Those who stay will see the the Big Ten require that Ryan Day act as OSU’s head coach against Michigan for the next 30 years as the penalty for OSU’s poor sportsmanship, as evinced by its private investigation, spying and efforts to undermine the Michigan football program.
Once we beat Penn State in State College without Harbaugh on the sidelines, we lost the argument that the suspension worked irreparable harm. Fortunately, he can and will coach the remaining non-sideline hours. The team will be fighting for him, the program, and their legacy.
Agreed. Although a process argument should theoretically be sufficient on a process issue, an adjudicator is more apt to buy the lack of process argument if he or she can see that the merits of the case are being thwarted by poor process. In other words, “why should I rule for you if you’re guilty anyway?” You want the judge to understand that there is more to the case showing there is no infraction and the opposing party’s lack of due or proper process is imposing an unmerited punishment.
I think it’s clear, despite the Big Ten’s rhetoric and illogical conflation of Harbaugh and UM, that the penalty was against Harbaugh. Were the penalty imposed on the position, as the Big Ten suggests, then Moore could not have served as head coach last Saturday. The penalty would have been that Michigan had to play the game without a head coach. Petitti completely ignored the rule about who is to be penalized to achieve his desired result.
Harbaugh could, by Depitti’s logic, truthfully claim: “L’Université c’est moi!” or “Michigan c’est moi!”
What is “scouting”? If it involves some degree of analysis and judgment, then simply pointing an iPhone at the sidelines may not be scouting at all. If the person pointing the camera is not on staff and is providing no analysis but only footage, how is Rule 11.6.1 violated? Unfortunately, the NCAA rules discuss scouting a fair amount but never define the term.
The Big Ten claims that Harbaugh embodies the University of Michigan. How tempting for him to say, "L'Université c'est moi!" or "Michigan c'est moi!" It would probably be a better idea to confine the sentiment to a t-shirt or bumper stickers lest it be construed as an admission and agreement with the Big Ten's position.
It's tough being a Michigan football fan. My freshman year at Michigan was the year of the 10-10 tie. in the following years, no matter how good or successful the team, you could count on some loss to tarnish the season. 1976 saw the team, then ranked number one, lose to Purdue. A Rose Bowl was lost to USC when the refs decided to award the Trojans a phantom touchdown. There was always some blemish. By 1997, I was so accustomed to disappointment that I did not really enjoy the season (although my Notre Dame friend would call to tell me how great she thought Michigan was). But even that fabulous season saw Tom Osborne retire and our undisputed national championship go with him. Yes, the other shoe had to drop.
This year, for the first time, felt different. The team is great. The vibe is great. I could watch the games without covering my eyes. A season of unmitigated joy. Then scandal breaks. And what a scandal it is (not). Possibly violating a rule about in-person scouting that the NCAA itself has already said gives at best a minimal competitive advantage, an advantage outweighed by the monitoring and enforcement burdens of ensuring compliance. Okay, investigate the possible infraction and assess a penalty accordingly. But no, that is not what is occurring. No investigation, no assessment of extent of infraction, just a rush to judgment. Penalizing what may be nothing or a misdemeanor as though it were a Class 1 felony.
The season is not over. I will not permit for myself that the excellence of this team be clouded by this bit of unnecessary unpleasantness. Go Blue and Win It All!
I don't understand all the comments about what Stalions was saying to Minter on the sidelines. It could have been anything. Perhaps he was asking about dinner plans or how close he was parked to the stadium. My best guess is he was asking if Minter's vacuum cleaner needed repairing.
The Commissioner established his absolute inability to lead and manage. You don't give into a bunch of whiners to stop their whining. You get to the root of the problem, if there is one, and determine your response and actions once you have the facts. Now, we have a bunch of enabled whiners who have been gratified. The whining will continue. (Has Petitti not raised children or managed any group of people? Sheesh, this is elementary.)
Another purpose of a TRO is to preserve the status quo. By failing to rule on the motion, the judge permitted the Big Ten to alter the status quo with its hastily imposed penalty.
So outrageous! Let’s paraphrase: “we impose this action even though we have no credible evidence that Harbaugh knew or should have known of this activity or that there is anything substantively wrong with it or out of line with what any of the other teams in our conference do.”
So outrageous! Let’s paraphrase: “we impose this action even though we have no credible evidence that Harbaugh knew or should have known of this activity or that there is anything substantively wrong with it or out of line with what any of the other teams in our conference do.”
So outrageous! Let’s paraphrase: “we impose this action even though we have no credible evidence that Harbaugh knew or should have known of this activity or that there is anything substantively wrong with it or out of line with what any of the other teams in our conference do.”
Yes, it would. As would teams’ sharing a common opponent’s signals. Pre-game “stealing” is also permitted if otherwise taken from permitted recording, tv and the like.
In the immortal words of my own mother, “Doesn’t this just jar your mother’s preserves!”
A rule the NCAA has already said provides little or no competitive advantage now underpins the integrity of the sport?
Petitti does not know how to deal with a group of petulant two year-olds or Big Ten coaches and AD’s (which appear in this case to be one and the same).
It depends on what the scandal ends up being. We still don’t know who hired the PR firm and why. We still don’t know how the PR firm acquired its information. If another Big Ten school (or more than one) put in motion a scheme to take down Michigan during its thus-far phenomenal season with allegations of an activity the NCAA says barely gives a competitive edge and that other schools engage in (either by sending reps to games or colluding with other teams to supply info gleaned in-game from across the field), that is a much bigger scandal. That is poor sportsmanship. That is trying to crown the champion other than through play on the field. That is lousy. Sad to see so many media types screaming “fire” when they learn of some smoke. Is there a fire or did someone set up a fog machine, knowing that so many would rush to judgment? If the latter, that would be the bigger scandal. A program smeared for, at most, a minor violation.
It isn’t materially different. Teams are using other teams to be their off-campus, in-person scouts of future opponents (without the benefit of providing any ticket revenue).
If a team gets the signals used by a future opponent from another team that observed them in its own game with that future opponent, then the team providing the signals is acting for the recipient as its off-campus, in-person scout and the recipient has technically violated the rule against such scouting.
Off-campus, in-person scouting of future opponents is not permitted. “Stealing” signs (without recording) from across the field of your then opponent is permitted. If the permitted in-game sign “stealer” then gives the information it learned from that game to its then opponent’s future opponent, one may consider the “thief” to be an agent of the party to whom it gives the information. That party has engaged in off-campus, in-person scouting of a future opponent. Not really much different from the allegations against Stalions. (Although, at least Stalions purchased tickets, putting money in the coffers of other schools.) Seems worse that the schools are colluding against other schools. If a team is using anyone to scout a future opponent at a game, that seems as violative of the rule as Stalions’s alleged misconduct.
Yes, it’s a PR hit job. A recent president was impeached for asking the president of Ukraine to announce an investigation into his likely opponent. There was no investigation and nothing to investigate but the recent president didn’t care. The announcement of one was the key. Too many people leap without basis from an investigation to certainty of wrongdoing. They rationalize that the investigation is smoke and where there is smoke there is fire. The PR folks know, though, just like our recent president did, that where there’s smoke there may be nothing more than a fog machine. By then, the damage to the opponent is done.
Please provide the full text of “the core rule of not videotaping a game with your phone.” I’m not sure such a specific rule exists. There is a NCAA bylaw against “off-campus, in-person” scouting of future opponents in that season. What is “off-campus”? Are not most all college football stadiums on campus? At the least, the NCAA should be the one to suffer from its lousy drafting. It doesn’t even define “scouting.” Is observing sufficient? Arguably not as the bylaws also use the word “observing.”
My pet theory—asked of the program who put the NCAA onto this, “what clued you into Michigan’s recording scheme?” Answer: “The Michigan guy was sitting next to and blocking the view of the guy we sent to record signals and players at the game.”
Two anonymous sources providing information about an anonymous investigation conducted by an anonymous investigative firm with an anonymous client and an anonymous motive is too much anonymity for me. Therein lies the real story. Who? Why? What?
Next set of questions involve WaPo. Why did WaPo run with the article, particularly when it had to later acknowledge the identity of the investigative firm was unclear?
Considering that we outscored IU in the second half, perhaps Harbaugh was our secret weapon and should have stayed in the IU lockerroom even longer during the break, just to assure enough outscoring to secure the win.
Recent Comments
Those who stay will see the the Big Ten require that Ryan Day act as OSU’s head coach against Michigan for the next 30 years as the penalty for OSU’s poor sportsmanship, as evinced by its private investigation, spying and efforts to undermine the Michigan football program.
I was at that game. Navy had it close for a bit. Then we were up 21-14 and never looked back.
Well, of course not. Rodriguez wasn’t a threat.
Hmmm. That’s not a happy thought. Yeah, 1989 was nice but not the drama of the following years.
What happened? The team beat Penn State on the road without Harbaugh on the sidelines, undercutting the irreparable harm argument.
Once we beat Penn State in State College without Harbaugh on the sidelines, we lost the argument that the suspension worked irreparable harm. Fortunately, he can and will coach the remaining non-sideline hours. The team will be fighting for him, the program, and their legacy.
Agreed. Although a process argument should theoretically be sufficient on a process issue, an adjudicator is more apt to buy the lack of process argument if he or she can see that the merits of the case are being thwarted by poor process. In other words, “why should I rule for you if you’re guilty anyway?” You want the judge to understand that there is more to the case showing there is no infraction and the opposing party’s lack of due or proper process is imposing an unmerited punishment.
Exactly! If signals can be decoded through other means that do not violate the rules, then this rule does not serve to prohibit signal decoding.
I think it’s clear, despite the Big Ten’s rhetoric and illogical conflation of Harbaugh and UM, that the penalty was against Harbaugh. Were the penalty imposed on the position, as the Big Ten suggests, then Moore could not have served as head coach last Saturday. The penalty would have been that Michigan had to play the game without a head coach. Petitti completely ignored the rule about who is to be penalized to achieve his desired result.
Harbaugh could, by Depitti’s logic, truthfully claim: “L’Université c’est moi!” or “Michigan c’est moi!”
What is “scouting”? If it involves some degree of analysis and judgment, then simply pointing an iPhone at the sidelines may not be scouting at all. If the person pointing the camera is not on staff and is providing no analysis but only footage, how is Rule 11.6.1 violated? Unfortunately, the NCAA rules discuss scouting a fair amount but never define the term.
The Big Ten claims that Harbaugh embodies the University of Michigan. How tempting for him to say, "L'Université c'est moi!" or "Michigan c'est moi!" It would probably be a better idea to confine the sentiment to a t-shirt or bumper stickers lest it be construed as an admission and agreement with the Big Ten's position.
It's tough being a Michigan football fan. My freshman year at Michigan was the year of the 10-10 tie. in the following years, no matter how good or successful the team, you could count on some loss to tarnish the season. 1976 saw the team, then ranked number one, lose to Purdue. A Rose Bowl was lost to USC when the refs decided to award the Trojans a phantom touchdown. There was always some blemish. By 1997, I was so accustomed to disappointment that I did not really enjoy the season (although my Notre Dame friend would call to tell me how great she thought Michigan was). But even that fabulous season saw Tom Osborne retire and our undisputed national championship go with him. Yes, the other shoe had to drop.
This year, for the first time, felt different. The team is great. The vibe is great. I could watch the games without covering my eyes. A season of unmitigated joy. Then scandal breaks. And what a scandal it is (not). Possibly violating a rule about in-person scouting that the NCAA itself has already said gives at best a minimal competitive advantage, an advantage outweighed by the monitoring and enforcement burdens of ensuring compliance. Okay, investigate the possible infraction and assess a penalty accordingly. But no, that is not what is occurring. No investigation, no assessment of extent of infraction, just a rush to judgment. Penalizing what may be nothing or a misdemeanor as though it were a Class 1 felony.
The season is not over. I will not permit for myself that the excellence of this team be clouded by this bit of unnecessary unpleasantness. Go Blue and Win It All!
Surprised at our conference mates? Nah. Some of us remember 1973 and a certain 10-10 tie.
I don't understand all the comments about what Stalions was saying to Minter on the sidelines. It could have been anything. Perhaps he was asking about dinner plans or how close he was parked to the stadium. My best guess is he was asking if Minter's vacuum cleaner needed repairing.
If he was in an awful spot, it is only because he put himself there. He caved to the mob. It was his job to be the grown-up in the room.
The Commissioner established his absolute inability to lead and manage. You don't give into a bunch of whiners to stop their whining. You get to the root of the problem, if there is one, and determine your response and actions once you have the facts. Now, we have a bunch of enabled whiners who have been gratified. The whining will continue. (Has Petitti not raised children or managed any group of people? Sheesh, this is elementary.)
Another purpose of a TRO is to preserve the status quo. By failing to rule on the motion, the judge permitted the Big Ten to alter the status quo with its hastily imposed penalty.
And they would have a rule against decoding signals. (Still bugs me but I don’t know how you steal something that’s being shown in plain view.)
So outrageous! Let’s paraphrase: “we impose this action even though we have no credible evidence that Harbaugh knew or should have known of this activity or that there is anything substantively wrong with it or out of line with what any of the other teams in our conference do.”
So outrageous! Let’s paraphrase: “we impose this action even though we have no credible evidence that Harbaugh knew or should have known of this activity or that there is anything substantively wrong with it or out of line with what any of the other teams in our conference do.”
So outrageous! Let’s paraphrase: “we impose this action even though we have no credible evidence that Harbaugh knew or should have known of this activity or that there is anything substantively wrong with it or out of line with what any of the other teams in our conference do.”
Yes, it would. As would teams’ sharing a common opponent’s signals. Pre-game “stealing” is also permitted if otherwise taken from permitted recording, tv and the like.
In the immortal words of my own mother, “Doesn’t this just jar your mother’s preserves!”
A rule the NCAA has already said provides little or no competitive advantage now underpins the integrity of the sport?
Petitti does not know how to deal with a group of petulant two year-olds or Big Ten coaches and AD’s (which appear in this case to be one and the same).
It depends on what the scandal ends up being. We still don’t know who hired the PR firm and why. We still don’t know how the PR firm acquired its information. If another Big Ten school (or more than one) put in motion a scheme to take down Michigan during its thus-far phenomenal season with allegations of an activity the NCAA says barely gives a competitive edge and that other schools engage in (either by sending reps to games or colluding with other teams to supply info gleaned in-game from across the field), that is a much bigger scandal. That is poor sportsmanship. That is trying to crown the champion other than through play on the field. That is lousy. Sad to see so many media types screaming “fire” when they learn of some smoke. Is there a fire or did someone set up a fog machine, knowing that so many would rush to judgment? If the latter, that would be the bigger scandal. A program smeared for, at most, a minor violation.
It isn’t materially different. Teams are using other teams to be their off-campus, in-person scouts of future opponents (without the benefit of providing any ticket revenue).
If a team gets the signals used by a future opponent from another team that observed them in its own game with that future opponent, then the team providing the signals is acting for the recipient as its off-campus, in-person scout and the recipient has technically violated the rule against such scouting.
Off-campus, in-person scouting of future opponents is not permitted. “Stealing” signs (without recording) from across the field of your then opponent is permitted. If the permitted in-game sign “stealer” then gives the information it learned from that game to its then opponent’s future opponent, one may consider the “thief” to be an agent of the party to whom it gives the information. That party has engaged in off-campus, in-person scouting of a future opponent. Not really much different from the allegations against Stalions. (Although, at least Stalions purchased tickets, putting money in the coffers of other schools.) Seems worse that the schools are colluding against other schools. If a team is using anyone to scout a future opponent at a game, that seems as violative of the rule as Stalions’s alleged misconduct.
And store them with JoePa’s statue.
Yes, it’s a PR hit job. A recent president was impeached for asking the president of Ukraine to announce an investigation into his likely opponent. There was no investigation and nothing to investigate but the recent president didn’t care. The announcement of one was the key. Too many people leap without basis from an investigation to certainty of wrongdoing. They rationalize that the investigation is smoke and where there is smoke there is fire. The PR folks know, though, just like our recent president did, that where there’s smoke there may be nothing more than a fog machine. By then, the damage to the opponent is done.
Please provide the full text of “the core rule of not videotaping a game with your phone.” I’m not sure such a specific rule exists. There is a NCAA bylaw against “off-campus, in-person” scouting of future opponents in that season. What is “off-campus”? Are not most all college football stadiums on campus? At the least, the NCAA should be the one to suffer from its lousy drafting. It doesn’t even define “scouting.” Is observing sufficient? Arguably not as the bylaws also use the word “observing.”
My pet theory—asked of the program who put the NCAA onto this, “what clued you into Michigan’s recording scheme?” Answer: “The Michigan guy was sitting next to and blocking the view of the guy we sent to record signals and players at the game.”
Two anonymous sources providing information about an anonymous investigation conducted by an anonymous investigative firm with an anonymous client and an anonymous motive is too much anonymity for me. Therein lies the real story. Who? Why? What?
Next set of questions involve WaPo. Why did WaPo run with the article, particularly when it had to later acknowledge the identity of the investigative firm was unclear?
Considering that we outscored IU in the second half, perhaps Harbaugh was our secret weapon and should have stayed in the IU lockerroom even longer during the break, just to assure enough outscoring to secure the win.
On reflection, we should not be surprised. His name says it all -- he's a Buckeye Fuller!