Around the Big Ten

[Mike]

I would expect the conference to provide what it feels is a full justification as to why it does whatever it does. I don't suspect that will satsify M fans, but that's not the intended audience.

I'd like to see a lot more than the information currently out there that indicates Harbaugh knew what Stalions was doing, which if fucking ZERO.

[Hannibal]

Yes the B1G hates Michigan. LMAO. If this was any other school something would have been done by now...and iffen it was UNL Desmond Howard would be calling for banishment from the B1G like when we wanted to actually play games in 2020...

GTFO

Read the story that I posted above.

Also — Desmond Howard is one guy who has no power. The people with power in this caee absolutely hate Michigan and appear to be acting on their vendetta. They might be perfectly within their rights to do this, but that doesn’t mean that Michigan is being treated fairly.

[Hannibal]

TBF it doesn’t look good for Harbaugh, but it’s still preliminary and the process has to play our. Harbaugh might not have known, but it’s his job to know.

The previous paragraph assumes that all if the anonymously sourced info about Stalions is correct, of course. None of us have seen the alleged spreadsheets and cell phone videos yet.

[iam416]

I'd like to see a lot more than the information currently out there that indicates Harbaugh knew what Stalions was doing, which if fucking ZERO.

"Indicates" -- there is gads of evidence that "indicates" -- there isn't any evidence that conclusively proves. The "indicates" evidence is, as summarized multiple times, M entrusted it's mult-million dollar play-calling to the input from a staffer. That much is absolutely true. The "indicates" is when you ask whether these people would entrust their jobs and the program to this "low-level staffer" blindly or woudl they verify his information? That "indicates" they knew. I'd win that in a civil jury trial 95% of the time.

You want 100% conclusive proof. Heh.

And, of course, whether HARBAUGH**** actually knew or not is irrelevant to NCAA rules against cheating.

[Mike]

Yeah, change "indicates" to whatever is better for Michigan then. Thank you, counselor!

[Dr. Strangelove]

Wazzu and the other other oSu may make better companions for Michigan if you want to stake out on your own. Leave this conference of 17 ingrates and unworthies.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Criminals always feel like society has ganged up on them. Wiz's example is correct, Michigan is the guy pulled over for doing 135 in a 55 zone and tells the cop "everybody speeds so why pick on me?"

[Hannibal]

“Harbaugh didn’t know” is a really weak defense. The only defense that I can envision is the possibility that Stalions and/or M sent scouts to games instead of staff and that would be a loophole in the rules.

That and there is an argument that punishment should be light because the competitive advantage gained was minimal.

[Hannibal]

If an actual investigation is carried out and Stalions really did scout games illegally, then I don’t have a problem with Harbaugh getting punished for it. But finish an investigation first and mete out punishment based upon a realistic assessment of how much of a competitive advantage we gained from it.

That assessment should include any information on other programs collaborating by sharing and compiling Michigan’s signals. And the ease with which any program can obtain the type of video that Stalions supposedly took and do the exact same thing. And the ease with which you can mitigate this problem by using wristbands.

[Hannibal]

Talent -- do you think that Michigan gained a significant competitive advantage by breaking rules on off campus scouting? Honest question, requesting a sass-free answer.

[iam416]

Hannibal

I can't really answer that definitively, but I'll give you three points. First, they had all the signs. It's clear they knew what plays were coming for large parts of those games. I think that's a meaningful advantage. The Athletic polled 50 coaches (article posted last week) and 47 thought M was way over the line and I think they the overall value they gave to the operation was, on average, 7-10 points.

Second, it's a relative advantage because, as everyone notes, people try to steal signs all the time. I can't really say how much more effective this operation was vs other non-rule-breaking means. I would lean on the coaches survey, but that's all I have.

Third, I've maintained and will continue to maintain that I will not play these games out in an alternative universe. I'm not going to say Ohio State would have won. I'm also not going to say they would have lost. I am going to say OSU lost. That won't change. No unringing that bell. Despite this postion, I'm not going to object to someone saying that for the vast majority of games -- if not all -- the outcome remains the same. I think that's reasonable.

So, if someone said, "Yeah, it's cheating, it's meaningful, but it didn't change the outcome of anything" -- that would probably be where I am.

But, as I noted earlier, the stuff Jim Tressel and TP were nixed for -- stuff that occured well after recruiting -- that wasn't changing any outcomes at all. AT ALL. But the rules were broken.

So, if you measure "significant" by change in outcome then I'm inclined to say no. If you measure "significant" by advantage gained, I'm inclined to say yes. And when it comes to these types of rules, I don't think "it didn't really matter to the outcome" is a good defense. That's where I am.

[Mike]

How many times you guys gonna post the Joe Bolden story alleging no rule-breaking?

Rules? Is it sportsmanlike to collude with other schools to take down a conference opponent? The Big 10 is going to suspend Harbaugh using the Sportsmanship policy despite the NCAA telling them they have no evidence of this connecting to Harbaugh.

Schools sharing signal information is not uncommon in college football, multiple sources in the coaching profession told SI, nor is it against NCAA rules. “Every week you call your friends on other staffs and say, ‘Hey, what you got [on our next opponent]?’ ” A current coach with Big Ten experience said. “Everyone does it. Who cares?”

I'm told over and over that everyone does NOT do it. I guess we'll never know. What we DO know is that Michigan is accused of obtaining information through the use of electronic devices which is against the rules. We don't know how the information was obtained that was used against us. Yet. Serious question: If it is illegal to use an electronic device to record a team's signs, is it also illegal to share or disseminate an opponents' signals using electronic equipment? Phones, computers, etc.? And if it is totally legal, is it sportsmanlike? Because then we get into subjectivity and that shit needs to be applied equally.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Everybody is doing it©

[Mike]

I want sportsmanship instilled throughout the conference using the point of a bayonet.

[Hannibal]

Hannibal

I can't really answer that definitively, but I'll give you three points. First, they had all the signs. It's clear they knew what plays were coming for large parts of those games. I think that's a meaningful advantage. The Athletic polled 50 coaches (article posted last week) and 47 thought M was way over the line and I think they the overall value they gave to the operation was, on average, 7-10 points.

Second, it's a relative advantage because, as everyone notes, people try to steal signs all the time. I can't really say how much more effective this operation was vs other non-rule-breaking means. I would lean on the coaches survey, but that's all I have.

Third, I've maintained and will continue to maintain that I will not play these games out in an alternative universe. I'm not going to say Ohio State would have won. I'm also not going to say they would have lost. I am going to say OSU lost. That won't change. No unringing that bell. Despite this postion, I'm not going to object to someone saying that for the vast majority of games -- if not all -- the outcome remains the same. I think that's reasonable.

So, if someone said, "Yeah, it's cheating, it's meaningful, but it didn't change the outcome of anything" -- that would probably be where I am.

But, as I noted earlier, the stuff Jim Tressel and TP were nixed for -- stuff that occured well after recruiting -- that wasn't changing any outcomes at all. AT ALL. But the rules were broken.

So, if you measure "significant" by change in outcome then I'm inclined to say no. If you measure "significant" by advantage gained, I'm inclined to say yes. And when it comes to these types of rules, I don't think "it didn't really matter to the outcome" is a good defense. That's where I am.

Fair enough on all points. I would take that coach's poll with a big grain of salt, since lots of those coaches have a concrete incentive to see Michigan punished. I find the 7-10 points number pretty hard to believe -- it's ultimately a made-up number that requires playing out the games in an alternative universe, which I think you wisely said you don't want to do. If someone figured out that Michigan steals signals and went to wristbands or scrambled up their signals, then that advantage approaches zero. If other programs were colluding to crack Michigan's signals, then our advantage approaches zero. If other programs can get video on other teams' signals by using loopholes in the rules, then the advantage approaches zero.

Are there specific plays that people can point to where the defense stuffed a play because Stalions told the coaches what was coming, based on their signals? I'd like to see some examples.

7-10 points a game advantage would be very significant, and it would call for a stiff punishment. I would call that "huge", and I would classify that number as a threat to the integirty of the game. It would change enough outcomes to keep UM out of the playoffs. We only beat the Illini last year by 2. We only beat Nebraska a few years ago by 3, and ditto for 2021 Penn State. I think that the number is way too big though. But of course, I have no way to prove it. I think that there is a very strong argument though that the advantage is pretty small, because the infraction is not decoding signals, it's the assistant going to the games in person to take video.