ANN ARBOR, Mich. – The University of Michigan’s 10-page response to the Big Ten about potential punishment in the sign-stealing case has been leaked on social media.
You can read Michigan’s full 10-page response from Yahoo’s Dan Wetzel by clicking here (part 1), here (part 2), and here (part 3).
In the letter, Michigan athletic director Warde Manuel focuses on a few key points: that the Wolverines and head coach Jim Harbaugh have a right to due process, that the current allegations don’t prove wrongdoing, and that there’s no justifiable reason for the conference to rush its punishment.
Requesting due process
“Any disciplinary action against coach Jim Harbaugh on this record would exceed the commissioner’s authority under the sportsmanship policy and be factually unwarranted on the current record,” Manuel wrote, according to Wetzel’s tweets.
The Big Ten is reportedly considering a suspension for Harbaugh after a group of coaches and officials from other conference schools demanded immediate punishment. In response, Michigan is pointing to the league’s due process, which calls for the Big Ten to await the results of an NCAA investigation.
“Until violations have been determined under the NCAA’s interpretive and/or infractions process ... the allegations of rule breaking are unproven,” Manuel wrote, per Wetzel.
“To state the obvious, none of these procedural protections have been followed in this case, from the initial vote by the compliance and reinstatement committee finding a reasonable bases for a major violation, to the extensive appeals process guaranteed to institutions and their constituents. All of the rules violations that underlie your email are therefore unproven.
“Instead of undertaking the prescribed process for investigating and proving the rules violations on which you expressly base the asserted offensive actions, your email appears to claim that the conference can ignore all of these protections simply by bootstrapping unproven rules violations through the sportsmanship policy.”
Michigan also points out that the sportsmanship policy is traditionally to address behavior that doesn’t fit squarely into a technical rule violation. That goes against the Big Ten’s assertion that an actual rule was broken.
Defending Jim Harbaugh
Manuel wrote that Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti “lacks authority” to punish Harbaugh, saying it would be “a clear breach of the (Big Ten Conference) Handbook.”
Michigan argues that the commissioner has the authority to issue punishment in two scenarios: To a person who is found to have “committed an offensive action” or to an institution that’s responsible for a person who committed an offensive action.
“Coach Harbaugh fits neither category,” Manuel said. “He is not an ‘institution,’ as defined by the Handbook, and there is no reasonable view of either the language of Agreement 10 or the known facts that suggest Coach Harbaugh himself ‘committed an offensive action.’”
The NCAA has a rule that can hold head coaches accountable for the actions of staff members, but the Big Ten lacks such a rule. Michigan says the conference cannot simply enforce an NCAA bylaw without following the proper procedures.
No reason to rush punishment
Michigan argues that even if discipline was allowed at this point in the investigation, there’s no reason to act prematurely.
“There remain significant factual questions, as well as disputes about the application of the rules,” Manuel wrote. “Those outstanding issues are material to whether an offensive action occurred, the nature and gravity of any offensive action, and the proper scope of any disciplinary punishment.”
Later, Manuel suggests the pressure from other coaches -- who would obviously have a self-serving reason to want Harbaugh suspended -- is the primary reason for the conference’s rush to punish Harbaugh.
“We are concerned that the rush to punish Michigan before the facts have been determined and the rules carefully applied ... suggests that this action is more about reacting to pressure from the public and other conference members, rather than a desire to fairly and impartially apply the rules,” Manuel wrote.
Michigan says there’s no evidence that violations are continuing, nor that there is any risk to competitive integrity.
Manuel also points out that there’s no public evidence that Harbaugh knew about the sign-stealing operation run by Connor Stalions. Harbaugh has denied being involved, and Stalions issued a statement supporting that claim.
Questioning whether Stalions broke rules
Michigan points out that the NCAA investigation has not yet concluded that Stalions officially broke the in-person scouting rules.
“Although Stalions himself may qualify as athletics personnel, for much of the conduct your email describes, there is no evidence that the in-person scouting was committed by ‘athletics personnel,’” Manuel wrote.
Michigan argues that while an NCAA rule bars attempts to record signals given by opponents, the rule plainly applies to “field equipment deployed during games in which the institution participates, and simply does not apply to any of Stalions’ alleged conduct, allegedly on behalf of a team not involved in the contest.”
The letter points out that the in-person scouting rule was recently changed, bringing into question which head coaching responsibility rule would apply, depending on when the actions happened.
Michigan also questions whether disciplinary action is appropriate when the only person who has been implicated by the allegations is Stalions, and he has since been suspended and resigned.
Evidence Michigan received from Big Ten
In the letter, Manuel claims Michigan only received four pieces of evidence from the NCAA (in his words):
- Records of Stalions’ ticket purchases and transfers, along with those tickets’ usage at games.
- A unsolicited tip by an unidentified person who claims to ahve seen someone filming the sidelines at a game.
- A link to a public article that includes a now-deleted video of Stalions on the sidelines of a Michigan game.
- A short video titled “UMass vs. PSU video” that doesn’t clearly show anything at all.
“Instead of evidence, your email relies overwhelmingly on summaries and descriptions of evidence that you yourself are receiving second- or third-hand,” Manuel wrote. “From what we can tell, your email largely relies on rumor.”
Michigan also said it can’t respond to “argumentative assertions” made by the Big Ten, such as what Stalions instructed others to do, characterizations of video recordings that haven’t been sent to Michigan, and photos/videos apparently showing Stalions communicating with Michigan coaches during games.
“You discuss at great length photos and videos that show Stalions ‘adjacent to and communicating with coaches during games,’ a photo (that you have not sent us) in which you claim Stalions was ‘looking intently in the direction of the opposing sideline’ during a Michigan game, video of Stalions ‘watching the opposing sideline’ during a Michigan game and then ‘gesturing to the Michigan defense in reaction,’ and ‘video’ of Stalions ‘standing shoulder-to-shoulder with defensive coordinator Jesse Minter and talking to him while intently watching what was happening on the field and/or on the TCU sideline,’” Manuel wrote.
Essentially, Michigan is arguing that the Big Ten is looking at photos/videos and making assumptions about the context of those photos/videos without any real way of knowing what was going on.
“Even as you describe them, none of this is evidence of wrongdoing,” the letter reads. “That Stalions was present on the sidelines of Michigan games, or speaking to coaches, or looking at the field, or looking at the opponent, is utterly meaningless.
“Surely a genuine investigation is required before the conference relies on these materials to find a rules violation. Indeed, the conference’s willingness to impute nefarious meaning to these materials strongly suggests prejudgment and bias. The process of enforcing the sportsmanship policy should rest of facts and evidence, not innuendo and speculation.”
Evidence of sign stealing elsewhere
Michigan concedes that if the accusations against Stalions are correct, they might violate a “remaining, narrow prohibition on in-person scouting of certain games not subject to an exception.”
But the letter points out that the NCAA considered eliminating that prohibition entirely two years ago because of the widespread prevalence of sign stealing and the fact that it provides a “minimal competitive advantage.”
Then, the examples involving other Big Ten schools stealing signs are laid out.
“Over the last few years, Michigan has repeatedly become aware that other conference teams have extensively decoded its signals, although Michigan does not always know the exact methods employed,” the letter says. “For example, Exhibit 1 is a document sent from a former coach at Ohio State to a former coach at Michigan, which shows that Ohio State had extensively decoded Michigan’s defensive coordinator’s signals, apparently based on broadcast footage.
“The ability to fully decode opponents’ signals based on broadcast footage suggests, contrary to your email’s assumption, that there is no reason to think that Stalions’ attempts to gain additional sideline footage meaningfully improved signal decoding from what was publicly available. Indeed, signal decoding is so common that teams consistently deploy countermeasures, such as changing up their signals or using dummy signers, that would frustrate signal decoding, whether performed via in-person scouting or based on broadcast footage.”
Michigan then referenced the AP story about fellow Big Ten schools working together to steal the Wolverines’ signs.
“The conference should act cautiously when setting precedent, given the reality that in-person scouting, collusion among opponents, and other questionable practices may well be far more prevalent than believed,” the letter says. “Recent reporting in the Associated Press suggests that, according to a former employee of a conference member, various conference members have been ‘colluding to steal signs’ from opponents, including Michigan.
“If Stalions coordinating with third parties to perform in-person scouting on opponents violates the scouting rule, then it appears that other teams may also be violating the rule by employing each other’s employees to scout their opponents in person.
“Indeed, Exhibit 2, which Michigan received from a former coach at Purdue, is another example of a conference opponent successfully decoding Michigan signals with alarming success. Unlike Exhibit 1, Michigan does not know what methods Purdue used to steal these signs. The current investigation may call for a broader investigation and reckoning on how teams across the conference and NCAA engage in signal decoding.”
Michigan also points out that the success teams have decoding signals refutes the Big Ten’s “unfounded and inflammatory suggestion” that Stalions compromised player safety.
“If signal decoding really were a significant safety concern, the NCAA and conference rules presumably would not allow almost every form of it, including the extraordinary decoding that Ohio State was apparently able to achieve based only on broadcast footage,” Manuel wrote. “If the conference truly believes that signal decoding compromises player safety, it should ban it entirely and require that teams use coach-to-player technology, as in the NFL. Cloaking this action in player safety concerns lacks credibility.”
The letter says there’s no evidence that Stalions’ actions had a meaningful effect on any Michigan games, citing that the closest margin of victory was 24 and the average margin of victory is well over 30.
Considering coaches have a near-endless amount of video on opposing teams, including the all-22, television coverage, and video on social media, it’s very unlikely that some cellphone footage of a sideline from the stands of opposing stadiums created any competitive advantage at all.
What’s next
It’s unclear if the Big Ten will issue a punishment for Michigan or Harbaugh, and whether U of M would be able to successfully halt that punishment.
Michigan plays at Penn State on Saturday, so any decision should be made soon.
