vasaribm

Middle works

Apologies, I've been dragging my feet on coordinating child care. I'm out for Saturday. Count me in for Sunday.

Put me on the interested list. The first 2 weeks in May are out for me, late May or June would be better.

Ok? I left the link and didn't copy the entire letter. I was simply replying to Erik that it appears the Big 10 didn't initiate the investigation. The remainder of that statement continues to support that.

Based on the timeline provided in the letter given to Michigan Friday, the NCAA notified the conference. The letter makes no mention that the conference had a separate investigation or that the conference had asked the NCAA to investigate. Events detailed after the call on Oct. 18th by the conference are reactionary to receiving information from the NCAA. A. The NCAA’s Initial Call to the University and the Conference About the Scheme On October 18, the President of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (the “NCAA”), Charlie Baker, scheduled a call with me, other senior leadership from the Conference, and senior leadership from the University. During that call, the NCAA disclosed to both the Conference and the University that it had received highly credible evidence of a wide-ranging, multi-year in-person, off campus scouting scheme orchestrated by a noncoaching staff member of the University’s football program. There were several extraordinary aspects of this call. It is rare and outside the NCAA’s typical protocols for the NCAA to disclose information about an active investigation to institutions other than the institution under investigation.... C. The NCAA Shares with the Conference the Master Spreadsheet Detailing the Extensive In-Person Sign-Stealing Activities Also on October 19, pursuant to my request to see first-hand the credible evidence in the NCAA’s possession, another senior-level Conference staff member and I participated in a videoconference with the NCAA... Notice of Disciplinary Action Against the University of Michigan

So the Big 10 levies punishment for breaking rules by potentially breaking their own rules. The handbook seems to state that the NCAA investigation needs to finish first before additional punishment from the conference. From the Big 10 handbook: 32.2.2(C) NCAA Initiated Cases. The Compliance and Reinstatement Subcommittee shall review violations by member universities as determined by the NCAA and may impose penalties in addition to those imposed by the NCAA for any violations. 1. Where the NCAA initiates a preliminary or official inquiry with a member university the Conference will cooperate with university and NCAA representatives in the processing of that case through the normal NCAA investigation, hearing and appeal processes. 2. While the case will be processed through normal NCAA channels, the Conference Compliance and Reinstatement Subcommittee shall review the case and may impose additional penalties, if warranted, subsequent to the NCAA action.

Having the best offensive line in the country could account for an extra touchdown per game. An offensive line supplemented largely by the transfer portal, does the subject rankings include transfer players? So defensively we're talking 5 points, which happens to coincide with changes in defensive coordinator.

So Team A can spend their own resources and time to figure it out themselves, that's cheating. While, Team B calls his buddies who previously played Team A and get similar information for free, that's fair play. Yeah, that makes sense...

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.

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

Coming back in 2039 https://www.usopen.com/u-s--open-future-sites.html

I'm in for dinner

I'll volunteer as tribute. White or blue works for me.

I'll play with anyone, no preferences here. Looking forward to it.

I suppose it's no different than any other player wearing a corporate logo, but the LIV guys wearing their team uniforms is dumb.