Next Steps in Michigan Sign-Stealing Probe Are Still Up in the Air
Instances of athletic teams spying on opponents are about as old as organized college competition itself. Traditionally, when the opponent being spied upon finds out about it, the conflicts are handled quietly behind the scenes.
“Coach to coach, athletic director to athletic director,” says attorney Stu Brown, who has represented coaches and administrators in NCAA cases for many years. “Or within a conference.”
Adds a second source familiar with such conflicts: “Sometimes the commissioner will get involved and call a school to tell them they need to handle it internally because involving the league office will make it worse.”
The current issue with Michigan football? Not so quiet and private. Allegations of the Wolverines engaging in impermissible, in-person scouting of opponents have exploded into public view and escalated to a potential NCAA infractions case. That’s a rare development.
“I’m not saying it’s never been investigated,” Brown says. “But it’s never been a component of a case I was involved in or a case I heard about.”
How Michigan’s alleged in-person sign-stealing became at least a preliminary NCAA inquiry remains unknown. But now that it has, the football program and coach could be at risk of incurring significant sanctions. That’s partly because it’s already embroiled in an ongoing infractions case and partly because of the reported nature of the scheme. This could become a major problem.
But there are a number of steps in the process that must be taken. First, a decision on whether the alleged sign-stealing is a playing-rules issue or an infractions issue. If it’s deemed the former, there are no prescribed penalties in the rulebook and it’s unclear what they might be.
The source familiar with conference disputes about espionage said that if it’s categorized as a playing-rules issue, Michigan itself might be expected to enact its own discipline as it sees fit. However, the Big Ten Conference office also could involve itself—especially since other league members likely have been among those who allegedly were spied upon.
The determination of where this case lands is in the hands of NCAA Enforcement, which is doing the initial investigation of a potential violation of Bylaw 11.6.1: “off-campus, in-person scouting prohibition.” As with countless other cases, Enforcement is tasked with looking into allegations of impropriety and determining whether violations of association bylaws occurred and can be charged. If Enforcement officials decide they lack sufficient reason to pursue the case, it would be processed as a playing-rules case and most likely sent to the Big Ten office. Or Enforcement can proceed with a formal investigation. At this stage, a formal investigation seems to be a likelihood but not a certainty. According to an ESPN story, NCAA investigators have requested access to the computer belonging to Michigan staffer Connor Stalions. The Naval Academy graduate and former Marine Corps captain is listed as a recruiting analyst with the Wolverines’ football program, but sources tell Sports Illustrated that his primary role with the program was stealing play signals from opponents. Stalions maintained a prominent sideline presence during Michigan games, which sources say was to facilitate his role deciphering signals.
Harbaugh has denied any knowledge about sign-stealing or impermissible scouting.
Kirthmon F. Dozier via Imagn Content Services, LLC
In-game sign-stealing is not against NCAA rules. However, attending opponents’ games in advance of playing them for the purposes of scouting is impermissible, as are video or audio recordings by a scout. The precise nature of Stalions’s alleged information acquisitions is unclear. Though sources have described him as a “rogue” staffer, he was not believed to have acted in a complete vacuum.
The Athletic cited a source saying Michigan allegedly had a “vast network” of people working to steal signs. ESPN declared the operation “extensive.” Sources tell SI that there were multiple people attending games for the purpose of impermissible scouting. (Head coach Jim Harbaugh has denied any knowledge of impermissible scouting.)
A formal investigation could lead to an allegation of rules violations. After reading what has been reported on the Michigan situation, Brown said such a charge could be a major one within the NCAA’s hierarchy of allegations.
“It’s not likely to be Level III,” Brown says, referencing the lower level of violations. “The whole purpose for doing this would be to create a competitive advantage. So is it Level II or Level I? If reports are accurate—it’s thought out, it’s intentional, you probably would have to spend money and you would have to travel. It’s repeated. If it’s gone on for a while, it would not surprise me to be alleged as a Level I [the most severe charge].”
The NCAA manual describes a Level I violation as, “(A) violation that seriously undermines or threatens the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model, as set forth in the bylaws, including any violation that provides or is intended to provide a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other advantage or a substantial or extensive impermissible benefit.”
If the NCAA makes a formal charge of major violations, the next question is whether those allegations will be rolled into the ongoing investigation of Michigan or whether it will become a separate case. Michigan suspended Harbaugh for the first three games of this season for his role in an infractions case stemming from impermissible campus recruiting visits during the COVID-19 dead period, using too many coaches in workouts and monitoring offseason workouts via Zoom.
That was a Level II case that was escalated by Harbaugh’s allegedly lying to NCAA investigators about meeting recruits during that dead period. The case appeared to be headed toward a negotiated resolution between NCAA Enforcement and Michigan that would result in a four-game Harbaugh suspension, but the Committee on Infractions did not accept that resolution. That likely will lead to a full, contested hearing before the COI sometime in 2024, with the possibility looming of additional sanctions for Harbaugh depending on the outcome.
Now there is this issue. And Harbaugh’s declaration that he neither authorized nor was aware of any impermissible scouting really doesn’t matter when it comes to his potential exposure to sanctions. Starting in 2023, the NCAA removed a head coach’s ability to rebut a presumption of culpability for violations within his program, moving to a strict liability standard.
“(W)hether the head coach promoted compliance and/or monitored the program (is) relevant to penalty determinations only,” the NCAA stated in literature describing bylaw changes.
So in addition to the allegations he’s facing in the previous case, Harbaugh automatically would be found to have violated his head coach responsibility if the current inquiry results in a violation charge. And the COI would be tasked with deciding whether the second infractions case is an aggravating factor that could lead to heavier sanctions.
From the NCAA rules manual: “Aggravating factors are circumstances that warrant a higher range of penalties for a particular party. A hearing panel determines whether aggravating factors are present in a case and the weight assigned to each factor. Examples of aggravating factors include, but are not limited, to the following: (a) Multiple Level I violations by the institution or involved individual; (b) A history of Level I, Level II or major violations by the institution or involved individual.”
Additional considerations include the amount of time between the violations—which, in this case, would not be long. Potentially committing violations while already under investigation would seem like a textbook aggravating factor for Michigan to combat.
In sum, the potential exposure to significant sanctions is real for Harbaugh in particular and Michigan in general—if the alleged impermissible scouting indeed becomes an NCAA infractions case. The school or the Big Ten could step in before a lengthy investigative process is completed and impose sanctions of their own, if they believe they have evidence to support such a move. Or the NCAA and Michigan could come to a negotiated resolution—the kind that fell apart in the previous case.
There is much yet to be determined about where the latest Michigan investigation is headed. As that process plays out, the No. 2 Wolverines will play on beneath a cloud of suspicion and distraction.
