Oh, FFS. What are you a third grader? I swear I am losing IQ points having to listen to you dumb UM fans.
Here is what you posted:
What exactly was the “crime”? Decoding signs given out in front of 50,000+ crowds and national television? Scouting a team you are going to play? Using an iPhone?
You know what the crimes are, but here you go - straight from the B1G's Notice of Disciplinary Action which your university has now accepted:
The University violated the Sportsmanship Policy because a University football staff member engaged in an organized, extensive, years-long in-person advance scouting scheme that was impermissible. The goal of the scheme was to gain an unfair advantage by stealing the signs of teams that the University’s football team was due to play later in the season. Such misconduct inherently compromises the integrity of competition.
...
The Conference was able to inform other Conference members before the October 21 games about the existence of an off-campus, in-person scouting scheme for the purpose of stealing opponents’ signs (the “impermissible scheme”).
...
The NCAA disclosed to both the Conference and the University that it had received highly credible evidence of a wide-ranging,multi-year in-person, off-campus scouting scheme orchestrated by a noncoaching staff member of the University’s football program.
...
It is rare and outside the NCAA’s typical protocols for the NCAA to disclose information about an active investigation to institutions other than the institution under investigation. However, the NCAA stated and believed that the disclosure was necessary due to the unprecedented scope of the then-alleged scheme, and because of the significant impact the impermissible scheme could have on competition during the current football season. It was also extraordinary that the NCAAPresident arranged for and participated in the call, underscoring not only the severity of the allegations but the immediate impacts.
...
the NCAA presented and discussed what it called a “master spreadsheet” that the NCAA had received during its investigation (the “Master Spreadsheet”). It included a very large amount of detailed information regarding the impermissible scheme, including, without limitation:
• a large and detailed chart listing the names of various individuals assigned to attend past and future football games involving the University’s scheduled football opponents;
• similar in-person attendance assignments for past and future games involving highly ranked, non-Conference football opponents (presumably potential University football opponents in post-season games);
• notations showing whether in-person attendance at non-Conference games would be necessary depending on different win/loss scenarios;
• the 2023 game schedules of the University’s scheduled football opponents;
• color-coding to reflect past games actually attended by assigned individuals and future games for which individual assignments were still needed;
• the names of individuals assigned to certain cities and locations; and
• monetary amounts associated with certain assigned games.
A separate worksheet within that Master Spreadsheet showed narrative translations of signs and signals that corresponded to specific team formations and plays. The name of the University staff member alleged to have orchestrated the scheme was prevalent in the Master Spreadsheet.
...
The Conference received additional documentation from other Conference members regarding the impermissible scheme. That documentation indicates that during the 2021, 2022, and 2023 football seasons, the University staff member purchased tickets for off-campus football games involving future University opponents, including at least four games in 2021, thirteen games in 2022, and five games during the first seven weeks of the 2023 season. The tickets were strategically located near midfield, facing the future opponents’ sidelines. This documentation also showed that the staff member had forwarded certain tickets to a network of individuals, many of whose names matched those included in the MasterSpreadsheet. The documents include game attendance information for forwarded and unforwarded tickets.
...
The Conference also reviewed photos and videos from the public domain (and thus available to the University) that show the staff member dressed similarly to University coaches standing adjacent to and communicating with coaches during games in timeframes in which the impermissible scheme occurred. One photo was taken from the staff member’s since-deleted Instagram account showing him during the October 2, 2021 game at Wisconsin standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the University’s then-defensive coordinator. The photo shows the coordinator focused on the field and the staff member looking intently in the direction of the opposing sideline. There is also video of the staff member watching the opposing sideline during the November 26, 2022 game at Ohio State and then gesturing to the Michigan defense in reaction to the signals being provided to the opposing offense. The Conference also reviewed a video of the staff member during the December 31, 2022 game against TCU standing shoulder to shoulder with the University’s then-defensive coordinator and talking to him while intently watching what was happening on the field and/or on the TCU sideline.
...
The NCAA informed the Conference and the University that, based on its investigation and the evidence it had collected, the NCAA “knew and could prove” the following:
• the staff member participated in and coordinated a vast off campus, in-person advance scouting scheme involving a network of individuals;
• he purchased and forwarded tickets for games involving future University football opponents, and the tickets were for seats strategically located for stealing the future opponents’ signs;
• he and others acting at his direction video recorded signs used by future University opponents while attending the opponents’ games in person;
• information, including videos of future opponents’ signs, was delivered back to the staff member by those who had attended the games and taken the videos at his direction; and
• during the time in question, including through the University’s seventh game of the 2023 season, the staff member was present on the University’s sidelines, dressed similarly to University coaches, in close proximity to University coaches, and he communicated directly with such coaches.
In light of this information, the NCAA informed the University and me that the existence of the impermissible scheme by this University football staff member was “uncontroverted.”
...
Based on the totality of the information and evidence received and reviewed to date, including but not limited to documents and information received from the University, other Conference member institutions, and the NCAA (including documents and information that the NCAA previously made available to the University that are now in the Conference’s possession), I have determined that a football staff member employed by the University engaged in an extensive and impermissible in-person, off campus advance scouting scheme that compromised a fundamental element of sportsmanship, namely, the integrity of competition within the Conference. Under the express terms of the Sportsmanship Policy, the University is “responsible for, and therefore, may be held accountable for,” the actions of its offending football staff member. Id. § 10.1.1.To be clear, neither I nor the Conference reached this determination based on “rumor” or mere “summaries and descriptions” of evidence, as the University contends in its response.1 As1 Neither the Conference Handbook nor the Sportsmanship Policy defines “evidence” or requires that the Commissioner rely on any specific form of evidence in order to make a determination. And the Policy certainly does not require that any such evidence meet the legal standards for admissibility at trial, as the University contends in its response. Univ. Resp. at 7. To the contrary, Section 10.2.1 of Policy expressly provides that, in determining whether discussed above, the Conference has received and reviewed extensive documentation and information during the course of its investigation. This includes the Master Spreadsheet and other documents and information that the NCAA made available to the University and which the Conference now has in its possession, notwithstanding the University’s initial refusal to consent to the Conference obtaining such materials from the NCAA.
A letter from Big Ten's Commissioner notifying Michigan of its punishment for an alleged sign-stealing scheme lays out a timeline of the NCAA investigation.
wpde.com
