NCAA Football 2023

[klineka]

14 hours ago, DeadMan said:

The NCAA doesn’t do the notice without the investigation done. And for this, they probably want to talk to every Michigan coach, which isn’t happening right now. 

"Our organization probably did something illegal but we are in the middle of a season so our coaches need to focus on that" is not a justified reason to slow down or hinder an investigation, IMO.

It's slightly different due to the legal process and such but if I were accused of a crime I couldn't just tell a police officer or a court, "I can't talk to you right now because I have to go to work I'll handle this in 3 months". I know the situations are slightly different due to due process and all of that, but still.

There might be what, 50 people on staff that need interviewed? Let's call it 75 hours, maybe 100 hours which would be over an hour per staff member. 2 or definitely 3 representatives from the NCAA could handle that by spending a week at the university.

I'm sure there's a valid reason (the coaches are in-season isn't valid IMO), but I don't understand why those conversations haven't at least started yet.

11 hours ago, DeadMan said:

It takes staff time, but that’s pretty much an unlimited resource in college football.  

If staff time is such an unlimited resource in college football then surely Michigan should be able to make every staff member available quickly for interviews, right? Especially if they feel they didn't do anything wrong and have nothing to hide.

[vasaribm]

19 hours ago, saevel25 said:

The Big10, should require UM to have their call sheets reviewed before each game and any call sheet with opposing hand signs should be confiscated.

Why?  Sign stealing is not illegal and this is a guilty until proven innocent approach.  The burden of proof needs to be that the sign was not gained using other methods.  I find it highly questionable that all teams used a unique sign one time and just so happened to use it again when playing Michigan.

The rule in question was up for repeal in 2021, specifically stating that minimal competitive advantage is achieved.  Obviously this rule change didn't happen but it seems reasonable for the NCAA to explain the process and/or arguments that lead to its defeat.

ATHLETICS PERSONNEL -- ELIMINATION OF IN-PERSON SCOUTING PROHIBITION

Edited November 3, 2023 by vasaribm

[klineka]

10 minutes ago, vasaribm said:

Why?  Sign stealing is not illegal. The burden of proof needs to be that the sign was not gained using other methods.

But advanced in-person scouting/filming is illegal. It appears there is plenty of evidence that supports that Michigan engaged in that activity.

12 minutes ago, vasaribm said:

The rule in question was up for repeal in 2021, specifically stating that minimal competitive advantage is achieved.  Obviously this rule change didn't happen but it seems reasonable for the NCAA to explain the process and/or arguments that lead to its defeat.

ATHLETICS PERSONNEL -- ELIMINATION OF IN-PERSON SCOUTING PROHIBITION

I strongly disagree with this. You're saying that because the NCAA didn't change a rule and is now investigating a team that allegedly broke said rule the NCAA needs to state why they didn't remove the rule? I don't see what benefit anyone gains from that. Regardless of the reason why the NCAA didn't repeal the rule, the rule still stands so Michigan should still be investigated/punished (if they broke said rule(s)) accordingly.

[saevel25]

49 minutes ago, vasaribm said:

Why?  Sign stealing is not illegal and this is a guilty until proven innocent approach. 

Here is the rule as written. 

There is evidence that a UM staff membered paid people to scout and steal signs, off-campus, in advance of UM playing them. This by the letter of the regulation, violates 11.6.1.

The evidence... 

1. There is payment tracking that the staffer bought tickets, on either side of the benches, for many opponents that UM would be facing. 

2. There is testimony from a person that he received payment and explicit instructions to film the opposing sideline from the UM staffer. 

3. There is video evidence showing the UM staffer near the OC and DC, calling out opponent plays during a game for UM to make adjustments based on the information he illegally gathered. 

4. There is video evidence showing the elaborate call sheets that staff members had showing the opponents hand signals. 

54 minutes ago, vasaribm said:

The rule in question was up for repeal in 2021, specifically stating that minimal competitive advantage is achieved.  Obviously this rule change didn't happen but it seems reasonable for the NCAA to explain the process and/or arguments that lead to its defeat.

It was brought up for consideration to the NCAA Legislative Committee Modernization of the Rules Subcommittee. It was not approved. Just because it was brought up, doesn't mean they agree with the opinions of The Board of Directors Infractions Process Committee. Doesn't invalidate the current rule. It doesn't excuse UM for cheating. Maybe the committee disagreed, and believed it was a competitive advantage. 

Sign stealing is legal, during the game in which you are playing your opponent. It would be silly to try to enforce people from looking over at the opponent sideline to try to see if they can steal a sign or two. It is an entirely different thing to buy tickets, for many games of the opponents you will be facing, then to decipher a good chunk of their playbook, to then have a person stand next to the DC or HC during a game to give them highly accurate information that other teams do not have access to. 

The evidence is clear, Stallion was stealing signs in an illegal manner. There is video evidence showing him telling the UM DC that a certain team was running right. The UM DC made an adjustment and sent a double safety run blitz to the right side of the O-Line and blew up the play. 

How is this a minor advantage? 

Note, that link you sent, said nothing about sign stealing. Maybe the committee thought, you know what, the opposing team would be getting a view of the sideline which is not offered in most shared video or even live streams of the game and that is not something they wanted to happen. 

There is a lot of what-ifs to repealing that regulation. 

Clearly, if UM didn't think they wouldn't be getting a competitive advantage they wouldn't be sending a staffer to do this. 

 

 

[ChetlovesMer]

1 hour ago, klineka said:

f I were accused of a crime I couldn't just tell a police officer or a court, "I can't talk to you right now because I have to go to work I'll handle this in 3 months". I know the situations are slightly different due to due process and all of that, but still.

Actually, there are quite a few examples where this has happened. 

But, we get your point. 

6 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Clearly, if UM didn't think they wouldn't be getting a competitive advantage they wouldn't be sending a staffer to do this.  

Clearly, they thought they would get an advantage. 

[DeadMan]

2 hours ago, klineka said:

There might be what, 50 people on staff that need interviewed? Let's call it 75 hours, maybe 100 hours which would be over an hour per staff member. 2 or definitely 3 representatives from the NCAA could handle that by spending a week at the university.

Hahaha, no. Having done some investigation work, things don't get done nearly this quickly. It takes easily 3 to 4 more time to prepare to interview someone than it does to actually do the interview. And the person getting interviewed is going to prepare as well.

2 hours ago, klineka said:

It's slightly different due to the legal process and such but if I were accused of a crime I couldn't just tell a police officer or a court, "I can't talk to you right now because I have to go to work I'll handle this in 3 months". I know the situations are slightly different due to due process and all of that, but still.

This is off topic, but you are wrong here. You never have to talk to the police. If you are accused a crime, you have a right to a speedy trial, but you can also waive that right. You can get criminal court dates pushed back if you really need to.

[klineka]

5 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

Hahaha, no. Having done some investigation work, things don't get done nearly this quickly. It takes easily 3 to 4 more time to prepare to interview someone than it does to actually do the interview. And the person getting interviewed is going to prepare as well.

You're trying to tell me that for every single interview of each staff member on the football team at Michigan that the NCAA interviewers would need 3-4 hours of prep time per interview? (Assuming each interview would be 1 hour each)

3-4 hours of prep to interview the strength and conditioning coach and then another 3-4 hours of prep to interview the assistant strength and conditioning coach?? 

I don't believe that one bit. 

[DeadMan]

22 minutes ago, klineka said:

You're trying to tell me that for every single interview of each staff member on the football team at Michigan that the NCAA interviewers would need 3-4 hours of prep time per interview? (Assuming each interview would be 1 hour each)

3-4 hours of prep to interview the strength and conditioning coach and then another 3-4 hours of prep to interview the assistant strength and conditioning coach?? 

I don't believe that one bit. 

Maybe not every staff member, but for an interview of someone who might have something interesting to say, yes. 

[vasaribm]

Scouting is not exclusively sign stealing, although it seems most are equating the two in this case.  I'm not arguing against the rule being potentially broken, just that sign stealing shouldn't be the only argument when such activity is legal in all situations but 1.  With as much digital information that is available today I see it hard to prove a significant advantage was gained from this activity alone or that Michigan would not have had the same information otherwise.

As for the NCAA explaining the decision, I just want to know the whole history behind the decision.  What about Rule 1-6b of the Football Rules book, which states the rules apply to those in the "team area", no other prohibited location is listed.  Does being in the stands loosen the applicability of subsequent sections or rules?

I'm not absolving Michigan from wrong doing, I just don't think its as cut & dry as you guys think.  There may be sections of the rules which inadvertently contradict or create gray areas that a team explores. The fabric of any sport is to gain a competitive advantage.

 

[saevel25]

19 minutes ago, vasaribm said:

With as much digital information that is available today I see it hard to prove a significant advantage was gained from this activity alone or that Michigan would not have had the same information otherwise.

Go look up examples of All-22 video that is given to each time for the purpose of scouting. This is because scouting in person has been illegal for decades now. There is no consistent view of the signs being given. 

Also, you may get a couple of signs from the TV, but the broadcast does not show the signs enough times to say you can scout from it. You may get lucky to get one or two signs off it. 

Everything falls back to 11.6. Even if their intent is sign stealing, you can't do it during opponents' games, in person. Also, you can't sign steal using video or audio recording devices. So, if they find that these people were videotaping the sidelines for the entire game, and sending it back to Stallion, he broke a sign stealing rule as well. 

22 minutes ago, vasaribm said:

I'm not absolving Michigan from wrong doing, I just don't think its as cut & dry as you guys think.  There may be sections of the rules which inadvertently contradict or create gray areas that a team explores. The fabric of any sport is to gain a competitive advantage.

There is that to argue, but if Stallion paid these people to go to the games, then could they be classified as affiliated with the team? I feel like that word gives the NCAA a broad definition to work with. 

[klineka]

59 minutes ago, vasaribm said:

With as much digital information that is available today I see it hard to prove a significant advantage was gained from this activity alone or that Michigan would not have had the same information otherwise.

AFAIK, it doesn't matter if Michigan gained a competitive advantage or not, the fact that they did it at all is illegal. 

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the rule doesn't require the NCAA to prove whether or not Michigan gained a competitive advantage, simply the act of them filming other teams they weren't playing is what is illegal.

 

1 hour ago, vasaribm said:

As for the NCAA explaining the decision, I just want to know the whole history behind the decision.  What about Rule 1-6b of the Football Rules book, which states the rules apply to those in the "team area", no other prohibited location is listed.  Does being in the stands loosen the applicability of subsequent sections or rules?

I read that as "everyone in the team area, PLUS players, subs, replaced players, etc" not "everyone in the team area ONLY, such as players, subs, replaced players, etc" especially since other people are listed who clearly would not be in the field area like PA announcers, AV operators, etc. 

"and other persons affiliated with the teams or institutions" covers it IMO. By Stallions paying those people to film the games they become affiliated with the team/institution.

"Affiliated- closely associated with another typically in a dependent or subordinate position"

I think it'd be pretty hard to argue that those people who got paid by a Michigan staffer to perform a task on behalf of him weren't affiliated with the team, regardless of if they knew their actions were illegal or not and regardless of if they were aware that Stallions works for Michigan or not, they'd still (in my non lawyer opinion) be considered affiliated with the team/institution since they are affiliated with Stallions who is obviously affiliated with the team/institution.

[iacas]

The amount of butt hurt being expressed by Ohio State fans in this thread is f***ing highly amusing.

Kevin, Michigan is under no obligation to do things any faster than the NCAA wants or requires them to.

[saevel25]

 

[klineka]

39 minutes ago, iacas said:

The amount of butt hurt being expressed by Ohio State fans in this thread is f***ing highly amusing.

Kevin, Michigan is under no obligation to do things any faster than the NCAA wants or requires them to.

No butt hurt here, I would feel the same if it was Ohio State or any other school who allegedly broke the rules.

I promise I'm not some crazy Ohio State fan who hates Michigan and wants to see them fail just because of a rivalry. Lord knows there are plenty of people like in Columbus already I'm certainly not going to add to that. 🤮😂

If it was Ohio State who allegedly broke the rules, I would want the university to participate urgently and have the ruling/punishment as quickly as possible so that everyone could just move on. 

[iacas]

34 minutes ago, klineka said:

No butt hurt here

[iacas]

Uh oh @DeadMan. 😉 

---

Also…

Quote

WHAT HAPPENS IF LIONS BEAT MICHIGAN?

Michigan week is here! The Nittany Lions have a chance to earn a gargantuan victory Saturday against the No. 3 Wolverines.

If they do ...

Penn State would then need Michigan to beat Ohio State in the regular-season finale in a few weeks. That game is in Ann Arbor, so you'd have to like Michigan's chances in that one.

If Penn State, Michigan and Ohio State all finish 11-1, the Big Ten tiebreaker that would come into play is peculiar. You take a look at the Big Ten West teams that each of those three has played and compile their records within the conference.

Penn State has played:

Iowa (4-2), NW (2-4), Illinois (2-4) -- 8-10 total record in league

Michigan has played: 

Nebraska (3-3), Minnesota (3-3), Purdue (1-5) -- 7-11 total record

Ohio State has played: 

Purdue (1-5), Wisconsin (3-3), Minnesota (3-3) -- 7-11 total record.

So, as you can see, the way things currently stand with three weeks to go, Penn State would win the tiebreaker. That obviously could change down the stretch, but the Lions need Iowa, Northwestern and Illinois to win some more games.

If PSU were to win the tiebreaker, it would advance to the Big Ten championship game as the East representative.

OK, but ...

Things could still get really messy in terms of which team from the Big Ten would be favored by the College Football Playoff committee if there's one spot available.

Let's say Penn State were to win the tiebreaker and win the Big Ten title game. It's not out of the realm of possibility that the committee could still favor Ohio State. Especially if the Buckeyes lose a very close game at Michigan. Ohio State did beat Penn State, and comparing resumes would be very interesting.

OK, so, that's looking pretty far ahead, of course. So let's see how things play out against the Wolverines, and then we can really start dissecting this other stuff.

I think there's like a 2% chance PSU beats Michigan, but whatever…

[saevel25]

29 minutes ago, iacas said:

I think there's like a 2% chance PSU beats Michigan, but whatever…

Yea, PSU was like 0-15 on the first fifteen 3rd downs against OSU. That scares me here against a “supposedly” similar defense. 

Still, UM hasn’t faced a team with a pulse since TCU last year in the playoff.

I might take UM -4.5 just to give them some bad luck. Last week they failed to cover agains Purdue when I bet on them. 🤣

 

[StuM]

On 11/3/2023 at 12:31 PM, klineka said:

You're trying to tell me that for every single interview of each staff member on the football team at Michigan that the NCAA interviewers would need 3-4 hours of prep time per interview? (Assuming each interview would be 1 hour each)

3-4 hours of prep to interview the strength and conditioning coach and then another 3-4 hours of prep to interview the assistant strength and conditioning coach?? 

I don't believe that one bit. 

They would want to analyze an interview in depth to prepare for future interviews.  It is not just a marathon of Q&A sessions.  You use what one person told you to craft questions for others.