Multiple reports: RU fed Purdue Michigan signs at big ten championship
- Thread starter Mikemarc
- Start date
Oh no, you and I both agree. Maybe Schiano did it because he thinks Harbaugh is an *******. It doesn’t matter. It is either a violation or it isn’t. Why he did it doesn’t matter.
I know., as I’ve now said, my mistake. But it does appear in the athletic which is basically The NY Times sports, so I was halfway accurate lol
A quarter, at most, and that's giving you the benefit of the doubt. A story on this appears in the Athletic -- but it's not written by this gentleman.And while the Athletic is owned by the Times, it is not the Times, but rather has separate editors and appears on a separate web site. That's why Times sports reporters like Tyler Kepner have left for The Athletic.
Thanks for "confessing error," as lawyers sometimes say. It's all too rare on chatboards (and not just this one) for people to admit mistakes.
Maybe the deal was in exchange for information on VaTech knowing purdue would play them the week before we did this year?
Well at least we are named along with Ohio St and Michigan on a National level.
How amazing is that!
How amazing is that!
By rule- sharing signs as long as they were not gained by rule breaking like Michigan did, does not seem to be an infraction.
Sharing signs you got illegally, may be.
I am sure schools with vested interest in some game will share certain information.
Strange that we would though but makes sense for OSU
Sharing signs you got illegally, may be.
I am sure schools with vested interest in some game will share certain information.
Strange that we would though but makes sense for OSU
Schiano probably knew what Michigan was doing and did this to get back at them.
Rutgers should put out a statement that it was nunzio that did this and he acted alone!!
Live, Off-site sign stealing is against the rules, meaning you can’t obtain from games you aren’t in.
Michigan got opponent signs from Stalions. Purdue got opponent (Michigan) signs from Rutgers and Ohio State.
Both are off-site. Can someone explain why one is not OK but the other is ? In one, the stealer is an employee and in the other the stealers are other programs. That can’t be the distinction.
Michigan got opponent signs from Stalions. Purdue got opponent (Michigan) signs from Rutgers and Ohio State.
Both are off-site. Can someone explain why one is not OK but the other is ? In one, the stealer is an employee and in the other the stealers are other programs. That can’t be the distinction.
Last edited:
Michigan is deflecting. They want to claim what they did was legal bc they want to position themselves to say everyone is doing it.
This is apparently within the rules but UM is just trying to deny and accuse everyone else of something to distract from their fraud. They've turned into the PSU cult. I'm sure the B1G and NCAA will do nothing now that UM had their cult obfuscate the issue.
you really can't be serious...We have to beat B1G East teams more than we need to beat B1G West teams- B1G East teams are usually 2 or 3 of them in the top 10...
How does any of helping and or wishing for B1G east over West help Rutgers?
Actually the Times shut down their sports department and will be using the Athletic as their sports section, going forward.
Yes, but the publications are remaining separate. That's why Kepner, a long-time NYT reporter, left for The Athletic. In addition, the Times is keeping its sports section to do "big" social commentary stories.
It's been explained. Advanced scouting opponents by sending people to their games and electronically recording their signals is explicitly against the rules. A coaching staff sharing data with another coaching is not against the rules. Simple enough for you?
In essence, we scouted in-game for Purdue. Stalions scouted in-game for Michigan. The only difference is that Stalions recorded it, it seems.
Michigan really has a hardon for Rutgers, despite their fans' assertions that we're nothing and don't matter
The amazing thing to me is the laziness of the teams calling the plays. Change up your signs fer chrissakes. Call a Third Base coach on the baseball team he'll tell you how to turn on and remove signs if you can't figure this out for yourself. Jeeze give the QB a wristband to decode the signs and change that weekly.
This isn't rocket science.
This isn't rocket science.
No. Easy with the shaming, smooth brain. You’re unintelligently (no surprise) oversimplifying. Conor Stalions was sharing data too. Pay close attention: from Purdue’s perspective, our 2022 Michigan game was off-site and against the scouting rules. They obtained signs from games they werent participants in. That is the key issue.
Or are you saying it would be ok for Stalions and Michigan to give our signs to Wisconsin ? That doesn’t make sense either.
The only plausible, but perhaps not practical distinction is if Stalions recorded and we did not. That’s not what you are claiming, however.
Last edited:
So, You can share with other programs but not your own. Really ? The analytical skills here are 4th grade level at best.
Oh, we're gonna do insults now, you pea-brained dipshit? Ready to take this into the gutter: remember, you started it.
That's exactly what I'm claiming:
Stalions hired people, gave them tickets and had them video the future opponents sidelines so as to get an electronic copy of their signals which they (the UM staff) could then use to dissect how their plays matched up with the signals.
I think the gist of it is that neither Rutgers nor Purdue expended cost for travel to a game in which they were not a participant. The signs that were deciphered were collected in their own respective games, ie NOT offsite. The rule is setup so that teams with money can’t spend big bucks scouting in person by sending their entire staff whereas a poorer program has no capability to do so. Since no travel money was spent collecting the data, there is no violation.
I am guessing this is because of the media using that halftime interview with Schiano.. where he was hinting officials were biased and/or incompetent.. as some indication he was saying Michgian was cheating.
Thus.. Michigan added Rutgers to its enemies list.. in good company with Ohio State, apparently. A little shocked they didn't say PSU brokered the information from Rutgers and Ohio State to Purdue.
mudslinging 101
Hell.. for all we know Stalions sent Purdue the WRONG offensive and defensive signals saying it came from Ohio State and Rutgers. Then Michigan could trick Purdue into thinking they were signaling one thing when they meant the opposite.
43-22 and it was not that close, iirc.
You’re focused on the ‘how’ and not the ‘what’ thereby missing the big picture and critical similarities.
Purdue got off-site, sign stealing intel of a future opponent (Michigan) like Michigan did. They got the info from other UM opponents and not from one of their staff, but it’s the same issue.
Live, Off-site scouting of future opponents isn’t allowed. Purdue did it too with our help.
Whether or not it is recorded doesn’t seem to be the main rulebreaking matter.
Last edited:
I know that’s the origin of the rule but I highly doubt that ‘was money spent ?’ delineates compliance from rulebreaking re: Purdue’s intel vs Michigan’s intel.
Also, Purdue’s intel was indeed obtained off-site (eg 2022 RU v Michigan).
Last edited:
you really do not like Rutgers- that much is obvious.
Let's dumb it down just for you as a ton of posters have already done. IF Rutgers shared information- it came from information gathered during OUR game. We did not send someone under cover to scout and record the signals from someone elses game.
If you are still having a problem, bring it up on the Tundra
Simple as that. Some people are under the misconception that the rule actually needs to make sense. No, it merely needs to exist.
Except, as I you must know by now, that rule was put in place as a cost saving measure and has zero to do about competitive fairness. So if you are all hung up on this was UM cheating and it gave them an advantage, then what you say is BS. Stealing the signs and sharing with others is equally bad. If it is just the rule you are hung up on, then wow, it is a seriously minor infraction. Can't be both - which is it?
Yes, the rule is the rule. But wouldn't you agree the rule does make sense? not every school has a huge budget, and letting one team scout another live would give big schools an advantage. Now it's fair to say that there are lots of other scouting techniques that are questionable, but it would be unreasonable to say that this one must be allowed as long as others are.
Nobody’s getting it. It’s the same kind of information. Advanced, off-site, and for competitive advantage. If it’s Ok for Purdue to have it, it’s also Ok for Michigan to have it. What matters is competitive advantage. Purdue sought the same competitive advantage as Michigan is accused of seeking. The vehicle doesn’t matter to sportsmanship or competitive advantage.
Purdue can get intel from us and OSU but Michigan can’t get for itself ? The logic doesn’t pass muster.
The only meaningful difference could be the recordings, but the ethics and competitive advantage (and therefore the rule) are the same in both.
Purdue can get intel from us and OSU but Michigan can’t get for itself ? The logic doesn’t pass muster.
The only meaningful difference could be the recordings, but the ethics and competitive advantage (and therefore the rule) are the same in both.
Last edited: