Except that it was persistent, egregious, and obviously intentional based on it being hidden by UM. That plus the previous issue of institutional control shows a team off the rails.
Multiple reports: RU fed Purdue Michigan signs at big ten championship
- Thread starter Mikemarc
- Start date
I think it does make sense. I’m not arguing that it does or doesn’t. Because that is my opinion which others may claim is only my opinion. However, others arguing that it shouldn’t matter because it is not a big deal are missing the point.
It’s not a question of value judgement or if it is or isn’t meaningless. It is only a matter of how the rule is written and whether that rule was violated. I believe you are overthinking it.
Actually, the origin DID entirely have to do with competitive fairness since smaller schools do not have the resources to have traveling advance scouts. It was never about cost savings. Anyhow, I agree that all advance scouting / sign stealing is equally bad whether you get intel from in-house personnel or from other programs.
The information itself is not the rule violation. The act of off campus scouting and /or recording while doing so is the violation.
I’m not focused on the rule, but the spirit of the rule. It’s about preventing competitive advantage. So I’m saying there’s moral equivalence in the Purdue and Michigan intel-gathering.
Purdue got from us and UM got from an inside guy. Both off-site for competitive advantage and equal. What’s good for the goose……
I have agreed that ‘recording’ may legitimately distinguish. What I disagree with is the idea that Purdue’s intel gathering via proxies is above-board while UM’s in-house program to do the exact same thing is not (again, except for recording). Off site sign stealing is off site sign stealing no matter how it’s done.
Ummmmmm.......if you break a law, the police are going to arrest you, no matter the reason the law was put in place.
Michigan broke a rule that was in place, for whatever reason. What Purdue, Ohio State, Rutgers, etc. did may not have been sportsmanlike, but it broke no NCAA bylaws.
Maybe you should focus on the rule. Because that's what the whole problem is.
Pretty confident the "spirit" of the NCAA is not really all that concerned with preventing competitive advantage in any and all forms
From the article:
Forget all the noise. Forget the grandstanding coaches screaming for Jim Harbaugh’s head. Forget if Michigan deserves all the scorn.
Forget even what or when the punishments should be.
Whatever it is, just make it even, because the actions of Connor Stalions and the actions that Ohio State, Rutgers and Purdue allegedly engaged in are the exact same thing.
So in the Big Ten Championship Game, both teams had the other’s signals, both of which were gathered via advanced scouting. (Michigan won, 43-22.)
In Michigan’s case, the “advanced scouts” were Stalions’ band of iPhone-toting buddies.
In Purdue’s case, the “advanced scouts” were the professional coaching staffs of two other Big Ten teams that had just played the Wolverines, and thus could battle-test the signs they stole as accurate.
Which would you rather have? Raw cell phone footage that still needs to be broken down, or highly experienced coaches just handing over their work?
Everyone would choose the Purdue option.
Even if Ohio State and Rutgers acquired Michigan signs via NCAA-legal game film or during game action, it doesn’t matter. Purdue didn’t do that work. The Boilermakers received stolen signs from advanced scouting. They cheated as much as Michigan.
Additionally, the Purdue person receiving the advanced scouting work was almost assuredly, at the very least, an assistant coach. The NCAA investigation, sources say, hasn’t found any proof anyone in Ann Arbor knew how Stalions got so good at deciphering signs. He apparently hid his act.
So why is the NCAA aggressively investigating Michigan but not Purdue and the others? Why is the Big Ten threatening to suspend Harbaugh indefinitely but doesn’t seem to care about anyone else?
Why is the NCAA not immediately sending investigators to Ohio State and Rutgers to find out who else received these reports?
Why is the Big Ten not instantly warning future opponents of Purdue, Ohio State and Rutgers that the competitive integrity of their games are in doubt considering past behavior?
Why isn't the Big Ten contemplating how the league’s nebulous “sportsmanship” policy applies to three teams conspiring against one?
Good questions.
They didn’t know what they didn’t know. Together they opened Pandora’s Box.
Mostly they listened to football coaches who view one kind of advanced scouting as gamesmanship, and another as a kind of crime. The coaches’ reasoning? Sending around stolen signs and game plans is common practice, so they don’t care. What Connor Stalions did is apparently not so common, so they did care.
But who in their right mind would listen to such reasoning? Who would be so dumb to agree with it? Who would let the thieves define theft?
Football coaches are rarely deep thinkers. They aren’t spending time contemplating law, precedent, ethics or unintended consequences. They just want Jim Harbaugh gone.
Real leadership would have known about all the advanced scouting and stolen signs pinging into email boxes across the league each week. They would have thought through the intricacies of the situation. They’d know better than to, in effect, let a Wall Street fraudster say the real criminal is the subway purse snatcher.
Last edited:
This article is BS. They know exactly why UM is in the cross hairs and why the others are not.
Michigan boosters and lawyers are doing a great job muddying the waters, and their media simps are feeding it to the masses. "Advanced scouting" is now equivalent to coaches sharing notes.
Rutgers bowl ban & loss of schollies incoming.
I agree with the article and it echoes the points I brought up above. Like I said, coaches think everyone does it so it must be okay but it doesn't mean it was.
It leads to the same thing in a roundabout way.
People above mentioned that rule of advanced scouting was put in place so schools with smaller budgets wouldn't be at a disadvantage. That's true, I mentioned that when this all broke. But how about looking at disadvantage with regards to advanced scouting in another way. Say there's a group of coaches in a conference that are friends with each other and share signals etc.. (which seems to be what often happens) but say there is another coach in the conference who doesn't have a network of coaching buddies in the conference or is new to the conference and isn't able to get that same kind of info. Is that not also an unfair advantage as well.
It's a distinction without a difference imo.
There are 2 things here at play too. One is the NCAA rules and one is the B10 sportsmanship stuff which is opaque. You can definitely see issues with the sportsmanship stuff even if not the NCAA stuff.
That's the problem I mentioned, when you open the can of worms you don't know what you're getting or how deep the rabbit hole goes. Now it's getting deep in the weeds. This is exactly why helmet communication by next year should happen, to get rid of all these issues.
The distinction which is the difference is one is a rule violation the other is not, moral equivalence has nothing to do with it.
Now the B1G sportsmanship thing is a different story. I suspect that is the exact reason why the B1G is deferring to the NCAA here. It allows them to ignore the that aspect of the whole situation. Unfortunately UM is being asked to respond to the NCAA allegations but they are responding with a defense based on an interpretation of a B1G policy.
The rule is about advanced scouting and filming off site.
In one case Stallions had a network he used.
In the other case coaches are using each other as that network. And if some coaches aren't in that network/clique is that not also an unfair disadvantage.
I don't see a difference
Maybe you should focus on the rule. Because that's what the whole problem is.
Pretty confident the "spirit" of the NCAA is not really all that concerned with preventing competitive advantage in any and all forms
Yeah, it’s so super fun to see goofball football fans playing wannabe lawyers. We had this for years with the psu weirdos.
PS - if you are working that hard at this…you are doing it wrong…
You don't see a difference in your own mind, where NCAA bylaw 11.6.1 is up to your expansive interpretation of "scouting" and the existence of a "network".
In one case, coaches shared what they learned with each other during their own game against that opponent.
In the other case, a team sent paid individuals to games their team was not playing at the time to video sideline signals in violation of bylaw 11.6.1
The sharing is the issue. Once you start colluding or sharing info signals or with films, you've turned yourself into a scout for someone else.
On the surface, you're just buddies sharing info with each other but you're also essentially in person scouting for each other. Whether you view it as that or not, if you boil it down that's what it is. Like I said above it's nothing sinister and everyone does so no one thinks twice about it but it doesn't mean it was allowed.
And if you're not in any sort of friend network in the conference, then you're at disadvantage just like having a smaller budget was a disadvantage and why the rule came into effect in the first place.
Quick lookup to find the actual text:
11.6 Scouting of Opponents.11.6.1 Off-Campus, In-Person Scouting Prohibition. Off-campus, in-person scouting of future opponents (in thesame season) is prohibited, except as provided in Bylaws 11.6.1.1 and 11.6.1.2. (Adopted: 1/11/94 effective 8/1/94, Revised:1/14/97 effective 8/1/97, 1/19/13 effective 8/1/13, 1/15/14)
11.6.1.1 Exception -- Same Event at the Same Site. An institutional staff member may scout future opponents alsoparticipating in the same event at the same site. (Revised: 1/11/94 effective 8/1/94, 10/28/97 effective 8/1/98, 1/19/13 effective8/1/13, 9/19/13, 2/7/20, 6/30/21 effective 8/1/21)
11.6.1.2 Exception -- Conference or NCAA Championships. An institutional staff member may attend a contest inthe 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 NCAAchampionship). (Adopted: 1/15/14, Revised: 2/7/20, 6/30/21 effective 8/1/21)
This thread and the other Michigan thread exposed who are truly “Rutgers” fans and who are people masquerading as Rutgers fans to stir up **** on this site.
Does that mean I'm not a Rutgers fan?
This is just a discussion like any other on the board. I say it all the time, this place is meant for discussion and debate. Anyone can have a 180 opinion from me and it doesn't bother me.
I like to think of myself dispassionate though about whatever and discuss things as I see them and not be influenced by too much emotion.
Wasn’t even talking or thinking about you. And I love debate as well. But there are some that will do all they can to be contrarian and negative towards anything and all things Rutgers.
I responded because I see I think I'm probably in the minority on this topic and I'm going back and forth with some other posters and you talked about stirring up stuff on the site. I didn't think I was but I can see my back and forths as being viewed as stirring up stuff.
Again, what did Rutgers stand to gain from giving signs to Purdue (assuming they had them). The answer is NOTHING!
Ha ha you dopes. Wetzel is saying exactly what you learned from me first and gleefully rejected it. Ignorance is bliss.
Purdue did the same as Michigan, albeit with proxy help rather than with in-house staff.
So many times y’all think you’re insightful until the faceplant. Wisen up, or do yourself a big favor, avoid the embarrassment and shut up.
Purdue did the same as Michigan, albeit with proxy help rather than with in-house staff.
So many times y’all think you’re insightful until the faceplant. Wisen up, or do yourself a big favor, avoid the embarrassment and shut up.
om man...yes, it was put in place at a time when it was legal but only an elite handful had the resources to actually do it- thus, based on costs- it was an unfair advantage.
Now- let's get back to 2023- It IS a rule that was put in place in 1994. It has been in place for almost 30 years. And it is very specific.
UM blatantly broke this "maybe" stupid rule.
The part 2 of your post - stealing signs during your own game is 100% legal. And there is no rule against sharing that information.
I hope you only put RU after your UM so that you would think you had half a brain. lol
I see you edited your post. I don't do that but I do try to be dispassionate in whatever topic is discussed.
I'm one of the few who said I don't go into almost all games thinking it's not some given we get blown like quite a few others do. Only OSU in recent years because of their productive offense. This year I even said before that game I'm not even sure about them now because I think that slobberknocker style is better suited for us to be competitive and we were competitive.
In game threads, I don't chastise anyone for their emotions, but when we're down less than 2 scores I say stuff like you know sudden change or big play and we're back in it etc.. to try to bring a little hope and reason.
Again I think that's part of me being dispassionate.
Really just with a quick rundown of the thread it looks like just Shelby (who many here don't like) and myself on the side of it's a distinction without a difference. So when you say stir stuff up I figure it could be pointed at me so I responded.
Cripes- the Cuse fan and Michigan fan with the same stupidity - go figure
100% serious.
Rally around the family at all times.
I know people have teams they "hate" but personally I don't in CFB.
I'm 100% siding with UM/OSU/PSU/MD over any Big Ten West team.
Until next year when we're all one happy family of course with no division.
I don't really care but if pushed for an answer would always root for a Big Ten team against any other non-Big Ten team and hope it's a blowout.
I'm not rooting for other teams to fail just so Rutgers can fall forward.
Rutgers needs to build themselves up to pass others on their own merit.
Michael should have been more dispassionate and open to debate when handling family business, like his brother Fredo. Truly a recipe for success.
I posted in the wrong thread, once I realized, I posted in the other thread. You responded to my post prior to me being able to remove from this thread.
Wasn’t calling you out at all. Have a great day!
Good point.
I would like to call a violation on Ohio State for recruiting better players than us over the years. This has given them a competitive advantage and thus violates the spirit of the rule.
I know you are now just being a troll but Wenzel's last paragraph says it all
"Real leadership would have known about all the advanced scouting and stolen signs pinging into email boxes across the league each week. They would have thought through the intricacies of the situation. They’d know better than to, in effect, let a Wall Street fraudster say the real criminal is the subway purse snatcher."
He knows that in fact the real criminal per the NCAA rule is the subway purse snatcher. Everything else is a problem in search of a remedy for another day.
Yes and I said exactly that too before Wetzel. Find my posts. I said they can’t and won’t do anything for fearing or knowing cheating is rampant and being unable to punish 100 teams. It would be the greatest debacle in the history of sports were they to crack down on Michigan and then be forced to do the same to everyone else.
Amazing there are 3 people defending Michigan in this thread, and refusing to concede to the logic being put forth.