The one other good thing- he instantly makes the rest of us feel good about ourselves. lol
Multiple reports: RU fed Purdue Michigan signs at big ten championship
- Thread starter Mikemarc
- Start date
That’s also part of it. Everyone does it so the conference just wants this to go away, and rightly so.
What used to be implied on this message board is that when a member implies they are a Rutgers fan only to do nothing but troll our boards- they would be banned.
But, it seems no one does anything about that anymore either
That's what strikes me. Also, why would we really care if either Michigan or Purdue wins?
I thought it’s been clarified (multiple times) that the rule itself has to do with trying to prevent economic disadvantages based on differences in resource levels. Every team is free to do what they want to interpret signs during their own games and there are no rules that explicitly state that information obtained from doing so cannot be shared if so desired.
It definitely detracts from the fun of reading this board; a board we pay for. It's time the mods got off their asses and cleaned the trash up. The hell with their hits.
We're playing Iowa this week with a real chance to win and on top of that its the first day of basketball signing and we get an article that screams about a bad loss to Princeton while the other site is loaded with articles regarding basketball signings and the Iowa football game.
I've always favored the Rivals RU site but threads like this where trolls continue to spew their bullspit make it hard to stay. This site needs to be cleaned up.
I've always favored the Rivals RU site but threads like this where trolls continue to spew their bullspit make it hard to stay. This site needs to be cleaned up.
It's sad the great lengths to which you're going to throw RU under UM's bus.
Also sad that it's entirely expected.
Yes, I can' think of two reasons. 1. Expecting to get the favor back in return for a later game. 2. Michigan is a big recruiting rival, and Purdue isn't. Just like us fans would be delighted to see Michigan tank, so would the opposing coaches.
He's now arguing with retired Laywer.
Bbbbbwwwwwaaaaaaaahhhhhhhaaaaaaaaa
A troll is A troll is a troll
This is really reaching. Purdue has taken recruits from us in the past and this was supposedly in the B1G Championship game, what damage could possibly be done. They go 12-1 instead of 13-0, they still make the playoffs. We've never been a recruiting rival of Michigan. Who they want they pay for and take.
I think one or a combo of both of those reasons are highly likely to be the motivation. What's your explanation?
Yeah that one doesn’t seem likely. More likely we provided feedback with an understanding that they would do that same following their VTech game. It makes perfect sense and nothing about it screams poor sportsmanship if that’s how it went down.
I think its a load of horse sh*t and have explained my view earlier. Michigan got caught red handed and is now trying to play the victim. It's what a child does when he gets his hand caught in the cookie jar. But Johnny got one too mom.
This. And there’s nothing wrong with sharing information with Purdue based on an understanding that they would share information that would help us later. These types of alliances happen all the time and should happen. This jives with Schiano’s public comments where he clearly resents even having to address the topic. There is no way Schiano wasted time just to stick it to Michigan. We got something in return for sure. And that’s how it should be.
There is a written rule by the NCAA prohibiting what Michigan did and there is no written rule by the NCAA against what the Study Group did. It's that simple. Want to argue about the sportsmanship of it? Go ahead, but to equate what RU/tOSU/PU did to what UM did is just asinine.
As for the B1G, not only is there no written rule against the sharing of information, but it can be argued that the 3 schools show what great sportsmanship we have in the conference. Their respective football staffs came together in the spirit of cooperation, and shared information for their respective games of interest. That just screams wholesome unity to me.
As for the B1G, not only is there no written rule against the sharing of information, but it can be argued that the 3 schools show what great sportsmanship we have in the conference. Their respective football staffs came together in the spirit of cooperation, and shared information for their respective games of interest. That just screams wholesome unity to me.
Your first sentence provides the difference. Filming off site. Purdue did not film off site. They did not break a rule. Michigan did.
You should be commended for standing up for your view of the situation and your principled view without fear of retribution, name calling, etc. Dispassionate is a good way to be. Normally, I think of passionate in terms of romance, and when I looked up the dictionary definition of passionate, the first three entries are "easily aroused to anger; filled with anger, and capable of, affected by or expressing intense feeling."
Always thought Wetzel was a goody two shoes type. He must be on Stalions payroll or got a terrific deal on a Hoover upright and got sucked into Michigan's filthy circle.
This could all go away for Rutgers if they voluntarily vacate all 3 B1G wins from 2016-19 and a retroactive bowl ban for those years.
Last edited:
On some level you may feel sorry for a putz that wastes so much time being a toxic troll on a forum of a team he does not root for. Must live a lonely life.
Last edited:
Feel sorry for him? Nah.
The problem is that, by responding, we are giving him attention, which is exactly what he wants. There is a saying that dogs and children prefer negative attention to no attention at all.
Last edited:
I have him on ignore, which is where the other person in that NIL thread will be soon.
I've already done that with both -- and it takes a lot for me to decide to put someone on ignore.
An individual faculty member does not necessarily speak for the institution. Crane, for instance, questioned whether antitrust law allows law schools to refuse to cooperate with U.S. News. Michigan pulled out anyway.
So you think it’s totally fabricated? I don’t think so. It’s common knowledge that coaches share intelligence with each other. And that coaches try to steal signs, just not with sophisticated spying rings.
I've tried this with some posters but then I always have to peak...lol
You know what Michigan is so happy about this this scandal- that they don't have to respond to having a sick kid loving pervert on their staff.
That, should be the big story we are all talking about.
That, should be the big story we are all talking about.
I admit I did not read most of these posts, with that said:
Northwestern and Purdue were the 2 schools against us entering the B1G (reported here a while back). Highly doubtful we would be helping Purdue! This is just Michigan trying to deflect. Just let it die. We have a big game on Saturday and don't need to start sounding like NJ.com here! Focus people do not feed the trolls.
Northwestern and Purdue were the 2 schools against us entering the B1G (reported here a while back). Highly doubtful we would be helping Purdue! This is just Michigan trying to deflect. Just let it die. We have a big game on Saturday and don't need to start sounding like NJ.com here! Focus people do not feed the trolls.
Not buying it. He's helping Michigan to try to scare the B1G and NCAA into not penalizing them. Michigan will do everything possible to continue playing for a title and avoid any punishment. It's the new B1G cult, like the PSU cult.
The fact that the article helps Michigan doesn't prove that the administration put him up to it, and it's not how academia normally works. It's more plausible that he decided on his own to use his antitrust expertise (he has written extensively in the field) to try to help his school's team. I understand why you think as you do -- the idea of a Rutgers faculty member writing something to help our school's teams is (unfortunately) pretty unimaginable.
How about that we did NOT do what Michigan alleged? How would Michigan "know"?
My understanding is that coaches as general practice do both activities: steal signs (just not with a sophisticated spying ring) and share scouting intel with each other. So this accusation seems like something I kind of assumed was happening. I doubt Michigan created fake documents. They are dumb, but I don't think they are that dumb. And if it wasn't true RU/OSU would have already come out with harsh denials...which I don't think they did. So I think it's likely it's true.
I think it's likely that they only had the evidence on hand for this one example...which happened to be a championship game. Not that these three teams were the only ones doing it.
Here is the text of the rule if anyone is interested:
11.6.1 Off-Campus, In-Person Scouting Prohibition. Off-campus, in-person scouting of future opponents (in the
same season) is prohibited, except as provided in Bylaws 11.6.1.1 and 11.6.1.2.
11.6.1.1 Exception -- Same Event at the Same Site. An institutional staff member may scout future opponents also
participating in the same event at the same site.
11.6.1.2 Exception -- Conference or NCAA Championships. An institutional staff member may attend a contest in
the institution's conference championship or an NCAA championship contest in which a future opponent participates (e.g., an opponent on the institution's spring nonchampionship-segment schedule participates in a fall conference or NCAA championship).
No rule prohibiting stealing signs during the course of a game. I don't see anything that addresses sharing information on opponents.
I do think there is room for interpretation/confusion based on the rule using the term "institutional staff member" in the exception, but not in the rule. Is it implied that the rule applies only to institutional staff members?
Also, at the time of the Rutgers v. Michigan game was Michigan a future opponent of Michigan in the same season? Purdue was 5-4 after that weekend and certainly not a lock for the championship game.
Seems like this rule at a minimum needs to be made more specific. Its a 453 page rule book so its not like they're trying to keep it short.
11.6.1 Off-Campus, In-Person Scouting Prohibition. Off-campus, in-person scouting of future opponents (in the
same season) is prohibited, except as provided in Bylaws 11.6.1.1 and 11.6.1.2.
11.6.1.1 Exception -- Same Event at the Same Site. An institutional staff member may scout future opponents also
participating in the same event at the same site.
11.6.1.2 Exception -- Conference or NCAA Championships. An institutional staff member may attend a contest in
the institution's conference championship or an NCAA championship contest in which a future opponent participates (e.g., an opponent on the institution's spring nonchampionship-segment schedule participates in a fall conference or NCAA championship).
No rule prohibiting stealing signs during the course of a game. I don't see anything that addresses sharing information on opponents.
I do think there is room for interpretation/confusion based on the rule using the term "institutional staff member" in the exception, but not in the rule. Is it implied that the rule applies only to institutional staff members?
Also, at the time of the Rutgers v. Michigan game was Michigan a future opponent of Michigan in the same season? Purdue was 5-4 after that weekend and certainly not a lock for the championship game.
Seems like this rule at a minimum needs to be made more specific. Its a 453 page rule book so its not like they're trying to keep it short.
There was talk of using the "sportsmanship" rule to expand the scope of the infraction and bring down bigger penalties. It wasn't clear if this was a Big Ten or NCAA rule, or what exactly it says.
Last time I had really heard much about the "sportsmanship" rule in the B1G was when Meyer first came to OSU and started to poach verbal commits from other B1G schools- they had always had an unwritten handshake in the B1G not to poach verbals. UM came in and said F that...