Around the Big Ten

[THE_WIZARD_]

FREE HARBAUGH!!!!!!!

[Mike]

It comes down to: Michigan got signs from shaky cell phone video 100 yards away from the sideline vs. other teams got our signals by ???? and then disseminated them to future Michigan opponents. We're dead to rights on the CS stuff but if we're gonna get hammered for that, we need a full league-wide investigation of all these shenanigans.

We DO know that this past summer Michigan erected a big wall around their practice fields to increase privacy. Why would something like that be necessary?

[froot loops]

Harbaugh is the guy who claims cheaters are all around, it's his go to criticism. He claims he does everything right. He's the bomb thrower, if people in college football are eager to punish Harbaugh, it's because people love to see someone hoist with one's own petard.

[Mike]

Remind me again: When did Alan Haller become aware that Mel Tucker sexually harassed/assaulted Brenda Tracy and when did MSU fire him?

[iam416]

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.

To be clear -- I'm not calling the coaches survey -- it's not even a poll -- it's a survey -- scientific. I'm not relying on it as definitive. I'm only pointing to it as "some" evidence that is probably better than me just guessing. It was mostly cited in response to M assertions that this was "no big deal" based on statements from a few random coaches. This is, at least, way more comprehensive than that. So the primary value of the survey is refutation; it is not particularly strong as affirmative proof.

BUT, I mean -- as is sort of present in your response, if you actually want to answer the question of significance then quantifying the advantage -- even with suboptimal precision -- is the predicate. It seems like you have to be able to at least try to quantify it and a survey of 50 coaches is at least a starting point. It's certainly a better starting point than The Talent opining off his ass.

[iam416]

A poster on 11W -- heh -- raised a point I forgot about. When Juwan Howard punched the Wisconsin coach, the B10 suspended him 5 games the next day. It was immediate. No one was clamoring for due process. Everyone knew what happened.

The B10, I'm sure, has sent M a truckload of evidence and said "did this happen or not." And if you say it hasn't happened, then show us where we're wrong. If you concede it has happened, then we don't need any more. In this particular situation, whatever "process" there is wraps up when the facts are conceded.

[THE_WIZARD_]

It comes down to: Michigan got signs from shaky cell phone video 100 yards away from the sideline vs. other teams got our signals by ???? and then disseminated them to future Michigan opponents. We're dead to rights on the CS stuff but if we're gonna get hammered for that, we need a full league-wide investigation of all these shenanigans.

We DO know that this past summer Michigan erected a big wall around their practice fields to increase privacy. Why would something like that be necessary?

How ironic.

[WingsFan]

Cheaters

[Mike]

Wings, would you consider that "sportsmanlike"?

[THE_WIZARD_]

stalions.jpg

[WingsFan]

This is (some) of the paper trail - SI has posted documents, partially redacted, that other teams used to decode Michigan’s signals and match them with plays. Frankly, if Michigan's sign-stealing system wasn't AT LEAST this sophisticated I'd be pretty disappointed. Names and teams and text messages will come out soon, we already know most of them, those who scream the loudest are always the most guilty!

[Hannibal]

IMHO the question of "did Harbaugh know?" is the wrong question, because if his assistants are magically predicting other teams' plays, then it's his job to know how.

The real question is whether Michigan gained a significant competitive advantage by breaking rules. That means comparing what we did to what other teams can do if they follow the rules. I'm not going to argue that "everybody does it" when it comes to stealing signals, because as I have said, stealing signals is legal. I wouldn't say that "everybody does it" when it comes to staffers attending the games of future opponents because I'll bet that almost no one is stupid enough to do that. (Michigan might be though).

Knowing what your opponent is going to run on every snap is a big competitive advantage. Learning your opponents' codes by attending games in person instead of getting video from other sources isn't.

[Da Geezer]

"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.

In Ohio, maybe. In Ann Arbor, not so much.

[WingsFan]

Stallions paid for the tickets with money from his vacuum refurbishing side hustle. Case closed.


F-WgBR2XIAAWEAw?format=jpg&name=900x900.jpg

[Mike]

WTF am I even reading? Just when I think this shit can't get any weirder.