The Michigan/Sign Stealing & COVID Punishment Thread

[NateDawg]

 

1 minute ago, BigC421/ said:

I agree about wanting it investigated.  Didn’t OSU go huddle in the 2nd half when Clemson was stealing there signals?  Where was the outrage?  You guys keep saying illegal sign stealing but it’s not against any rules in fact it’s expected 

Illegal sign stealing is not expected. Sign stealing yes, but not an illegal methodology here. And there was some smoke with Clemson, but there wasn’t as much as with the Michigan situation because the two appear very different. No one here is arguing that you can try to figure out opponent signs.

Michigan isn’t going to be able to just paint Connor as a rogue dude. He is arm to arm with the coordinators and head coach, and they are relying on him to relay the plays. This is on video. And he is on the hook as attending opponent games and everything else. This one isn’t difficult to figure out. You don’t need to have a point blank admission from the coach about knowledge. There is clear logic, and I am quite sure a lack of control as far as the investigation will go.

[BobbyPhil1781]

Michigan's record vs teams they could steal signs for vs those they could not certainly proves there's no advantage to this...................

[NateDawg]

Also, I have never seen a recruiting staffer be right next to coordinators and the head coach on game day. Anywhere else they would be told to get out of the coaches face, they are doing a job. That’s not part of the job description at all. He had a clear role. 

[BobbyPhil1781]

More legit source than the one I posted earlier so it looks like it will be happening

 

[MWil23]

13 minutes ago, BigC421/ said:

I’m telling you there’s no rule against it

And here’s the disconnect 

[BigC421/]

2 minutes ago, NateDawg said:

 

Illegal sign stealing is not expected. Sign stealing yes, but not an illegal methodology here. And there was some smoke with Clemson, but there wasn’t as much as with the Michigan situation because the two appear very different. No one here is arguing that you can try to figure out opponent signs.

Michigan isn’t going to be able to just paint Connor as a rogue dude. He is arm to arm with the coordinators and head coach, and they are relying on him to relay the plays. This is on video. And he is on the hook as attending opponent games and everything else. This one isn’t difficult to figure out. You don’t need to have a point blank admission from the coach about knowledge. There is clear logic, and I am quite sure a lack of control as far as the investigation will go.

What was illegal about? I’ve already explained how there’s no rule against using 3rd party footage, only if a staffer did it personally.

2 minutes ago, NateDawg said:

Also, I have never seen a recruiting staffer be right next to coordinators and the head coach on game day. Anywhere else they would be told to get out of the coaches face, they are doing a job. That’s not part of the job description at all. He had a clear role. 

He’s there sign decoder. Not saying every team does what he did but every team does have one. I forgot his name but OSU’s sign guy deleted his Venmo account as soon as this all broke. Not making claims but they do have a sign guy. 
 

seriously glad I could entertain you guys. Laugh away but in all seriousness just presenting a different side of the story.  Would have been more interesting to debate than see a bunch of gifs but whatever. Haven’t been on the college football page sense 1King left.  Gotta get back to being productive 

[detfan782004]

1 hour ago, BigC421/ said:

What data and evidence please enlighten me?  
 

Sign stealing ? Legal.  Paying 3rd parties for scouting tape? Legal. In person scouting 1 game? Illegal punishable by a 1/2 game suspension.  
 

I think this is the issue and why majority of Michigan fans have to hear we deserve this based on a minority defending it.

They messed up here. Pure and simple 

[NateDawg]

1 minute ago, BigC421/ said:

Would have been more interesting to debate than see a bunch of gifs but whatever. 

Nah I’d rather you just post gifs instead of fighting this uphill battle. Enough is out there I think most of us don’t really care to go back and forth with things already posted. 
I don’t care if you make Cryin Day memes or whatever, when in doubt just send memes and gifs and it’ll be more fun.

[Scoundrel]

48 minutes ago, BigC421/ said:

I’m not denying Stallions stole signs. I’m not denying he bought tickets to future opponents games and had people record there sideline. I’m telling you there’s no rule against it

Like I said more could come out but right now there is zero evidence the coaches knew or where in on this. It’s certainly possible they did. It’s also possible a guy in the navy that rented out every room in his house and slept in his car so he could travel across the country and to be at every UM game before he was ever in staff, wrote a manifesto and wore a disguise to sneak onto cmu’s sideline just mite have a screw lose and been doing his own thing.   Even if they knew on some level I highly doubt they signed off on sneaking onto cmu’s sideline.  Anyway. We aren’t getting anywhere. Nothing personal. Have a good one. 

Are you a Michigan fan?

[malibuspeedrace]

1 minute ago, Scoundrel said:

Are you a Michigan fan?

What on earth give you that idea

[Scoundrel]

@Ozzy you watch a lot of college football. Have you met our new friend BigC? What do you think of the Michigan sign stealing situation? 

[Scoundrel]

Just now, malibuspeedrace said:

What on earth give you that idea

Shhh let me cook 

[mse326]

1 hour ago, BigC421/ said:

Paying for 3rd party scouting tape is not against the rules.

You don't understand what 3rd party means. A 3rd party means they did it on their own accord for their own purposes, and then you buy it off them. If you pay for them to do it, direct them how to do it, and that is in fact why they are doing it, they aren't 3rd parties, they are your agents. It's a pretty basic tennent that you can't pay someone to do what you aren't allowed to do yourself. So that is both in person and recording that are against the rules

[Scoundrel]

I think Connor himself made an account here

[BigC421/]

11 minutes ago, mse326 said:

You don't understand what 3rd party means. A 3rd party means they did it on their own accord for their own purposes, and then you buy it off them. If you pay for them to do it, direct them how to do it, and that is in fact why they are doing it, they aren't 3rd parties, they are your agents. It's a pretty basic tennent that you can't pay someone to do what you aren't allowed to do yourself. So that is both in person and recording that are against the rules

Okay, let’s move onto the big one.  Bylaw 11.6.1 says this:

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 [these two exceptions aren’t relevant].

We don’t have the nice, clean explanation of whom the Bylaws apply to that we had in the Football Rules Book.  But Article 11 of the Bylaws, of which 11.6.1 is a part, is titled Conduct and Employment of Athletics Personnel.  More, in Bylaw 11.1.1, we’re told that “Institutional staff members found in violation of NCAA regulations shall be subject to disciplinary or corrective action…”  Also, we have common sense to tell us that the NCAA cannot mean 11.6.1 to apply to all humans everywhere.  If nothing else, the average fan does not have “future opponents.”  It seems safe to say, then, that the rule applies on its face to employees of athletic departments (or schools, if you like).  If you think there is ambiguity there, however, we go to our next point.

And here is where we encounter what Ghost of Fritz found and the biggest point of confusion: typically, we’d be correct to think that you cannot absolve yourself of punishment for a prohibited act by paying someone else to do it.  Agency liability and criminal conspiracy charges come to mind.  But that logic just doesn’t seem to apply here. 

Prior to August 2013, Bylaw 11.6.1 prohibited schools from off-campus, in-person scouting of opponents for football, basketball, and women’s volleyball—but not for other sports.  This was balanced out to some extent thanks to then-Bylaw 11.6.2, which said that football, basketball, and women’s volleyball enjoyed a carve-out from the following prohibition:

…a member institution shall not pay or permit the payment of expenses incurred by its athletics department staff members or representatives (including professional scouting services) to scout its opponents or individuals who represent its opponents…

In other words, you couldn’t scout an opponent in person for your football, basketball, and women’s volleyball teams, but you could pay “representatives” to scout opponents for those sports. 

Then, in August 2013, the NCAA changed the rule and prohibited off-campus, in-person scouting of future opponents (in the same season) for all sports but balanced that by completely discarding the prohibition against paying for scouting.  In doing so, it published the following rationale:

In the interest of simplicity and consistency, it is appropriate for one rule regarding scouting to apply to all sports. In most cases, video of future opponents is readily available either through institutional exchange, subscription to a recording/dubbing service or internet sites accessible to the general public.

There is only one reasonable interpretation of what happened in August 2013 when the rule was changed: schools could pay for scouting services for football before the rule changed and can still do so now (the rule hasn’t been amended since).  It would make absolutely no sense to repeal the rule that banned payment for scouting for most non-football sports as a way of banning payment for scouting for football.  The explicit rationale for the rule change also wouldn’t make sense.  Accordingly, schools can pay third parties to scout opponents. 

Let me say this in a different way: there is only ambiguity in 11.6.1 if you’re not convinced by its text that it only applies to school employees.  And the legislative history of the rule makes clear that you should be convinced of that.  As seen in 11.6.1 prior to August 2013, the NCAA knew what to say to ban third-party scouting.  And, rather than applying that to football, the NCAA did away with that ban for all sports. 

5. The Rule Against Hiring Third Parties to Scout & Record Opponents in Person to Steal Signs

You can steal signs.  You can hire third parties to scout opponents in person.  You can record opponents’ signals if you’re not on a football field playing against them.  There is no rule suggesting that combining these things makes them a collective rules violation
 

Don’t expect any of you to care enough to read all that and it’s from a UM lawyer but it’s pretty concrete. Also was written before the CMU situation 

Edited November 2, 2023 by BigC421/