Yep. And if you're a program like Michigan and the NFL doesn't want at least some of your guys, you probably have some of the wrong guys. Plus, all of the best players are using Michigan as a stepping stone to the NFL....
I like the old school caps, so the 47 brand cap appeals to me. I got my order in before it sold out, but I suspect they will make more if it sold out in just a couple of days.
My understanding is that Nebraska was AAU when accepted and lost it later. The fact that it is a criteria doesn't mean that it is a decisive criteria is every case. It did not help Stanford and that's probably the biggest academic star in big time college sports.
One suspects that the Conference will want to see how incorporating four new schools will work before adding anything other than a true slam dunk, which FSU is not. Let's see how USC, UCLA, UW, and UO work before doing anything more is a sensible approach.
An given FSU's unhappiness in the ACC, it is hard to see them taking something worse than the UW/OU reduced distribution deal. That's hard to paint as a "win."
Also, I suspect AAU membership is an actual criteria with the university presidents.
I don't know precisely how the game selection process works for the networks, but at this point there seems to be plenty of inventory for the top 2-3 games each week. It is not clear to me how much is being added when you consider next year will have Michigan, OSU, PSU, USC, Oregon, Washington, and whoever else is good in a particular year, plus rivalries. There is likely good inventory with lots of good games and ranked teams etc. already. I understand FOX was willing to pony up a bit more for the Pacific Northwest schools, but at some point there has to be a ceiling. Plus, UO and UW are on reduced distributions for years.
Also, FSU isn't an AAU member, and it is a long long long way from Seattle and Eugene. Nor does it have an obvious pair to bring with it, as USC and UCLA and UO and UW did.
Maybe it all works out, but there has to be a natural ceiling with the finances, academics, and geographic footprint of the conference. I wouldn't put my money on FSU as a Big Ten member (unlike UNC).
Did I read that correctly that there has only been one holding penalty by opposing offensive linemen against this defensive line in Big Ten play? That's truly remarkable.
I am curious about the (continuing) apparent NFL interest by Harbaugh and the impact of that on portal recruits. I suspect there's no single answer and perhaps there is an understanding that Moore is next in line, and kids are good with that.
My kingdom for a summary piece about the portal entrants, targets, offers, and reasonable additions. Even better if there's something about the talent of the players behind the departing (or likely departing) upperclassmen.
The Deebo Samuel parallel occurred to me too, as I watched that Niner game. That isn't a fair comparison, perhaps, but it seems that that something could be learned from how they use Samuel. Of course, there's surely lots to learn from a Shanahan offense...
Watching Niner games is also a pretty good way to watch Michigan NFLers, as Moody is constantly kicking PATs, Bell gets WR reps, and Thomas is now one of the primary CBs.
The opposite point for Saban preparing is that Minter has a month to prepare an NFL-caliber defensive scheme to throw at a relatively inexperienced QB who couldn't nail down the starting job until several games into the season...
And you can see why FOX was willing to pony up a bit more for the Pac-12 teams. Brands matter. Adding Oregon, Washington, USC, and UCLA will make the first couple of picks each week much more compelling, which is what they care about. And Michigan will get some of those games, which is what I care about.
Obviously the opponent matters and that shows in the numbers. But I assume time and network does too. My recollection was that Maryland was Big Noon, as were most of the other bigger ones, with the exception of an NBC game or two. Putting the time and network on these numbers would be interesting. Presumably the networks are good at game selection, but I assume simply putting a game in a prime slot adds viewers too.
As to Michigan: "At 17, Charles went to the University of Michigan to major in mathematics, but in his sophomore year, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, he enlisted in the Army Air Corps."
Assuming it was a player who let something "slip," if is hard to justify any criticism. The advice to the entire department had to be "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." There's literally no other advice that makes any sense under these circumstances, for many reasons, but particularly the potential for lasting damage to the entire program and department. Indeed, I suspect that if someone said something about this achingly stupid sign-stealing "network" long ago, this whole thing would have never happened. So a player that actually followed the advice is to be commended and the guy who did something that either was bad or looked bad is the problem, not the guy who told the truth.
For all of the complaining on all sides, I generally find the calls of the top network broadcasting teams pretty fair. Nicknames are nicknames and that's one of Gus Johnson's calling cards, and he has them for lots of the big time players. And I find Klatt to be one of the better color guys, though they ESPN and NBC guys are good too. I may be in the minority, however....
Yes. Plus, when the NCAA finishes its investigation -- and the NCAA has a rule that the HC is responsible for everything in the program -- there is a time-served argument for UM that the conference already doled out the punishment. And, given that this is really just a Saturday ban rather than a full coaching ban, that might be a good deal down the road.
I do not understand the capitulation narrative. You can always lose a motion or a case, and it is generally better not to lose. Plus, the conference investigation is over and there are no more conference punishments coming this season.
There is a long and nearly unbroken tradition of amicus briefs that did not impact the outcome. Other than signifying interest in the outcome of the case, most briefs are rarely cited, even in the Supreme Court.
You might be surprised by the number of "settlements" that are essentially the plaintiff gets nothing and stops litigating. But here they also ended the conference investigation and insured no more sanctions. Never overlook the possibility of "it could be worse."
At the outset of any civil litigation, the smart money is always on "settlement." You don't need to know anything about the parties or the merits. That's what happens in 90%+ of all cases.
Well, Michigan could have lost the case and not ended the investigation, and bad facts could have emerged. And this provides a time-served argument when the NCAA investigation is complete. Plus, it is a distraction for the university and the team.
Just a few hours ago everyone was lauding the fight of Michigan, Harbaugh, Ono, etc. Now that they've all made a decision, it might make sense to withhold judgment for a couple of hours until the facts start dribbling out. Perhaps they didn't go to bed smart last night, only to wake up stupid this morning. When it comes to settlements, the hot takes are often the wrong takes.
Well, he does call plays on the Saturdays when Harbaugh has been there, no? And he's done it for two games now and seems to have everyone's confidence.
A few thoughts: We do not know all of the facts and there may be something that is relevant but not public. Not having a distraction is good for the team. UM is represented by very good counsel. UM and surely Harbaugh signed off on this. It might resolve everything, since the NCAA has the "coach is responsible for everything rule" and plainly bad things happened (there was a staffer pretending to be someone else on another team's sideline, it appears). They can win with Harbaugh coaching all week and Moore on the sideline on Saturday.
This is a good development. Other issues to resolve: where was the database and who had access to it? I suspect it was a Google Docs and that it was distributed far and wide within his "network" and not at all within his workplace or the athletic department. And who paid for it? I suspect he did because he literally bled maize and blue. Other than that, I assume his colleagues thought he spent days watching film and the network broadcasts to become a sign-reading savant. And nobody looked to carefully at how, as everyone assumed that pretty much anything can be gleaned from a careful review of every tape and social media post about an event attended by tens of thousands of people. They were correct about his commitment but severely underestimated what *that* level of commitment could do if channeled in the wrong direction.
I don't think there's much that suddenly makes everything "all better." But there's a lot that could happen to make it less bad, including success and time. And the sober evaluation of the other realistic options.
I confess that a wait and see attitude might not reflect the pulse of the MGoBlog message boards. But this board might only reflect a sliver of the overall Michigan community too. I do not know, but my experience is that knee-jerk reactions can be temporarily cathartic but longer-term disappointments.
As any long-time Michigan fan can tell you, there's no guarantee Michigan will continue to be good. It has not always been CFP season after CFP season. Just look at what happened to basketball, to take one recent example.
All sports travel, so the academic and financial costs tend to add up and they are incurred every year, forever.
When contemplating a change, people tend to assume that everything they like will stay the same and everything they dislike will change for the better. This rarely occurs. And being the new one in the conference does not mean maximum influence, at least not in any conference you'd want to join. You go from one of the big boys to the new guy, unfamiliar with the politics and alliances of the new conference. Plus, less money and the loss of all traditional rivals.
I'm not saying it is an impossible case to make, but leaving something as successful as the Big Ten would require a very high burden of proof.
Perhaps "get over it" is less useful than "let it go." How mad will people really be if Harbaugh is coaching in the Big Ten Championship game in a few weeks?
I think Michigan does well on many metrics, including distribution and income. But there's also sheer size and the fact that it has relatively large and elite medical, business, and law schools. No matter how much Stanford grads make, there will never be that many of them.
I am curious how all of this pencils out in the network decision-making process. The networks get their choices and the biggest games get the best slots (e.g, Big Noon). Where there are now good games that usually include one of UM, OSU, and PSU, next year will add Oregon, USC, and Washington. Plus whoever is good among Wisconsin, Iowa, UCLA, MSU, etc. That should easily fill the FOX and NBC slots, with the rest getting the other games.
In an imaginary world where Michigan does not exist in the Big Ten, there are lots of other potentially good matchups to fill those slots. Most will not be as good as UM, and some will be a substantial dropoff, but there is lots of inventory. Of course, UM would also lose its biggest games too.
I have no idea what the numbers might be, but I think the commenters who have suggested that a bigger conference reduces the impact of any single school are probably right. Even if you pretend UM would want out of one of the two best conferences in America, if you include the transaction (and travel) costs, it would likely be quite negative for many years.
I suspect that heads will cool after the next two games (or whatever the resolution is) and that UM will want to work from within to create better safeguards and perhaps try to insure that there's a new commissioner fairly soon. Just my $.02.
I'm not an ethics lawyer, but my impression is that being an alum is not automatically a reason for recusal. Many of the Supreme Court justices went to Harvard College and/or Harvard Law School and they were able to participate in the affirmative action case.
While Michigan is certainly good for the Big Ten, the Big Ten is equally good for Michigan. No other conference does what it does for Michigan, nor could it. While it might be fun to some to contemplate not playing OSU or PSU or MSU or Minn. or Wis., it will never happen. You have a better chance of fighting gravity.
The notion that Michigan would leave the Big Ten is preposterous and should not be taken seriously. There's way too much history and it is the most lucrative conference in the country. Plus, it makes sense geographically and academically. There is zero chance it happens, and that's probably too high a number.
Her sentence doesn't actually make any sense. I assume they would have to issue some sort of written decision setting forth the facts and procedure given that's what the Michigan letters emphasized, and doing that in 24 Hours seems a stretch to me. How are they going to document facts they cannot prove? And doing something right before a big game seems truly bizarre since there is no real hurry. This is a very puzzling process to me.
For something like this, I have no idea what the venue would be or even if it would be a lawsuit. There may be mandatory arbitration or something like that. Someone here surely knows the answer to those questions, as there are surely dispute resolution provisions in in the operative documents. The would likely specify the forum and the governing law.
That said, this is a piece of legal advocacy and it likely elides some issues and downplays others and highlights what is most favorable. All arguments look good when you have only one side.
As others have pointed out, this was 100% written by counsel, which is what counsel is supposed to do. One obvious purpose is to make writing a punishment decision extremely difficult by imposing procedural and evidentiary problems that would have to be addressed in any written decision imposing punishment. You cannot impose punishment without in some way addressing these arguments, at least not in good faith. And they're already telegraphed that they would contest any decision so the conference has to be sure they get it right. If there was a legal action, the failure to comply with the Conference's own rules would be the primary argument, since UM cannot argue the facts because they are arguing that the facts are largely unknown. As others have said, this is a nice piece of work. I do not envy the folks in the Big Ten who have to make this decision, as it is lose-lose.
The article says: "When LSU played Clemson in the 2020 College Football Playoff, sources said the staff suspected Clemson of sending people to scout them in the SEC championship game...."
I think it is pretty clear that you can scout in person at conference championships, as shown below.
The rule says:
11.6 Scouting of Opponents.
11.6.1 Off-Campus, In-Person Scouting Prohibition. Off-campus, in-person scouting of future opponents (in the same season) is prohibited, except as provided in Bylaws 11.6.1.1 and 11.6.1.2. (Adopted: 1/11/94 effective 8/1/94, Revised: 1/14/97 effective 8/1/97, 1/19/13 effective 8/1/13, 1/15/14)
11.6.1.1 Exception -- Same Event at the Same Site. An institutional staff member may scout future opponents also participating in the same event at the same site. (Revised: 1/11/94 effective 8/1/94, 10/28/97 effective 8/1/98, 1/19/13 effective 8/1/13, 9/19/13, 2/7/20, 6/30/21 effective 8/1/21)
11.6.1.2 Exception -- Conference or NCAA Championships. An institutional staff member may attend a contest in the institution's conference championship or an NCAA championship contest in which a future opponent participates (e.g., an opponent on the institution's spring nonchampionship-segment schedule participates in a fall conference or NCAA championship). (Adopted: 1/15/14, Revised: 2/7/20, 6/30/21 effective 8/1/21)
This is outstanding. I've always thought I was an outlier (and I am) for thinking that programs that do the right thing vis-a-via academics and foreign trips and scholarships etc. were important regardless of success on the field. Also, of course, those programs regularly churn out NBA and NFL players and are routinely in the Top 25 and go to good bowls and the NCAA Tournament as well.
One thing not in the write up is that fact that the defense was 0-2 on two-point conversions. I think that's about a 40-45% play, so it is less than a coin flip and it happened twice. If they only allow just one of those, then there would have been the possibility of a game-winning FG at the end, rather than the need for a TD. In a game like this, those two points truly mattered.
Recent Comments
Yep. And if you're a program like Michigan and the NFL doesn't want at least some of your guys, you probably have some of the wrong guys. Plus, all of the best players are using Michigan as a stepping stone to the NFL....
I like the old school caps, so the 47 brand cap appeals to me. I got my order in before it sold out, but I suspect they will make more if it sold out in just a couple of days.
https://www.47brand.com/products/michigan-wolverines-cfp-ncaa-football-national-cha
My understanding is that Nebraska was AAU when accepted and lost it later. The fact that it is a criteria doesn't mean that it is a decisive criteria is every case. It did not help Stanford and that's probably the biggest academic star in big time college sports.
One suspects that the Conference will want to see how incorporating four new schools will work before adding anything other than a true slam dunk, which FSU is not. Let's see how USC, UCLA, UW, and UO work before doing anything more is a sensible approach.
An given FSU's unhappiness in the ACC, it is hard to see them taking something worse than the UW/OU reduced distribution deal. That's hard to paint as a "win."
Also, I suspect AAU membership is an actual criteria with the university presidents.
I don't know precisely how the game selection process works for the networks, but at this point there seems to be plenty of inventory for the top 2-3 games each week. It is not clear to me how much is being added when you consider next year will have Michigan, OSU, PSU, USC, Oregon, Washington, and whoever else is good in a particular year, plus rivalries. There is likely good inventory with lots of good games and ranked teams etc. already. I understand FOX was willing to pony up a bit more for the Pacific Northwest schools, but at some point there has to be a ceiling. Plus, UO and UW are on reduced distributions for years.
Also, FSU isn't an AAU member, and it is a long long long way from Seattle and Eugene. Nor does it have an obvious pair to bring with it, as USC and UCLA and UO and UW did.
Maybe it all works out, but there has to be a natural ceiling with the finances, academics, and geographic footprint of the conference. I wouldn't put my money on FSU as a Big Ten member (unlike UNC).
Did I read that correctly that there has only been one holding penalty by opposing offensive linemen against this defensive line in Big Ten play? That's truly remarkable.
I am curious about the (continuing) apparent NFL interest by Harbaugh and the impact of that on portal recruits. I suspect there's no single answer and perhaps there is an understanding that Moore is next in line, and kids are good with that.
My kingdom for a summary piece about the portal entrants, targets, offers, and reasonable additions. Even better if there's something about the talent of the players behind the departing (or likely departing) upperclassmen.
The Deebo Samuel parallel occurred to me too, as I watched that Niner game. That isn't a fair comparison, perhaps, but it seems that that something could be learned from how they use Samuel. Of course, there's surely lots to learn from a Shanahan offense...
Watching Niner games is also a pretty good way to watch Michigan NFLers, as Moody is constantly kicking PATs, Bell gets WR reps, and Thomas is now one of the primary CBs.
The opposite point for Saban preparing is that Minter has a month to prepare an NFL-caliber defensive scheme to throw at a relatively inexperienced QB who couldn't nail down the starting job until several games into the season...
And you can see why FOX was willing to pony up a bit more for the Pac-12 teams. Brands matter. Adding Oregon, Washington, USC, and UCLA will make the first couple of picks each week much more compelling, which is what they care about. And Michigan will get some of those games, which is what I care about.
Obviously the opponent matters and that shows in the numbers. But I assume time and network does too. My recollection was that Maryland was Big Noon, as were most of the other bigger ones, with the exception of an NBC game or two. Putting the time and network on these numbers would be interesting. Presumably the networks are good at game selection, but I assume simply putting a game in a prime slot adds viewers too.
I may have missed it, but here's the NYT obituary:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/28/business/charles-t-munger-dead.html?…
As to Michigan: "At 17, Charles went to the University of Michigan to major in mathematics, but in his sophomore year, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, he enlisted in the Army Air Corps."
Yeah, I was in "F" back when things went up and down rather than across, if that makes sense.
As a California guy, I knew I was going to go to Michigan when I first stepped onto the Law Quad.
Assuming it was a player who let something "slip," if is hard to justify any criticism. The advice to the entire department had to be "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." There's literally no other advice that makes any sense under these circumstances, for many reasons, but particularly the potential for lasting damage to the entire program and department. Indeed, I suspect that if someone said something about this achingly stupid sign-stealing "network" long ago, this whole thing would have never happened. So a player that actually followed the advice is to be commended and the guy who did something that either was bad or looked bad is the problem, not the guy who told the truth.
Just my $.02.
For all of the complaining on all sides, I generally find the calls of the top network broadcasting teams pretty fair. Nicknames are nicknames and that's one of Gus Johnson's calling cards, and he has them for lots of the big time players. And I find Klatt to be one of the better color guys, though they ESPN and NBC guys are good too. I may be in the minority, however....
Yes. Plus, when the NCAA finishes its investigation -- and the NCAA has a rule that the HC is responsible for everything in the program -- there is a time-served argument for UM that the conference already doled out the punishment. And, given that this is really just a Saturday ban rather than a full coaching ban, that might be a good deal down the road.
I do not understand the capitulation narrative. You can always lose a motion or a case, and it is generally better not to lose. Plus, the conference investigation is over and there are no more conference punishments coming this season.
There is a long and nearly unbroken tradition of amicus briefs that did not impact the outcome. Other than signifying interest in the outcome of the case, most briefs are rarely cited, even in the Supreme Court.
You might be surprised by the number of "settlements" that are essentially the plaintiff gets nothing and stops litigating. But here they also ended the conference investigation and insured no more sanctions. Never overlook the possibility of "it could be worse."
At the outset of any civil litigation, the smart money is always on "settlement." You don't need to know anything about the parties or the merits. That's what happens in 90%+ of all cases.
Well, Michigan could have lost the case and not ended the investigation, and bad facts could have emerged. And this provides a time-served argument when the NCAA investigation is complete. Plus, it is a distraction for the university and the team.
Just a few hours ago everyone was lauding the fight of Michigan, Harbaugh, Ono, etc. Now that they've all made a decision, it might make sense to withhold judgment for a couple of hours until the facts start dribbling out. Perhaps they didn't go to bed smart last night, only to wake up stupid this morning. When it comes to settlements, the hot takes are often the wrong takes.
Well, he does call plays on the Saturdays when Harbaugh has been there, no? And he's done it for two games now and seems to have everyone's confidence.
A few thoughts: We do not know all of the facts and there may be something that is relevant but not public. Not having a distraction is good for the team. UM is represented by very good counsel. UM and surely Harbaugh signed off on this. It might resolve everything, since the NCAA has the "coach is responsible for everything rule" and plainly bad things happened (there was a staffer pretending to be someone else on another team's sideline, it appears). They can win with Harbaugh coaching all week and Moore on the sideline on Saturday.
This is a good development. Other issues to resolve: where was the database and who had access to it? I suspect it was a Google Docs and that it was distributed far and wide within his "network" and not at all within his workplace or the athletic department. And who paid for it? I suspect he did because he literally bled maize and blue. Other than that, I assume his colleagues thought he spent days watching film and the network broadcasts to become a sign-reading savant. And nobody looked to carefully at how, as everyone assumed that pretty much anything can be gleaned from a careful review of every tape and social media post about an event attended by tens of thousands of people. They were correct about his commitment but severely underestimated what *that* level of commitment could do if channeled in the wrong direction.
I don't think there's much that suddenly makes everything "all better." But there's a lot that could happen to make it less bad, including success and time. And the sober evaluation of the other realistic options.
I confess that a wait and see attitude might not reflect the pulse of the MGoBlog message boards. But this board might only reflect a sliver of the overall Michigan community too. I do not know, but my experience is that knee-jerk reactions can be temporarily cathartic but longer-term disappointments.
As any long-time Michigan fan can tell you, there's no guarantee Michigan will continue to be good. It has not always been CFP season after CFP season. Just look at what happened to basketball, to take one recent example.
All sports travel, so the academic and financial costs tend to add up and they are incurred every year, forever.
When contemplating a change, people tend to assume that everything they like will stay the same and everything they dislike will change for the better. This rarely occurs. And being the new one in the conference does not mean maximum influence, at least not in any conference you'd want to join. You go from one of the big boys to the new guy, unfamiliar with the politics and alliances of the new conference. Plus, less money and the loss of all traditional rivals.
I'm not saying it is an impossible case to make, but leaving something as successful as the Big Ten would require a very high burden of proof.
Perhaps "get over it" is less useful than "let it go." How mad will people really be if Harbaugh is coaching in the Big Ten Championship game in a few weeks?
I think Michigan does well on many metrics, including distribution and income. But there's also sheer size and the fact that it has relatively large and elite medical, business, and law schools. No matter how much Stanford grads make, there will never be that many of them.
I am curious how all of this pencils out in the network decision-making process. The networks get their choices and the biggest games get the best slots (e.g, Big Noon). Where there are now good games that usually include one of UM, OSU, and PSU, next year will add Oregon, USC, and Washington. Plus whoever is good among Wisconsin, Iowa, UCLA, MSU, etc. That should easily fill the FOX and NBC slots, with the rest getting the other games.
In an imaginary world where Michigan does not exist in the Big Ten, there are lots of other potentially good matchups to fill those slots. Most will not be as good as UM, and some will be a substantial dropoff, but there is lots of inventory. Of course, UM would also lose its biggest games too.
I have no idea what the numbers might be, but I think the commenters who have suggested that a bigger conference reduces the impact of any single school are probably right. Even if you pretend UM would want out of one of the two best conferences in America, if you include the transaction (and travel) costs, it would likely be quite negative for many years.
I suspect that heads will cool after the next two games (or whatever the resolution is) and that UM will want to work from within to create better safeguards and perhaps try to insure that there's a new commissioner fairly soon. Just my $.02.
I'm not an ethics lawyer, but my impression is that being an alum is not automatically a reason for recusal. Many of the Supreme Court justices went to Harvard College and/or Harvard Law School and they were able to participate in the affirmative action case.
To take a couple of minor examples, it negotiates media deals with the networks and distributes the checks it receives as a result of those deals.
For all of the teams and athletes that travel, geography certainly does matter. Economics doesn't make geography or travel logistics disappear.
While Michigan is certainly good for the Big Ten, the Big Ten is equally good for Michigan. No other conference does what it does for Michigan, nor could it. While it might be fun to some to contemplate not playing OSU or PSU or MSU or Minn. or Wis., it will never happen. You have a better chance of fighting gravity.
The notion that Michigan would leave the Big Ten is preposterous and should not be taken seriously. There's way too much history and it is the most lucrative conference in the country. Plus, it makes sense geographically and academically. There is zero chance it happens, and that's probably too high a number.
Her sentence doesn't actually make any sense. I assume they would have to issue some sort of written decision setting forth the facts and procedure given that's what the Michigan letters emphasized, and doing that in 24 Hours seems a stretch to me. How are they going to document facts they cannot prove? And doing something right before a big game seems truly bizarre since there is no real hurry. This is a very puzzling process to me.
For something like this, I have no idea what the venue would be or even if it would be a lawsuit. There may be mandatory arbitration or something like that. Someone here surely knows the answer to those questions, as there are surely dispute resolution provisions in in the operative documents. The would likely specify the forum and the governing law.
That said, this is a piece of legal advocacy and it likely elides some issues and downplays others and highlights what is most favorable. All arguments look good when you have only one side.
As others have pointed out, this was 100% written by counsel, which is what counsel is supposed to do. One obvious purpose is to make writing a punishment decision extremely difficult by imposing procedural and evidentiary problems that would have to be addressed in any written decision imposing punishment. You cannot impose punishment without in some way addressing these arguments, at least not in good faith. And they're already telegraphed that they would contest any decision so the conference has to be sure they get it right. If there was a legal action, the failure to comply with the Conference's own rules would be the primary argument, since UM cannot argue the facts because they are arguing that the facts are largely unknown. As others have said, this is a nice piece of work. I do not envy the folks in the Big Ten who have to make this decision, as it is lose-lose.
The article says: "When LSU played Clemson in the 2020 College Football Playoff, sources said the staff suspected Clemson of sending people to scout them in the SEC championship game...."
I think it is pretty clear that you can scout in person at conference championships, as shown below.
The rule says:
11.6 Scouting of Opponents.
11.6.1 Off-Campus, In-Person Scouting Prohibition. Off-campus, in-person scouting of future opponents (in the same season) is prohibited, except as provided in Bylaws 11.6.1.1 and 11.6.1.2. (Adopted: 1/11/94 effective 8/1/94, Revised: 1/14/97 effective 8/1/97, 1/19/13 effective 8/1/13, 1/15/14)
11.6.1.1 Exception -- Same Event at the Same Site. An institutional staff member may scout future opponents also participating in the same event at the same site. (Revised: 1/11/94 effective 8/1/94, 10/28/97 effective 8/1/98, 1/19/13 effective 8/1/13, 9/19/13, 2/7/20, 6/30/21 effective 8/1/21)
11.6.1.2 Exception -- Conference or NCAA Championships. An institutional staff member may attend a contest in the institution's conference championship or an NCAA championship contest in which a future opponent participates (e.g., an opponent on the institution's spring nonchampionship-segment schedule participates in a fall conference or NCAA championship). (Adopted: 1/15/14, Revised: 2/7/20, 6/30/21 effective 8/1/21)
This is outstanding. I've always thought I was an outlier (and I am) for thinking that programs that do the right thing vis-a-via academics and foreign trips and scholarships etc. were important regardless of success on the field. Also, of course, those programs regularly churn out NBA and NFL players and are routinely in the Top 25 and go to good bowls and the NCAA Tournament as well.
One thing not in the write up is that fact that the defense was 0-2 on two-point conversions. I think that's about a 40-45% play, so it is less than a coin flip and it happened twice. If they only allow just one of those, then there would have been the possibility of a game-winning FG at the end, rather than the need for a TD. In a game like this, those two points truly mattered.