Around the Big Ten

[Jeff Buchanan]

Well, I'm still here. Looks like Petitti took option 2 in my earlier post.

It gets interesting now. The U has responded and stated it would seek injunctive relief. It is not a slam dunk it will be granted. A copy of the response is at mgoboard.

I remain in a wait and see mode. Talent, I'd welcome your opinion on M's chances of winning on the merits, or any other hurdles it has to overcome for a TRO to be granted.

[iam416]

I think they’d have a credible chance at TRO given impossibility of a preliminary injunction hearing before penalty kicks in — that’s why I thought they’d wait until Sun/Mon.

I think they probably lose at hearing unless it’s a Michigan state court judge. I think the Commish has the authority to act. But I really haven’t spent much time looking at it.

Like I said, the B10 engaged Sidley Austin — they’re ginormous. They’ve probably had them looking at this since it came up. They’re not flying blind.

My guess if M moved — TRO probably granted—hearing early next week—lose.

Also, if the TRO is granted then it effectively reduce suspension to 2 games. Commissioner clearly has authority to do 2 games — the B10 can say at hearing, “well, we only need 2, now, so we win.”

JMO.

Also, I don’t think they can win on merits, just procedure/ rules. The former is very much a long shot; the latter is winnable.

Honestly, this could have been much worse. I’d probably leave it be. B10 has said more is an option. If M ends up losing hearing they open door completely for anything B10 wants to do. The uncertainty on that issue probably restrained them. You end having a Court say B10 has authority under rules then everything is on table.

[iam416]

IMO, a Federal Court would be cautious in interjecting itself into a dispute like this where it's a question of an organization applying the organization's rules. They would typically defer to the organization. That doesn't mean they couldn't rule for M, it just means -- IMO -- that M would have to show the B10 clearly fucked up its rules. It couldn't be a close question. That's already the standard ("substantial likelihood") -- but I think it would be a little higher.

Again, that's JMO.

And, finally, M is going to win out. I firmly believe that. I also firmly believe they'll get hit by the NCAA, but that's not until 2024 or 2025 or whenever. And I firmly believe M should be given the opportunity to win out. As I've said, I thought the only appropriate remedy was suspensions and nothing re the team, and more to the point -- limited suspensions -- ie., if you were also going to suspend the OC/DC, postpone it until 2024 b/c suspending all 3 would be crushing to the 2023 team.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Well, this proves we can have a rational discourse. Now, GFY

[iam416]

Finally, punishment was approved by JGEC as it exceeded 2 games.

[iam416]

Well, this proves we can have a rational discourse. Now, GFY

Always. And always.

[Jeff Buchanan]

I don't think the punishment itself is in question. What I believe is a problem for Petitti is issuing it at all. He risks an assertion that he violated the BIG's own process for adjudication set forth in the handbook. I've read interpretations of the rules contained in the U's response over Manuel's sig. It was very detailed and made sense. The question becomes what authority is granted to Petitti to punish under the sportsmanship clause? Does it override the process spelled out in the BIG's handbook? The Manuel letter asserts he can't impose penalties without following a process spelled out in the rules that includes informing the U of the evidence and providing the U an opportunity to review and explain or mitigate the charges. Heck, I don't know. It's complicated and not easily reduced to amateur interpretation.

[iam416]

I mean, M knows what they’ll argue. I doubt it’s made up bullshit. But they’ll have a tough hurdle at the actual hearing.

[iam416]

Buchanan:

If they can keep the case in Washtenaw County in front of an ex-M player I like their chances!!!!

B10 is going to remove the case to Federal Court.

[froot loops]

It sounds like they are serious about leaving the Big Ten.

[THE_WIZARD_]

I thought that in order to get a TRO you had to make a case for irreparable harm...a coach suspension falls under that guise?

[iam416]

They have lots of issues.

The first being that the State of M doesn't have personal jurisdiction over the B10, so the case should be in Federal Court.

[Hannibal]

It's definitely on the hasty side and the B1G commissioner looks like a retarded ass clown right now, but let's be realistic here -- punishment is coming sooner or later. We can argue due process and it's a legitimate argument, but I don't have much doubt that after due process actually plays out, that some punishment would be meted out. If UM wants to fight to get it delayed then -- fine. But that's all that it will be is a delay.

And a suspension for the head coach is minor punishment. If Harbaugh getting suspended for three games is as far as it goes, I'd enthusiastically accept that outcome.

[Cody_Russell]

The goofiness of this saga continues to climb as the president of U of M, Santa Ono, tweets out “Bet.”
I imagine it refers to the idea of people in the M community being confident about M winning tomorrow? Don’t lose to Penn State or that just makes it more embarrassing…

[Hannibal]

Apparently UM has been granted the TRO.