Around the Big Ten

[iam416]

In any event, HARBAUGH**** will likely coach against OSU and I’m fairly certain that’s what OSU wants. The former is knowable the latter is, of course, speculation.

[lineygoblue]

To my amateur legal skills, this seems to me to be what is going to happen.

There's no doubt that the NCAA wants to nail Harbaugh. That doesn't even need to be debated. They want his hide. The only remaining question is Does the NCAA want to get BOTH Harbaugh and Michigan? My guess is that they will have to determine that, by how 'convincing' the case is against Harbaugh. If they can punish him to some point of being content, they may let Michigan slide just a bit. If they don't nail Harbaugh hard enough, then they'll come after Michigan to get some sort of 'control' charge against them. That's where Santa Ono will declare war.

What's going to happen? I don't think Talent's friend within the NCAA (this sounds very Marty-like) can predict the outcome, because Michigan hasn't had its side heard yet. If the NCAA wants to keep just a tad of credibility, they're going to have to let Michigan, AND Harbaugh respond. They'll have to consider any facts they bring to the table. So far, none of that has taken place. Harbaugh has not been interviewed about "sign gate". No other M coach has been interviewed. And, of course, nobody has spoken to Stalions. Nada.

For punishment to stick, whether severe or slap-wrist, or anywhere in between, facts will have to be presented, and the conclusion will have to be a reasonable assumption of what the truth is. Reason being, any punishment toward Michigan and/or Harbaugh is going to have to withstand a court challenge. Michigan is tired of playing footsie with the NCAA and Big Ten. This is now obvious. From this point forward, Michigan is going to play hardball. And I think it would be a mistake for the NCAA or Big Ten to assume that they hold all the 'thump' in all this.

The NCAA/Big Ten is going to have to prove when and how games were affected by the 'stealing' of signs. How many games did Michigan win, because Stalions in-person scouted the opponent, and got the winning edge for Michigan? Prove it with facts. Not just because you hate Michigan. Show how Game A would have been different, had Michigan not had their signs and signals, via Stalions in-person scouting. Show it for Game B. Game C. and so on. This is what is going to come up in court. And prove that Harbaugh knew about it. Facts. "I had a meeting with Coach Harbaugh on this date ____ and I discussed Team A's signals with him at that time" "Coach Harbaugh said, "good job, keep up the good work". That's what the NCAA is going to need to withstand a court fight. And they'll have to have credible testimony that Stalions went to Harbaugh or Coach (blank) and told them that he was in-person scouting Team B, and he'd have a full report for them by Date________" "Coach Harbaugh, or Coach Blank _____ approved, and said to continue your work"

This is the kind of stuff that's going to be necessary for the haters to get Harbaugh, AND Michigan's hide nailed to the wall. Haters want games forfeited, Harbaugh fired in shame, bowl bans, recruiting penalties, etc. The whole gamut of penalties. Its not happening.

Haters are going to have to be satisfied with suspensions, (of which Harbaugh will have already served a 6 game suspension) maybe some loss of recruiting visits, and at worst maybe a playoff/bowl ban for one year. Harbaugh isn't leaving unless he wants to. Santa Ono will make sure of that.

So again, from my vast amateur law knowledge, that's what I think is going to happen.

And F the NCAA, .. and F the Big Ten.

Both organizations can't die soon enough for me.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Hate to disappoint you mouth breathers who are screaming DIRTY FUCKING CHEATERS. M will pursue litigation that will prove they aren't.

Consider this: there appears to be two distinctly different litigation approaches being taken by M. The first is to obtain a Preliminary Injunction (PI) tomorrow from the Trail Court in Washtenaw County. The second is to litigate if (a) punishments are handed out by the NCAA or (b) defendant(s) is (are) partially or completely exonerated. In (b) litigation would be of the defamation type. Two different animals. I'll deal with the first here. the second and only briefly, below.

There's somewhat of a consensus emerging among the several lawyers who are posting in the thread started at mgo a few days ago to discuss the B10's sanctions on Michigan. M has argued Breach of contract in their filing. That approach renders it immaterial whether Harbaugh knew or should have known about CS's alleged illegal in-person advanced scouting. It may become relevant later as below. Here are two posts from lawyers that illuminate M's initial litigation approach, the opening salvo to be delivered tomorrow:

Post #1: Generally speaking, the NCAA and B1G rules are contracts entered into by the universities and the athletic organizations themselves. The central allegation in the pending UM/JH lawsuit against the B1G is breach of contract, .........

(because of that) the organizations can't just do anything they want. They are obligated by contract as well as fiduciary duties to act in accordance with the rules they have established, to act in good faith, etc. And if they don't, then an aggrieved university can turn to the courts for relief.

Post #2: I am a lawyer but not a judge. Having said that, if I was a judge, my discussion with the B1G attorney would go something like this:

Judge - Your submission asserts that Michigan engaged in unsportsman-like conduct, right?

B1G - Yes.

Judge - And what conduct was that?

B1G - They did in-person advanced scouting.

Judge- Does the B1G have a rule that Michigan could read to see what constituted permissible scouting versus impermissible scouting in order to ascertain what would be unsportsmanlike?

B1G - No.

Judge - Hmm...

B1G - The NCAA does - and they are investigating it right now!

Judge - Did the NCAA decide Michigan violated that rule?

B1G - No.

Judge - So your punishment for unsportsmanlike conduct relates to no violation of B1G rules and relates to them violating an NCAA rule, but there has been no finding that they actually violated an NCAA rule yet?

B1G - It relates to that, but we can make our own determination that any conduct was unsportsmanlike.

Judge - It sounds like the B1G has no written rules or guidelines regarding the alleged conduct. Meaning if the NCAA rules did not exist, there would be no basis upon which the B1G members could ever determine what type of in person scouting is permissible versus impermissible. Therefore, the B1G does not have a position that there are any forms of in person scouting that are impermissible. And since your entire argument that their conduct was impermissible relates to your belief that they violated an NCAA rule, and it is possible that their conduct did not violate said NCAA rule, your suspension is premature and your use of the B1G sportsmanship policy is arbitrary and capricious.

Boom ..... PI granted.

From that point on the legal battles switch to approach (a) above. In deference to talent's insertion of the concept of Imputed Knowledge, the NCAA would correctly argue JH either knew or should have known what CS was up to and that it could be illegal. Of course, the NCAA would then argue, therefore a violation of NCAA rules occurred; M would argue a violation did not occur and M will present evidence that other B10 programs do the same thing that Michigan is accused of doing. That renders the NCAA rule dealing with in-person advanced scouting unenforceable on the basis of its ubiquitous presence in the community of college football teams, vagueness and poorly defined parameters. Part of this is the But Everybody Does That (BEDT) defense. Yes. it sounds corny and silly. But there are authors who argue it is a viable defense in certain circumstances. This is one of them. https://link.springer.com/article/10...0blame%20or

[THE_WIZARD_]

Nobody knows how this is going to end up in specific terms...as it's unprecedented as far as I'm aware. But my guess is it will pretty severe....and my guess is HARBAUGH******* is going to be in the NFL next year...so M will be the one punished...much like USC was from Petey...

[Jeff Buchanan]

Nobody knows how this is going to end up in specific terms...as it's unprecedented as far as I'm aware. But my guess is it will pretty severe....and my guess is HARBAUGH******* is going to be in the NFL next year...so M will be the one punished...much like USC was from Petey...

I don't agree with your assessment of NCAA issued penalties. There are too many pitfalls that the NCAA has to deal with to do much else than slap M's wrist ........and that's assuming they conclude that a rule was broken and they may not be able to do that. I've already posted on the anti-trust jeopardy that the NCAA could face if the issue of restricting competition - a Sherman Act anti-trust violation - were raised by M. I don't think it will be raised, at least, not yet. But, there has to be some serious consideration by NCAA officials of a further erosion of their power and authority (post NIL) in trying to punish Michigan or JH if anti-trust issues get raised

Another good reason for the NCAA to back off any serious punishments of Michigan is how the precedent they established with the NCAA handling of the Wake Forrest scandal, Wakey Leaks, involving similar violations of scouting rules. Dave Clawson, a Wake Forrest football staff member who was not retained on staff with the change in HCs, became a radio announcer for Wake Forest and leaked the Demon Deacons' game plans to their opponents. The NCAA did nothing. It's another example of the NCAA looking at a pretty clear violation of the prohibition against in-person scouting and doing nothing.

I do agree with you that nobody knows the outcome. But my posts on sign-gate demonstrate there are difficulties involved for both sides in prevailing in a court of law. It would not surprise you to learn I think M has a better chance of prevailing than the NCAA or, particularly, the B10....... Petitti has definitely overreached and will be shown to have done so in a litigated contract dispute.

[THE_WIZARD_]

I think the NCAA is going to set a severe precedent with this. I think you need to prepare yourself for that.

[lineygoblue]

I think the Big Ten, (Petitti, AD's and Coaches) took punitive action, because they see a possibility that the NCAA either isn't going to punish Harbaugh and Michigan at all, or at least they're not going to go as hard on them as they desire. So, this way, they get to the punishment phase immediately, without having to discuss the facts. They can go with "looks like" and "apparent", but no proof.

The fertilizer hits the ventilator tomorrow. No more gag orders. Harbaugh can speak freely, as can any of his assistants. Ono can speak freely. Michigan can bring its own evidence that shows the double standard of the conference.

The only hope for this conference, is that maybe at some point, the Presidents will meet, and discuss the situation as adults, and impose a conference wide settlement on everyone. I'm not completely hopeful that this will happen, but maybe it will. Are there enough adults in the room when the Presidents meet?

---

Reality - I think at some point Harbaugh and Michigan are going to have some NCAA punishment. As silly and childish as the complaints are about the hamburger matter, it appears that Harbaugh may have violated the no contact time period, and that's going to draw some punishment. I think its silly to punish coaches for anything like that, that happened during the COVID season, because things were so fluid, changing literally by the hour, I doubt anyone had any idea what they were supposed to be doing, and when. It was a total mess. But, the NCAA has an ego, and they'll justify their punishment in very good legal-ese, and Michigan will eventually accept it.

AND -- of course, anything that the NCAA does to Michigan and Harbaugh will 'not be enough' according to the conference. They'll want more. And that's when I think the Regents are going to get really pissed, and we may see some serious discussions about leaving the conference. But it won't be until after the NCAA is finished with us.

So.. hang in there, haters. M is going to be punished, (IMO) eventually, but you'll have to end up doing it by your own rule book. You know, the rule book that you demand that Harbaugh must obey at all costs.

[Mike]

I think the NCAA is going to set a severe precedent with this. I think you need to prepare yourself for that.

Recording videos with your phone at public events? I hate that shit too. Especially at concerts. I support a law to imprison offenders for no less than 10 years.

[Mike]

Case closed. Michigan accepted the 3 game suspension and the Big Ten is dropping it's investigation.

[Mike]

Jeff, it looks like the adults sat down and hammered it out. Nothing more hanging over Michigan's head from the Big Ten.

[lineygoblue]

Mike - is that for real, or are you just tweeking these guys?

[Cody_Russell]

No Harbaugh in The Game means OSU gets an ****** if they win that game.

Huge opportunity for Sherrone Moore. If M and Moore win out, I imagine he will be the next M HC (Harbaugh to the NFL) OR given a different power 4 conference job.

[Mike]

Probably the death knell of the season. Out-coaching Frames Janklin with your assistant is one thing but that ain't gonna fly against OSU. Here comes 11-1 followed by a disinterested Peach Bowl loss.

[iam416]

Reading Buchanan's posts and then seeing M cave, agree to the suspension and withdraw the TRO almost immediately after that BlueAnon shit is posted.

LOL.

Reality 2, BlueAnon 0

And it ain't getting any better for BlueAnon

[iam416]

BET