how many people they let in.
As far as restaurants go, I recommend driving the half hour to Aiken, South Carolina. Great little walkable downtown with a bunch of good restaurant and bar options. Prime Steakhouse, Malia’s, the Whitney, and Whiskey Alley are a few good ones.
Seth, it speaks to your character that you would post this. But don't beat yourself up, you're not the Michigan HR Department (who very much should beat themselves up). I hear you because I made a similar comment without knowing the details based on a few nice interactions. I just wanted to share a positive thought from experience and wish I had known more. But those Tweets were outrageous and transcend politics, it's hard for that to always be on the radar. I think most would understand that you didn't know and would have spoken differently if you did. Good lesson for the future.
Yep I don't disagree with you there, Bo would probably be disappointed in himself that he didn't catch it. I just think there's a big difference between that (again, given the lower awareness at the time) and what seems to be the common perception that he knew and covered it up.
Understood, and I don't purport to exonerate Bo (or anyone) because I ultimately don't know. But since we have to sort of read tea leaves to analyze this issue, my only point in bringing up the Army example (which Bo served in) was that it was plausible at the time for someone like Bo to think that a prostate exam would have been part of a required physical. And if he reasonably believed that, I understand how he possibly could have missed the fact that his players were talking about a sexual assault rather than a typical exam.
Thanks for sharing, my dad played with George in that era as well. And I'm glad to hear Shemy is coming back. He's a good dude and has a lot of strong experience as an NFL scout.
As far as the shitstorm that I agree will follow your post, I think a lot of people should redirect their (rightful) anger to the Medical and Student Services Departments instead of Bo for this tragic scandal. They were actually in a position to know that Dr. Anderson's conduct was medically wrong and criminal. We obviously can't say for sure because just about everyone's dead and it's hard to prove a negative. But I think there's a strong possibility that given the climate around medicine and sexual assault awareness at the time, Bo didn't realize what his players were alleging and thought they were complaining about medically required prostate exams (which guys commonly joke about to this day). Those exams of course weren't required for those players and Dr. Anderson was assaulting them even beyond that, but they were required in some other physicals at the time (i.e. Army). It's plausible that was Bo's frame of reference for those complaints without connecting them to the sexual assault that was happening. You can make the argument that he should have known, but it's hard to understate what a different era it was. And sadly, Dr. Anderson had a strong disguise for his criminal conduct. My dad was one of the players who had to get examined by this scumbag, so I take this very seriously. I just don't think Bo understood the allegations.
Again with the caveat that this all conjecture, it just doesn't line up with his conduct in other criminal situations. A few years later, when Bo learned that two of his players were connected to agents with mob ties that were being investigated, he had those players talk to the FBI on the spot, and Bo went on to appear as the star witness in the agents' trial. I think if he knew his players meant that they were being assaulted (which I don't dispute at all), he would have acted similarly with Dr. Anderson. Of course questions should still be asked about everyone involved given the severity and longevity of Dr. Anderson's conduct. But this perception that it can be connected to Bo in a concrete manner, it's similar to Joe Paterno (who admitted while he was alive that he was told about sexual assault), and he should therefore be cancelled is unfair in my opinion.
Edit: I said that about Shemy based on personal interactions where he was a nice guy. I had no idea on the Twitter history and agree with the decision for everyone to move on.
Fair, but if you want to count those two wins, I think you should also toss out the three 5ish point wins against sub-200 teams that you should never be close with in the first place. So let’s call it 3-12 against similar teams in close games.
4-13 now in games decided by 6 or less or in overtime. And three of those wins were EMU, Ohio U, and Minnesota (with Dickinson’s prayer against Wisconsin being the 4th). I’m sure we just need a bigger sample size.
When you think about it, for local teams, hopefully it wouldn't be that expensive. But isn't that probably the most fair type of arrangement ? With local sports channels, it's almost purely for games and there isn't too much middle ground for viewers compared to other channels. Fans are watching regularly, and others don't care at all. But for other cable channels, there are probably 25 of them that I watch in varying amounts, which is a lot more conducive to bundling. It makes sense to separate out local teams and charge people accordingly. But like you said, the leagues won't like that result and it may cause a big shift in the revenue model.
I'm with you on bundling itself. In our (rightful) anger towards the shady practices of cable and satellite companies, I think a lot of us missed how beneficial that concept is. But for me personally, with YouTubeTV, the big game changers were no cable/satellite boxes, the service aspect, and unlimited DVR. Logistically in my house, to just be able to plug a TV in and go was huge. And cost wise, the local cable company here stuck you on additional charges for every box. For me at least, YTTV and internet service still puts me ahead of what a combined cable package would be. For service, being able to add and subtract subscriptions (i.e. RedZone) with the click of a button as opposed to a 12 round fight on the phone every time was a very welcome change. And it's hard to overstate how huge the unlimited DVR is. You can have every single episode of every series you like and a lot of movies you like available whenever as long as they air regularly on cable, which most of them do. And other than the garbage with our local teams (Cavs and Guardians), YTTV has just about every sports channel.
As for Bally, good freaking riddance. They had the worst app I've ever seen. I had to delete it, re-download it, and log in literally every single time I wanted to use it. I think in the cord cutting debate, people focus too much on the cost of it and underestimate the convenience aspect. I'd be willing to pay a good amount for the local teams to be on YTTV (or another streaming cable service) again. But as much of a diehard fan of those teams that I am, my viewing habits changed with how awful that app is.
Yep. The truth lies somewhere in the middle on the overall luck question. But for this team, as I just said above, I look to the sample size. 4-12 in games decided by 6 points or less (or OT), with three of those wins being Eastern, Ohio U in overtime, and Minnesota. It sort of defies explanation for that kind of "luck" to hold up over 16 games, with many of the losses coming against evenly matched teams.
I respectfully disagree with Brian (and several posters) on the luck question. If they were something like 1-6 in games decided by 6 points or less (or OT), I'd have an easier time chalking that up to bad luck. But they're 4-12 in those games. 4-12!! And three of those wins are against Eastern Michigan, Ohio U, and Minnesota. At some point, there's a big enough sample where it goes beyond bad luck and becomes a trend with reasoning behind it. I remember feeling the same way in reverse about Jim Tressel's OSU football teams back in the day. After a while, I had to just accept that they had a knack for winning close games.
Thanks a lot TrueBlue9 for doing yeoman's work, awesome and thorough job. But here's to not needing one of these (at least for bid purposes) next year.
That CMU loss is such a millstone. According to Torvik, if we had just won that game, we would have a bye. But as it stands right now, we're the fourth team out. I was hoping they'd become an average MAC team and make it look a little better, but they've been awful. 326th out of 363 teams on Kenpom and 338th out of 363 on Torvik now. I still like our chances, our presence in the tournament is good for business, and the committee tends to reward hot teams. But I hope that doesn't end up being the difference.