Skunkbear Signal Stealing Scandal

[ulukinatme]

This isn't the end of it. The NCAA will hammer them. But unless the NCAA hammers them faster than they have ever hammered before, this is probably the end of it for this season.
Which means if Michigan wins out they go to the CFP with a legit title shot. Which is probably all they care about at this point.

Our last hope remains with the Suckeyes...although I don't expect Michigan to win anything even if they do manage to get to the playoff.

 

[NDdomer2]

accepted lol

 

[thekid33]

We've still got Ohio State and at least Georgia or Alabama + a semifinal opponent. They aren't going to win it all. Take it to the bank.

 

[sfk324]

This is incorrect. Harbaugh was expected to testify under oath (or at least he said he would).

The Big 10 would have needed to show what they had re: the sign stealing - documents, testimony, etc. Michigan would have needed to show why that wasn't enough -- i.e., rebutted the B10's evidence with their own, which would most likely entirely relate to witness testimony.

This was going to be a full-blown evidentiary hearing.

He said he wanted to, but he didn't know if he would get to. It wasn't an evidentiary hearing, even Thamel's article was clear about that, with quotes from the former Washtenaw County chief judge. Michigan's argument, per the counts in the complaint, was that the conference ignored the process enumerated in its bylaws, and that absent appropriate process, the conference should not be allowed to impose a sanction. Whether that is true or not is separate from whether the underlying cheating occured, and none of Michigan's counts argued it didn't because it is ultimately irrelevant to the process issue.

 

[Luckylucci]

Let me jump in here and say that I greatly appreciate these posts. As someone that has no fucking idea what's going on from a legal standpoint. I enjoy getting these perspectives, even if differing at times.

 

[stlnd01]

Our last hope remains with the Suckeyes...although I don't expect Michigan to win anything even if they do manage to get to the playoff.

Yeah. I was not overly impressed with their offense against Penn State. And unlike Penn State, Ohio State has at least a functional offense of its own. So they've a good shot. As do others though frankly I don't want Michigan making the playoffs to begin with though.

 

[Luckylucci]

Yeah. I was not overly impressed with their offense against Penn State. And unlike Penn State, Ohio State has at least a functional offense of its own. So they've a good shot. As do others though frankly I don't want Michigan making the playoffs to begin with though.

It would be a sad day for college football if they take that fourth spot from a truly deserving program.

 

[gregm83]

god i love the mgoboard

All the shit talking about leaving the Big 10. Many there believed it really was a good option for them.

 

[ColinKSU]

This might be it for what the Big10 is going to do. Which, would be underwhelming. But, this continues to have nothing to do with the NCAA. The NCAA is going to fucking hammer them.

That doesn’t matter to Michigan. The NCAA won’t do anything until after the season.

Getting the Big Ten off their backs now was the important part because Michigan doesn’t care if it even has a football team on Jan 9, 2024 if it won the National Championship on Jan 8, 2024.

 

[Katzenboyer]

He said he wanted to, but he didn't know if he would get to. It wasn't an evidentiary hearing, even Thamel's article was clear about that, with quotes from the former Washtenaw County chief judge. Michigan's argument, per the counts in the complaint, was that the conference ignored the process enumerated in its bylaws, and that absent appropriate process, the conference should not be allowed to impose a sanction. Whether that is true or not is separate from whether the underlying cheating occured, and none of Michigan's counts argued it didn't because it is ultimately irrelevant to the process issue.

You sure that's what Thamel said? Pete Thamel details what to expect for Michigan court trial

ESPN’s Pete Thamel spoke to a retired judge who worked in the Washtenaw County Courthouse, where the hearing is set to take place, and “sat in that bench for 25 years.” Here was what Thamel gleaned from their conversation in regards to the upcoming Harbaugh/Michigan hearing:

“Essentially, for this hearing, the same thresholds are going to take hold for when they tried to get the emergency TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) the other night — and we won’t bore you with all of them, but irreparable harm becomes a big standard here. Again, can you prove irreparable harm?”

Michigan did not get word back on their TRO request before last Saturday’s kickoff as they had hoped. But in regards to the “irreparable harm” claim, Thamel’s retired judge just isn’t sure there’s enough meat on the bone there, especially when the Wolverines were successful without Harbaugh on the sidelines earlier in the year.

“Now, this judge correctly noted that they may have a hard time getting an emergency TRO and prove irreparable harm, and his theory was in part because Michigan football did just fine the first three games of the season without Jim Harbaugh.”

Proof = evidence. You cannot get an injunction without entering evidence -- i.e., by proving you're likely to succeed on the merits, and proving you will suffer irrepable harm. "Whether it was true or not" is not something that can be determined on the pleadings; the Judge would've needed evidence to make that determination.

Sure, Harbaugh was under no obligation to testify, and Michigan was under no obligation to enter evidence. But they would have lost -- badly -- if that was their approach.

 

[sfk324]

You're not wrong, and that would have been Michigan's argument. But both the answers to your questions require evidence.

Did Michigan cheat? B10 would have needed to show all the evidence they had.

Did Harbaugh know about it? Michigan would have needed to rebut that. How else could they do that without Harbaugh's own testimony, or testimony of someone on the staff?

Michigan needs proof to support their request for a TRO. That requires evidence.

The suit wasn't based on "this didn't happen, and even if it did, Harbaugh didn't know about it," though. It was entirely about the relationship between the Big Ten and a member school, the rights of the school and its employees under the bylaws when faced with an imposed sanction, and the process required to impose such sanctions. Specifically, Michigan was arguing that the process spelled out in Rule 32 was not followed, and that as a result both Michigan and Harbaugh were denied rights granted under the contract.

The proof only needs to be that the conference didn't follow the prescribed process and allowing the sanction to stand would cause irreparable harm, not whether the conduct the conference has alleged actually occurred.

Yes, Harbaugh also alleged false light invasion of privacy, but that was going to be a hard hill to climb when Harbaugh is a public figure and has to prove actual malice and the notice from the Big Ten specifically said they had no evidence indicating Harbaugh knew of it, but that he was being sanctioned as the institution's representative. False light in Michigan requires a showing that the statement made was false, so what in the conference's statement was inaccurate.

So could he have been called to testify he didn't know anything? If the judge wants to waste his time, sure. But to what purpose? The conference didn't say he did and specifically said they had no evidence to suggest he did, and I'd wager the response said as much in arguing for dismissal of the count and denial of the request (I can't find where anyone has posted the conference's response to the complaint, though). If he gets on the stand, the conference attorney asks him to read that sentence, then asks him to identify what part is inaccurate. When he says nothing, the count is.dismissed. That count in the suit was just another part of the pattern of UM and affiliated parties trying to claim the title of victim.

 

[sfk324]

You sure that's what Thamel said? Pete Thamel details what to expect for Michigan court trial



Proof = evidence. You cannot get an injunction without entering evidence -- i.e., by proving you're likely to succeed on the merits, and proving you will suffer irrepable harm. "Whether it was true or not" is not something that can be determined on the pleadings; the Judge would've needed evidence to make that determination.

Sure, Harbaugh was under no obligation to testify, and Michigan was under no obligation to enter evidence. But they would have lost -- badly -- if that was their approach.

You should have gone to Thamel's article instead of a Michigan page's attempt to regurgitate

Jim Harbaugh suspension: What to expect in Michigan-Big Ten hearing

Harbaugh said Monday he'd like a chance to speak at the hearing, but didn't know if that would be possible. Lawyers for Michigan did not respond to calls seeking comment about the hearing. Preliminary injunction hearings can include witnesses called to the stand but more often rely on arguments made by the attorneys, according to Donald Shelton, who served as chief judge in Washtenaw County before retiring to teach in law school at UM-Dearborn.

"If there is a dispute about the facts, which I doubt there will be, the judge may require witnesses or documents," Shelton said. "The conference then has the similar opportunity to present arguments or evidence."

Rather than disputed facts, the judge's decision is more likely to hinge on his interpretation of the Big Ten's authority to punish the coach through its sportsmanship policy and how the conference rulebook overlaps with the NCAA's enforcement process.

 

[Katzenboyer]

The suit wasn't based on "this didn't happen, and even if it did, Harbaugh didn't know about it," though. It was entirely about the relationship between the Big Ten and a member school, the rights of the school and its employees under the bylaws when faced with an imposed sanction, and the process required to impose such sanctions. Specifically, Michigan was arguing that the process spelled out in Rule 32 was not followed, and that as a result both Michigan and Harbaugh were denied rights granted under the contract.

The proof only needs to be that the conference didn't follow the prescribed process and allowing the sanction to stand would cause irreparable harm, not whether the conduct the conference has alleged actually occurred.

Yes, Harbaugh also alleged false light invasion of privacy, but that was going to be a hard hill to climb when Harbaugh is a public figure and has to prove actual malice and the notice from the Big Ten specifically said they had no evidence indicating Harbaugh knew of it, but that he was being sanctioned as the institution's representative. False light in Michigan requires a showing that the statement made was false, so what in the conference's statement was inaccurate.

So could he have been called to testify he didn't know anything? If the judge wants to waste his time, sure. But to what purpose? The conference didn't say he did and specifically said they had no evidence to suggest he did, and I'd wager the response said as much in arguing for dismissal of the count and denial of the request (I can't find where anyone has posted the conference's response to the complaint, though). If he gets on the stand, the conference attorney asks him to read that sentence, then asks him to identify what part is inaccurate. When he says nothing, the count is.dismissed. That count in the suit was just another part of the pattern of UM and affiliated parties trying to claim the title of victim.

Again, what you're saying is not incorrect. There's no requirement, per se, that evidence be entered at a preliminary injunction hearing. If it's a strictly procedural issue -- i.e., you took my stuff without letting me tell you why I should have it -- then that's certainly a scenario where evidence wouldn't be required.

I don't think this situation applies. You are correct that Michigan has argued, in effect, that the decision runs afoul of Rule 32. But the Big 10 has specifically argued the following:

Petitti wrote that the evidence he saw from NCAA investigators and other members of the conference provided enough information for him to conclude the in-person scouting operation orchestrated by former staff member Connor Stalions did impact the integrity of competition in Michigan's games. He said it was up to his discretion on whether to use the sportsmanship policy or the "slower-moving procedures set forth in Rule 32."

"This language could not be clearer," Petitti said. "When sportsmanship issues, including the integrity of competition, are implicated by the offensive conduct, the Commissioner is authorized to use the procedures and authority prescribed by the Sportsmanship Policy, even if that offensive conduct also may involve a violation of NCAA or Conference rules."

The Big 10 is stating in no uncertain terms that the sportsmanship policy allows them to take the action that it did. And what is Michigan's response to that?

Michigan's lawyers also argued in their motion for a restraining order that the Big Ten's sportsmanship policy doesn't give the league the authority to specifically punish Harbaugh. The policy says the Big Ten commissioner can hold accountable either someone "found to have committed an offensive action" or the institution responsible for that person.

"Coach Harbaugh is neither," his attorneys wrote in their legal filing last week.

That, right there, is a big, fat, juicy factual issue that will require evidentiary support to prevail. Michigan can't simply say "Jim Harbaugh didn't commit an offensive action pursuant to the sportsmanship policy," and then fail to enter any evidence to support that statement, if they wanted to win. They would need evidence of that fact.

Again, a lot of what you're saying is correct, and I think the point I'm trying to make is that things are a little bit nuanced. Michigan most likely realized they weren't getting their injunction without evidence, which may have fully revealed the extent of their cheating, which is why they accepted the penalty as handed down.

 

[Katzenboyer]

You should have gone to Thamel's article instead of a Michigan page's attempt to regurgitate

Jim Harbaugh suspension: What to expect in Michigan-Big Ten hearing

Again, this stands for the premise that evidence isn't necessary to obtain a TRO/injunction on a procedural issue. It's a necessary/sufficient condition argument.

But see my post above. The Big 10 says it not only had the right to do this under Rule 32, but under the sportsmanship policy as well. And with the latter, Michigan had directly challenged that by stating in no uncertain terms that Harbaugh had not done the thing he was accused of doing.

 

[sfk324]

Again, what you're saying is not incorrect. There's no requirement, per se, that evidence be entered at a preliminary injunction hearing. If it's a strictly procedural issue -- i.e., you took my stuff without letting me tell you why I should have it -- then that's certainly a scenario where evidence wouldn't be required.

I don't think this situation applies. You are correct that Michigan has argued, in effect, that the decision runs afoul of Rule 32. But the Big 10 has specifically argued the following:



The Big 10 is stating in no uncertain terms that the sportsmanship policy allows them to take the action that it did. And what is Michigan's response to that?



That, right there, is a big, fat, juicy factual issue that will require evidentiary support to prevail. Michigan can't simply say "Jim Harbaugh didn't commit an offensive action pursuant to the sportsmanship policy, and then fail to enter any evidence to support that statement, if they wanted to win. They would need evidence of that fact.

Again, I hope this isn't coming across as a direct to challenge. A lot of what you're saying is correct, and I think the point I'm trying to make is that things are a little bit nuanced. Michigan most likely realized they weren't getting their injunction without evidence, which may have fully revealed the extent of their cheating, which is why they accepted the penalty as handed down.

Only if that fact is in dispute, and it is not. The conference's notice specifically said they had no evidence (as yet) that Harbaugh had violated the policy. Rather, he was being suspended as the institution's face of the football program.

From the letter from Pettiti to UM:

"This is not a sanction of Coach Harbaugh. It is a sanction against the University that, under the extraordinary circumstances presented by this offensive conduct, best fits the violation because: (1) it preserves the ability of the University's football student-athletes to continue competing; and (2) it recognizes that the Head Coach embodies the University for purposes of its football program."

 

[Katzenboyer]

Only if that fact is in dispute, and it is not. The conference's notice specifically said they had no evidence (as yet) that Harbaugh had violated the policy. Rather, he was being suspended as the institution's face of the football program.

From the letter from Pettiti to UM:

The second part is the most important part for purposes of the hearing. "It recognizes the Head Coach embodies the University for purposes of its football program" (i.e., we're holding the school responsible for these problems because Harbaugh is the school for purposes of football).

One way or the other, Michigan was going to need to convince the Judge that 1) the bylaws/policies were not complied with or do not apply (the procedural argument you're raising), and 2) if they do, they were incorrectly applied to Harbaugh/Michigan (the factual side). Maybe Michigan folds up camp if the Judge indicates they lose on the first point (thus supporting denial of the PI) but there's not many scenarios where the second point wouldn't require evidence of some nature to be admitted.

 

[sfk324]

Again, this stands for the premise that evidence isn't necessary to obtain a TRO/injunction on a procedural issue. It's a necessary/sufficient condition argument.

But see my post above. The Big 10 says it not only had the right to do this under Rule 32, but under the sportsmanship policy as well. And with the latter, Michigan had directly challenged that by stating in no uncertain terms that Harbaugh had not done the thing he was accused of doing.

Again, and this is where I think we're having the difference in how we're viewing this, Harbaugh wasn't actually accused by the conference of doing anything against the rules. The letter from Pettiti was quite clear on that front. Rather, UM the institution was accused of breaking the rules. Harbaugh is being suspended based on his position as head of the part of the university that broke the rules, not for anything he himself did.

 

[Blazers46]

I’d rather they lose to OSU, their guys sit out the bowl and get hail raped by Utah or whoever in the California bowl. Then the agony of waiting, then the agony of taking their 1000 wins down to 965ish and let them brag about winning 1000 games twice 7 years from now.

 

[INLaw]

Let me jump in here and say that I greatly appreciate these posts. As someone that has no fucking idea what's going on from a legal standpoint. I enjoy getting these perspectives, even if differing at times.

Then I will warn you without picking a fight most of what you read above is bullshit and deserves the this is not how it works…not how any of works meme. If the hearing occurred almost all of it would have revolved around standing of parties and what gives rando fucking court in MI authority and jurisdiction to give the relief sought. Then as far as evidence, if any, would be as to weighing the relative harms of enjoining the action or not.

 

[Katzenboyer]

Then I will warn you without picking a fight most of what you read above is bullshit and deserves the this is not how it works…not how any of works meme. If the hearing occurred almost all of it would have revolved around standing of parties and what gives rando fucking court in MI authority and jurisdiction to give the relief sought. Then as far as evidence, if any, would be as to weighing the relative harms of enjoining the action or not.

Just curious, why would standing be an issue here? The harm to Michigan occurred in Michigan, and the briefing papers didn't raise the issue (did they? I didn't see it).

Also, wouldn't the Big 10 have had needed to move for removal to federal court prior to the hearing if jurisdiction was an issue?

 

[sfk324]

Then I will warn you without picking a fight most of what you read above is bullshit and deserves the this is not how it works…not how any of works meme. If the hearing occurred almost all of it would have revolved around standing of parties and what gives rando fucking court in MI authority and jurisdiction to give the relief sought. Then as far as evidence, if any, would be as to weighing the relative harms of enjoining the action or not.

My response to this is solely that all of the issues you raised have been raised in prior cases in other states, including as recently as 2020 in a more strained theory of standing, and at least preliminarily (i.e., discovery was allowed to proceed to allow access to documents the conference was refusing to disclose) settled for the plaintiffs. I realize those are other states and therefore not binding on the MI judge, but the issues of standing, venue, and jurisdiction aren't as insurmountable to the plaintiffs as my reading of your post would suggest.

 

[mango4]

 

[ulukinatme]

god i love the mgoboard

All the shit talking about leaving the Big 10. Many there believed it really was a good option for them.

"We don't need them, they need us!!!"

 

[Irish#1]

Wow, after reading the last two pages, all I can say is F@ck Michigan!

 

[notredomer23]

Their DC Clinksdale mysteriously deletes his Twitter tonight?? 🍿

 

[zelezo vlk]

Their DC Clinksdale mysteriously deletes his Twitter tonight??

Happened days ago actually


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jiggafini19Deux]

Bears would appeal to Jim Harbaugh if he rejoined NFL coaching sphere: report

Speculation about Michigan head coach Jim Harbaugh rejoining the NFL seems to be growing. Along with that, his interest in the Bears’ head coaching job is reportedly … existent? The Athletic’s Mike Jones had this to say about Harbaugh’s future on Thursday: “Harbaugh is among those expected to...

sports.yahoo.com

It's beginning.

 

[GoldenAura]

Whoa

 

[Katzenboyer]

Worthwhile to repost in light of the Partridge news:

 

[BoredIrish]

Whoa

Isnt that pretty much an admission of guilt at this stage?