The Michigan/Sign Stealing & COVID Punishment Thread

[mse326]

4 minutes ago, BigC421/ said:

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 

They didn't pay for scouting services, they paid for scouts that is a big difference. As I said a 3rd party has to be doing it on their own accord and own purposes. A scouting service does that as a business model. That is a 3rd party. Randomn individuals being given tickets and told to record are not 3rd parties. If a fan records on their own a team finds out and wants to buy the footage, fine, but that isn't what happened.

Do you really think absolutely everyone in college football and the media are wrong about the rule, and not a single person from the NCAA or Michigan would say they are wrong about the rule? It would be incredibly easy to shut this down by saying that doesn't violate any rules, and yet that hasn't happened, why?

[BobbyPhil1781]

SteALing SiGNs OffERs no ADVantAge

 

[MWil23]

5 minutes ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

SteALing SiGNs OffERs no ADVantAge

 

“All evidence points to him acting alone”

[BigC421/]

5 minutes ago, mse326 said:

They didn't pay for scouting services, they paid for scouts that is a big difference. As I said a 3rd party has to be doing it on their own accord and own purposes. A scouting service does that as a business model. That is a 3rd party. Randomn individuals being given tickets and told to record are not 3rd parties. If a fan records on their own a team finds out and wants to buy the footage, fine, but that isn't what happened.

Do you really think absolutely everyone in college football and the media are wrong about the rule, and not a single person from the NCAA or Michigan would say they are wrong about the rule? It would be incredibly easy to shut this down by saying that doesn't violate any rules, and yet that hasn't happened, why?

Michigan isn’t aloud to comment on the investigation period.  A 3rd party can be anyone any anyone can claim to providing a scouting service. There’s no license required. The rule basically says anyone that isn’t officially involved with the athletic department 

[BigC421/]

2 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

“All evidence points to him acting alone”

The coaches know he’s stealing signs. That’s his job. The means is what’s at question.  Just wait til u find out who the vast network actually is 

[ramssuperbowl99]

1 hour ago, detfan782004 said:

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 

The only move as a Michigan fan here is to make fun of the sheer absurdity of this entire thing. It's hilarious and ridiculous and no sane fan thinks Michigan fans as a whole "deserve it". I don't think anyone even really suspects the Michigan AD or institution. Your coach is a goofball who doesn't understand how general social interactions work, he hired a couple like minded weirdos, and they took stuff too far. Doesn't make the school any worse, so make fun of it.

[BigC421/]

10 minutes ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

SteALing SiGNs OffERs no ADVantAge

 

Isn’t this from last years game? The one Day openly admitted that they changed all there signs for. Your issues with Day

[rackcs]

5 minutes ago, BigC421/ said:

Isn’t this from last years game? The one Day openly admitted that they changed all there signs for. Your issues with Day

So you're saying that in that clip, you don't think that Stalions knew the play that was about to happen based on Ohio State's signs?

[BobbyPhil1781]

2 hours ago, BigC421/ said:

 

Y’all media sheep who can’t form your own thought or debate. 

12 minutes ago, BigC421/ said:

Isn’t this from last years game? The one Day openly admitted that they changed all there signs for. Your issues with Day

Maybe if you weren't such a "media sheep" and looked at the actual evidence presented in front of you, things might make more sense.

It's expected you think a college offense could change everything up in a week though.

[BigC421/]

4 minutes ago, rackcs said:

So you're saying that in that clip, you don't think that Stalions knew the play that was about to happen based on Ohio State's signs?

I wouldn’t rule it out but it’s certainly not as cut and dry as u think. Beyond sign stealing there’s things like formation tendencies, down and distance. These 2 teams spend all season studying each other’s tendency’s. Day’s the one who said they changed there signals before the game, if this was a sign issue that’s on him.  Regardless it’s perfectly legal.  

[MWil23]

15 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

The only move as a Michigan fan here is to make fun of the sheer absurdity of this entire thing. It's hilarious and ridiculous and no sane fan thinks Michigan fans as a whole "deserve it". I don't think anyone even really suspects the Michigan AD or institution. Your coach is a goofball who doesn't understand how general social interactions work, he hired a couple like minded weirdos, and they took stuff too far. Doesn't make the school any worse, so make fun of it.

*30 for 30 voice

What if I told you that one man brought a blue blood back to relevance? What if I told you that after years of frustration, he got them over the hump? What if I told you that his laser focus brought them to within a few games of hoisting a trophy, and with one cheeseburger on a university budget line item and a single cameo appearance at a Friday night MAC game, it all unraveled…?

Tune in this Friday at 8:00 to see “Harbaughger: Cheeseburger with a side of lies.”

[mse326]

8 minutes ago, BigC421/ said:

Michigan isn’t aloud to comment on the investigation period.  A 3rd party can be anyone any anyone can claim to providing a scouting service. There’s no license required. The rule basically says anyone that isn’t officially involved with the athletic department 

Here is the text of Scouting restrictions

Quote

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)

That's it. There is nothing about allowing the paying of representatives to do it

[rackcs]

7 minutes ago, BigC421/ said:

I wouldn’t rule it out but it’s certainly not as cut and dry as u think. Beyond sign stealing there’s things like formation tendencies, down and distance. These 2 teams spend all season studying each other’s tendency’s. Day’s the one who said they changed there signals before the game, if this was a sign issue that’s on him.  Regardless it’s perfectly legal.  

It actually is pretty cut and dry. The guy who you have acknowledged as having stole signs literally told the defensive coordinator what play they were going to run right before they ran it. You think that this guy who very provably has been stealing signs actually guessed that one based on tendencies? You're willfully ignoring direct evidence that is right in front of your face.

Edited November 2, 2023 by rackcs

[MWil23]

6 minutes ago, rackcs said:

It actually is pretty cut and dry. The guy who you have acknowledged as having stole signs literally told the defensive coordinator what play they were going to run right before they ran it. You think that this guy who very provably has been stealing signs actually guessed that one based on tendencies? You're willfully ignoring direct evidence that is right in front of your face.

“We aren’t going to match the seam in the slot with either safety” is a big brained 2nd and long call in the Red Zone 

[BigC421/]

12 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

“We aren’t going to match the seam in the slot with either safety” is a big brained 2nd and long call in the Red Zone 

What’s your point? They either need the signs or recognized the alignment and tendency (admittedly likely sign). There’s nothing wrong with that.