OT: MIchigan Sports Thread: UM wins Natty Championship

[ManwithNoIdentity]

So they admitted they have no evidence and yet are going forward anyways

 

[jkutswings]

So they admitted they have no evidence and yet are going forward anyways

No evidence that the head coach knew. Not that the cheating took place. And it's clear that there's still much more to come.

 

[ManwithNoIdentity]

https://x.com/bluebyninety/status/1723437447646773313?s=46&t=wlCRMFG_dX1LhbM5k7gVMw

 

[newfy]

No evidence that the head coach knew. Not that the cheating took place. And it's clear that there's still much more to come.

Exactly, which makes Harbaughs suspension by the big ten BS. Institutional control is an NCAA thing thats not in the B1G bylaws. Sounds like a lot of higher ups at Michigan might actually consider leaving the big ten after this.

The sign stealing must've been a huge advantage that no other team had the way penn stat took it to them yesterday... Oh wait, Michigan didnt even throw a pass after 7 mins left in the second quarter on the second best run D in the country and controlled the entire game, on the road, with their coach getting suspended on the flight to the game. Ohio State ran for 2 yards a carry on that same defence at home......

 

[Konnan511]

So they admitted they have no evidence and yet are going forward anyways

No, they have a shit ton of evidence. They are suspending the head coach of the university where they have a ton of evidence of cheating. They are stating they don't have evidence that JH was specifically involved, so they are not suspending him, they are suspending the cheating team's Head Coach.

 

[Ricelund]

Ugly W but it's a W!

 

[MabusIncarnate]

Seemed like stopping the Chargers during the 2nd half was impossible, glad they kept trading off TDs and came out with the win. 7-2 Lions holy crap.

 

[Ricelund]

Seemed like stopping the Chargers during the 2nd half was impossible, glad they kept trading off TDs and came out with the win. 7-2 Lions holy crap.

 

[BSHH]

The Lions' offense is something special and even better than last year. But the defense really needs to step up massively, or otherwise the playoffs will be a short affair. The Chargers, Ravens and Seahawks all have good offenses, but giving away 35+ points to any notable opponent is a recipe for disaster.

Gruß,
BSHH

 

[jkutswings]

The Lions' offense is something special and even better than last year. But the defense really needs to step up massively, or otherwise the playoffs will be a short affair. The Chargers, Ravens and Seahawks all have good offenses, but giving away 35+ points to any notable opponent is a recipe for disaster.

Gruß,
BSHH

I expect a division win, a home playoff win, and then the defense to get exposed. The upcoming off-season should be very defense heavy.

Anything can happen, but this feels like the year that the Lions learn what playoff football requires, while next year (pending another good summer) they have a chance to make a really deep run.

 

[Konnan511]

I expect a division win, a home playoff win, and then the defense to get exposed. The upcoming off-season should be very defense heavy.

Anything can happen, but this feels like the year that the Lions learn what playoff football requires, while next year (pending another good summer) they have a chance to make a really deep run.

Personally, I think the Lions have a decent defense. I may be ostracized for this, but I don't think Aaron Glenn is the guy for us.

Here's the gameplan that worked in the first quarter "load the box, triple cover Keenan Allen." They did that in the first and it worked amazing. Then we stopped doing that, it was a wild choice.

 

[jaster]

No, they have a shit ton of evidence. They are suspending the head coach of the university where they have a ton of evidence of cheating. They are stating they don't have evidence that JH was specifically involved, so they are not suspending him, they are suspending the cheating team's Head Coach.

Which is a breach of contract. Perhaps a material breach. Petitti mis-stepped pretty bad here, and the Big Ten is quickly putting itself in a position it does not want to be in.

 

[Konnan511]

Which is a breach of contract. Perhaps a material breach. Petitti mis-stepped pretty bad here, and the Big Ten is quickly putting itself in a position it does not want to be in.

Source or context, please. I have not seen or heard of this.

 

[jaster]

Source or context, please. I have not seen or heard of this.

The below is from 3 days before the Harbaugh suspension was levied. It's an opinion piece from a Michigan alum-lawyer, so feel free to claim bias, but if you actually read it, you'll see it's a strong argument.

Lawyer/alum here to shed light on what President Ono probably meant in his Big Ten letter's reference to conference rules.*
Bottom line: no matter much Michigan's conference rivals whine and pound the table demanding "instant action," Big Ten Commissioner Pettiti doesn't have the authority to instantly suspend Harbaugh or otherwise discipline Michigan for the Conor Stalions ticket-buying scheme (or whatever else the SignGate "scandal" consists of) until the NCAA finishes its investigation.
* (Not-legal-advice, not-licensed-in-Michigan, only-vaguely-familiar-with-the-facts, and not-an-expert-in-sports-law disclaimers apply — this is just a take that is more informed than your average take if I am analyzing the correct rules.)
I. The rules
The relevant Big Ten rules seem to reside in the Big Ten Conference Handbook as amended by the Sportsmanship Policy (2022–23 version available on the B10's website at the link; the policy was originally adopted in 1974). The Sportsmanship Policy replaces Agreement 10 of the Handbook, not the Handbook as a whole.
The Big Ten Conference Handbook — Rule 32 ("Enforcement Policies and Procedures")
The latest online version of the handbook I can find is from 2018–19. For what it's worth, the rules I describe below are alluded to in an ABC News story today by Adam Rittenberg, suggesting that the rules remain in effect today. (I used advanced searches on Google and a legal research database and didn't find any newer versions.)
Rule 32 of the 2018–19 Conference Handbook divides investigations into two groups for purposes of determining the applicable procedure. Each investigation is either (1) initiated by the NCAA ("NCAA Initiated Cases") or (2) initiated by the Big Ten ("Conference Initiated Cases"). See Rule 32.2.2 ("Investigations"). My understanding is that despite some early inaccurate reporting to the contrary, the SignGate investigation originated with the NCAA, not the Big Ten.
In investigations initiated by the NCAA, the Big Ten rules require the conference to wait for the NCAA investigation and any appeals to be finished and for the NCAA to levy a penalty first, at which time the Big Ten can choose to pile on (key language italicized):

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.

That provision is unambiguous and lists no exceptions. There is no rule in the conference handbook that would allow the Commissioner to bypass the NCAA (and the Big Ten's Compliance and Reinstatement Subcommittee) because the Commissioner feels peer-pressured to act quickly.
The Big Ten Sportsmanship Policy
The Sportsmanship Policy just replaces one set of provisions in the Handbook ("Agreement 10"); it exists alongside the enforcement provisions described above. In fact, Rule 32 in the Handbook (discussed above) begins by noting:

Also See Men's and Women's Agreement 10 for Policies & Procedures on Sportslike Conduct ...

The Sportsmanship Policy is much broader and vaguer in scope than Rule 32. The Sportsmanship Policy's key language describing its scope is as follows; I've replaced unnecessary language with ellipses and added a paragraph break for clarity.

The Big Ten Conference expects all contests involving a member institution to be conducted without compromise to any fundamental element of sportsmanship. Such fundamental elements include integrity of the competition, civility toward all, and respect, particularly toward opponents and officials. Accordingly, each member institution ... has an obligation to behave in a way that does not offend the elements of sportsmanship described above.
Actions that are offensive to the integrity of the competition, actions that offend civility, and actions of disrespect are subject to review and are punishable in accordance with the terms of this policy. Although this policy will apply most commonly to actions that occur within or around the competitive arena, the scope of its application is intentionally left unrestricted in order to accommodate any behavior, which may occur in any setting, deemed by the Commissioner to offend the underlying objective this policy seeks to achieve. For example, public comments or public messaging made at any time ... , including comments or messages posted even temporarily via social media, are subject to review and punishable in accordance with the terms of this policy. ....

The first paragraph above describes the policy's purpose. The second paragraph describes the policy's scope — what it theoretically allows the B10 to punish. The B10 may punish "[a]ctions that are offensive to the integrity of the competition, actions that offend civility, and actions of disrespect."
That language is so broad as to verge on meaninglessness, so the example provided at the end of the second paragraph is crucial to understanding the policy and reconciling it with Rule 32's enforcement procedures:

For example, public comments or public messaging made at any time ... , including comments or messages posted even temporarily via social media, are subject to review ....

It's within the Commissioner's discretion to find a violation and impose certain penalties on conduct that violates the Sportsmanship Policy. It has been reported that the B10 Commissioner is considering a two-game suspension of Harbaugh; the reason it would be two games and not three is that any longer suspension under the Sportsmanship Policy would require prior approval by the B10 Joint Group Executive Committee (JGEC). Two games, however, would fall under this provision:

10.3.3.1 Standard Disciplinary Action. Standard disciplinary actions shall include admonishment, reprimand, fines that do not exceed $10,000, and suspensions from no more than two contests.

Alas for the haters, Michigan will have a strong legal argument that the Commissioner cannot unilaterally suspend Harbaugh or anyone even for two days for SignGate because the case falls within the "NCAA Initiated Cases" provision in Rule 32 of the Handbook.
II. The Definitive Legal Analysis
Many people seem to think that Big Ten Commissioner Pettiti can act immediately and punish Michigan with at least a two-game Harbaugh suspension on his own say-so because other B10 coaches threw a tantrum and demanded that he DO SOMETHING. This assumes that the Sportsmanship Policy overrides Rule 32 of the Big Ten Conference Handbook. But it doesn't. It only amends the previous Agreement 10 of the Big Ten Conference Handbook, which exists alongside Rule 32.
Assuming the Sportsmanship Policy (Agreement 10) and Rule 32 of the Big Ten Handbook are both in effect, and that their current versions contain the language I've discussed above, the provisions conflict with respect to SignGate and must be reconciled. Michigan wins for three reasons:

1. Based on their language alone, the Handbook and Sportsmanship Policy encompass overlapping conduct. This is inevitably so because of the Sportsmanship Policy's absurd breadth; the policy allows any "actions of disrespect" to be penalized. SignGate consists of Conor Stallions' alleged violations of NCAA rules against in-person scouting, which has triggered an "NCAA Initiated Case" under the Handbook. Assuming SignGate is also an "action of disrespect" or otherwise falls under the Sportsmanship Policy, the Handbook and Policy must be reconciled: must the Handbook's procedures be followed? The answer is yes. If the Big Ten had wanted to amend Rule 32, they would have done so. Instead, they have separate rules on sportsmanship that they've enacted to coexist with Rule 32. There is no reason to believe that the Policy overrides Rule 32 rather than addressing other situations not encompassed by Rule 32. (The relevant legal-interpretation principles include the "harmonious-reading canon" and perhaps the "presumption against implied repeal"; see Scalia and Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts.)
2. Since the Policy doesn't override Handbook Rule 32 for situations encompassed by Rule 32, the latter's procedural rules apply to any NCAA investigation — SignGate included. The SignGate investigation is an "NCAA Initiated Case" under Rule 32.2.2(C), and the Big Ten may not take any action to punish Michigan until all three of the following happen: (1) The NCAA investigation and any appeals are concluded; (2) the NCAA levies penalties; and (3) the Big Ten, following the procedures described in Rule 32, determines that additional penalties are warranted. (The relevant legal-interpretation principle is the "General/Specific Canon": specific provisions override general provisions.)
3. These conclusions are bolstered by language in the Sportsmanship Policy, which provides only one example of conduct to which it applies: social media messages. Unsportsmanlike social media messages, like other boorish but insignificant conduct (such as Sparty's 2018 field-walking stunt), are plausibly covered by the Sportsmanship Policy but not Rule 32 because they may not violate any particular NCAA or Big Ten rules or trigger any investigations. In such situations, the Commissioner can levy one of the minor penalties described in Sportsmanship Policy 10.3.3.1.

In short, if Pettiti tries to penalize Michigan in any significant way (including by suspending Harbaugh) under the Sportsmanship Policy, Michigan will sue and seek a preliminary injunction blocking the suspension. Another attorney-fan posted about that earlier today. Preliminary injunctions are hard to obtain because of the procedural standard, so a win isn't assured, but Michigan will have the better argument.
Michigan will correctly argue that if the Big Ten Commissioner punishes Michigan in connection with an NCAA-initiated investigation before the NCAA investigation is completed, that violates Rule 32 of the conference rules and is a material breach of the U of M's agreement with the Big Ten. (Note for your arguments on other message boards: although fairness and prudence counsel against the B10 punishing a school before conducting any serious investigation because rival schools pressured them to do so, there's no need to rely on vague values such as fairness or "due process" here since the conference rules solve this question.)
I hope that has been helpful. Go Blue!

Further, UM regents met last week to discuss strategy on how to leave the Big Ten. I have a strong connection to one of the regents and I can confirm that the phrase "material breach of contract" was a major theme of the meeting. In a vacuum, UM cannot leave the Big Ten, they are under contract until 2030 with the TV deal. But if they can prove in court a material breach of contract, the contract will be rendered null and void and UM can do whatever they want. And, in fact, on Friday night they filed the injunction everyone knew was coming. Along with that injunction were a temporary restraining order against the Big Ten and a breach of contract complaint. (U-M takes fight to court, argues 'irreparable harm')

The overly simple narrative that "Michigan cheated and now they are suffering the deserved consequences" is great for everyone who hates Michigan, but there is a whole helluva lot more going on here; from the actual problem of sign-stealing that everyone does, to the Big Ten overstepping their bounds, to what may very well lead to another big college football shake-up/realignment.

For my money, Michigan should leave the Big Ten in the dust as soon as they are able, and adopt a model similar to Notre Dame's. Michigan is one of the few schools who have the brand to pull it off. The Big Ten needs Michigan more than Michigan needs the Big Ten. And if the Big Ten is going to enjoy the piles of money Michigan makes for them but also kowtow to other entities who hate Harbaugh to the point they are willing to break their own rules, well, there's really not much incentive for Michigan to stick around if they are in fact able to leave. And Petitti may have just inadvertently, and stupidly, opened that door

 

[jkutswings]

For my money, Michigan should leave the Big Ten in the dust as soon as they are able, and adopt a model similar to Notre Dame's. Michigan is one of the few schools who have the brand to pull it off. The Big Ten needs Michigan more than Michigan needs the Big Ten. And if the Big Ten is going to enjoy the piles of money Michigan makes for them but also kowtow to other entities who hate Harbaugh to the point they are willing to break their own rules, well, there's really not much incentive for Michigan to stick around if they are in fact able to leave. And Petitti may have just inadvertently, and stupidly, opened that door

If they do pull a stunt like that, I hope every last team in the conference drops them from the schedule forever. Notre Dame comes off as completely pompous and arrogant for remaining an independent, regardless of whether they have the brand to survive it financially.

The conference realignment has a chance to fix one of the worst flaws in the sport: the big boys routinely padding half their schedule with free wins against Little Sisters of the Poor caliber opponents. If any single college/university wants to thumb their nose at that, I'm inherently rooting against them.

Anybody is free to openly operate as though greed is the only goal. And I'm free to want nothing to do with said approach.

 

[jaster]

If they do pull a stunt like that, I hope every last team in the conference drops them from the schedule forever. Notre Dame comes off as completely pompous and arrogant for remaining an independent, regardless of whether they have the brand to survive it financially.

The conference realignment has a chance to fix one of the worst flaws in the sport: the big boys routinely padding half their schedule with free wins against Little Sisters of the Poor caliber opponents. If any single college/university wants to thumb their nose at that, I'm inherently rooting against them.

Anybody is free to openly operate as though greed is the only goal. And I'm free to want nothing to do with said approach.

You should abandon college football altogether then lol.

It wouldn't be a "stunt." Michigan isn't going to be terribly motivated to stick around in a conference that has it out for them. At some point these kind of shenanigans that are being deployed don't make the money worth it. And that's all any of this is about, for every school.... money. This is professional sports, masquerading as amateur. Any "problems" that conference realignment "fixes" are just coincidental to the actual goal that is to make more money for everyone involved. 'Murica.

I don't like Notre Dame, but their model is brilliant, and Michigan has the means to replicate it. Calling ND arrogant and pompous for employing that model is.... strange. Smells like sour grapes. Most teams wish they could have what Notre Dame has. These conferences are out of control, I can't relate to being on their side.

And no, every last team in the Big Ten would not drop Michigan forever. They still want that sweet revenue Michigan makes for them. Just like with Notre Dame, UM could likely leverage that and forge an agreement to maintain most of their rivalries and historical matchups.

 

[Konnan511]

The below is from 3 days before the Harbaugh suspension was levied. It's an opinion piece from a Michigan alum-lawyer, so feel free to claim bias, but if you actually read it, you'll see it's a strong argument.



Further, UM regents met last week to discuss strategy on how to leave the Big Ten. I have a strong connection to one of the regents and I can confirm that the phrase "material breach of contract" was a major theme of the meeting. In a vacuum, UM cannot leave the Big Ten, they are under contract until 2030 with the TV deal. But if they can prove in court a material breach of contract, the contract will be rendered null and void and UM can do whatever they want. And, in fact, on Friday night they filed the injunction everyone knew was coming. Along with that injunction were a temporary restraining order against the Big Ten and a breach of contract complaint. (U-M takes fight to court, argues 'irreparable harm')

The overly simple narrative that "Michigan cheated and now they are suffering the deserved consequences" is great for everyone who hates Michigan, but there is a whole helluva lot more going on here; from the actual problem of sign-stealing that everyone does, to the Big Ten overstepping their bounds, to what may very well lead to another big college football shake-up/realignment.

For my money, Michigan should leave the Big Ten in the dust as soon as they are able, and adopt a model similar to Notre Dame's. Michigan is one of the few schools who have the brand to pull it off. The Big Ten needs Michigan more than Michigan needs the Big Ten. And if the Big Ten is going to enjoy the piles of money Michigan makes for them but also kowtow to other entities who hate Harbaugh to the point they are willing to break their own rules, well, there's really not much incentive for Michigan to stick around if they are in fact able to leave. And Petitti may have just inadvertently, and stupidly, opened that door

I'll trust there was good information in there, but I'm not reading a 4 page self-admitted opinion piece. Plus I stopped when the author stated "Not-legal-advice, not-licensed-in-Michigan, only-vaguely-familiar-with-the-facts, and not-an-expert-in-sports-law".

I'm also confused (I'm always confused, but this time more so), you stated what the Big10 did to UofM and Harbaugh was a breach of contract. But you state the breach of contract is because UofM wants to leave the Big10. Why bring up breach of contract if it has nothing to do with Harbaugh?

That's like saying Trump running for President is Fraud. No, he's been found guilty of Fraud many times, but running for President doesn't make it an illegal case of fraud automatically.

Thanks, happy Monday.

If they do pull a stunt like that, I hope every last team in the conference drops them from the schedule forever. Notre Dame comes off as completely pompous and arrogant for remaining an independent, regardless of whether they have the brand to survive it financially.

The conference realignment has a chance to fix one of the worst flaws in the sport: the big boys routinely padding half their schedule with free wins against Little Sisters of the Poor caliber opponents. If any single college/university wants to thumb their nose at that, I'm inherently rooting against them.

Anybody is free to openly operate as though greed is the only goal. And I'm free to want nothing to do with said approach.

Those crappy little schools, like the one I went to, we were always excited to have the big schools come to town. Brought in a shit ton of money for us. We rarely ever won, but the time we did, we went nuts.

 

[jkutswings]

Then to hell with college football.

 

[jaster]

I'll trust there was good information in there, but I'm not reading a 4 page self-admitted opinion piece. Plus I stopped when the author stated "Not-legal-advice, not-licensed-in-Michigan, only-vaguely-familiar-with-the-facts, and not-an-expert-in-sports-law".

I'm also confused (I'm always confused, but this time more so), you stated what the Big10 did to UofM and Harbaugh was a breach of contract. But you state the breach of contract is because UofM wants to leave the Big10. Why bring up breach of contract if it has nothing to do with Harbaugh?

That's like saying Trump running for President is Fraud. No, he's been found guilty of Fraud many times, but running for President doesn't make it an illegal case of fraud automatically.

Thanks, happy Monday.

Because the author is an actual lawyer, he's adding that piece for legal reasons, to protect himself. Just boilerplate stuff whenever a lawyer speaks about a case he's not involved in. Opinion piece or not, it's a thorough explanation of what is happening in this part of the story, and provides a better breakdown of it all than you'll find from a sportswriter.

The breach of contract is what the Big Ten did with the "punishment" they doled out. The legal theory is that because there was a material breach of contract on the part of the Big Ten, Michigan is no longer bound by the contract, and would be allowed to step away from the Big Ten. Proving material breach of contract would be Michigan's ticket out of the Big Ten. This would all have to bear itself out in court, mind you, so time will tell. Sorry if I worded that poorly previously.

 

[newfy]

I'll trust there was good information in there, but I'm not reading a 4 page self-admitted opinion piece. Plus I stopped when the author stated "Not-legal-advice, not-licensed-in-Michigan, only-vaguely-familiar-with-the-facts, and not-an-expert-in-sports-law".

I'm also confused (I'm always confused, but this time more so), you stated what the Big10 did to UofM and Harbaugh was a breach of contract. But you state the breach of contract is because UofM wants to leave the Big10. Why bring up breach of contract if it has nothing to do with Harbaugh?

Hes a lawyer, lawyers always do a disclaimer like that so someone reading it cant claim it was legal advice. The amount of time it took you to reply to it you could've skimmed it and likely not been confused anymore.

The breach of contract is that the commissioner didnt follow big ten bylaws when punishing Harbaugh. In fact, they stated they literally dont have proof he knew about what was going on at all. This is a breach of contract on the commissioners part by not following the bylaws. So now, Michigan may have grounds to get out of said contract without penalty, because the other party did not abide by the contract first.

The big ten bylaws dont have anything in them about the head coach having full institutional control the way that the NCAA bylaws do. So saying Michigan was cheating by stealing signs illegally isnt enough to suspend Harbaugh by the bylaws, but can be for the NCAA. The B1G requires you to connect him to the cheating. The bylaws allow a 2 game suspension for the sportsmanship clause which was an option, but they suspended him for 3, so they dont have that to fall back on either.

And on top of being against the bylaws, the way it was done was super shady. Wait until less than a day before a game, on a federal holiday, while the coach is on the plane to suspend him. Then the new commissioner has the audacity to let Michigan find out about the suspension from Pete Thamel (the guy heading the witch hunt and getting leaks the whole time) on social media instead of getting a phone call is completely bush league

 

[izlez]

Y'all are really just gonna run with the idea that the punishment was both rushed and delayed at the same time?

 

[jaster]

Y'all are really just gonna run with the idea that the punishment was both rushed and delayed at the same time?

The decision was rushed and the notification was strategically timed. The former is disputable until it's not, and the latter is plainly obvious. It's not very complicated.

 

[izlez]

The decision was rushed and the notification was strategically timed. The former is disputable until it's not, and the latter is plainly obvious. It's not very complicated.

or this is just opinion at best or bullshit at worst?

 

[jaster]

or this is just opinion at best or bullshit at worst?

Believing otherwise is also opinion. All there is regarding these points is opinion right now. But one side has a good argument, and the other does not. Do you have facts I don't know about that show the Big Ten acted in good faith? Please, do present them. The cases have been made for why this was rushed, and why the Big Ten gave notification when they did, and those cases are strong. Cases to the contrary don't exist, unless you're ready to agree that Tony Petitti is incompetent and then, hey, we're on the same page.

 

[izlez]

Believing otherwise is also opinion. All there is regarding these points is opinion right now. But one side has a good argument, and the other does not. Do you have facts I don't know about that show the Big Ten acted in good faith? Please, do present them. The cases have been made for why this was rushed, and why the Big Ten gave notification when they did, and those cases are strong. Cases to the contrary don't exist, unless you're ready to agree that Tony Petitti is incompetent and then, hey, we're on the same page.

Michigan cheated.

Facts were reviewed. Options were weighed. Punishments were delivered.

And now we've got lawyers digging into every minute detail of the suspension and the rulebook to see if every i was dotted and every t was crossed, but we're going to also complain that they dragged it out for too long.

....as if the timeline of one of the punishments is really relevant at all to the cheating scandal. Sorry they're not bending over backwards to appease cheaters at every turn