The Big Ten on Friday announced Michigan’s Jim Harbaugh will not be allowed to coach the Wolverines in the final three games of the regular season, as the program was found to have violated the conference’s Sportsmanship Policy.
Though he will be able to coach the team throughout the week in practice, that means the Wolverines will be without Harbaugh on the sidelines on Saturday — their first true test of the season in a visit to Penn State — as well as next week at Maryland and the regular season finale against rival Ohio State.
Michigan announced Friday afternoon it plans to seek an immediate court order to prevent the Big Ten’s discipline from taking effect. It was not clear where that process stood at the time of publishing.
The conference’s stern punishment comes in the midst of allegations of in-person, off campus scouting with the purpose of stealing future opponents’ signals — what Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti refers to in a 13-page letter to Michigan Athletic Director Warde Manuel as an “impermissible scheme”
While the announcement of the discipline late Friday afternoon as the team was en route to Happy Valley ahead of Saturday’s game prompted immediate debate, Petitti said in his 13-page letter outlining the program’s alleged violations that “the impermissible scheme is proven.”
In short, the Big Ten has evidence that at least one staff member — identified by numerous media reports as former “analyst” Connor Stalions — was “engaged in an organized, extensive, years-long in-person advance scouting scheme that was impermissible.”
READ PETITTI'S FULL 13-PAGE LETTER HERE
In his letter, the commissioner points out that the Big Ten Sportsmanship Policy, “as the University is aware… expressly provides that a member institution is responsible, and therefore may be held accountable, for the actions of its employees, coaches, student-athletes, general student body, and any other individual or group of individuals over whom it maintains some level of authority.”
In essence, that is why the conference took action against Harbaugh, even though Petitti did say the Big Ten has not yet received information indicating Harbaugh was aware of the operation.
“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,” the letter said.
In the 13-page letter — which can be read here on the Big Ten’s website — Petitti said the conference “recognizes that additional disciplinary actions may be necessary or appropriate if it receives additional information concerning the scope and knowledge of, or participation in, the impermissible scheme.”
Another important factor in the conference’s decision to suspend Harbaugh was the school’s response to the Big Ten’s notice of potential discipline.
“Notably, the University’s November 8 response does not deny that the impermissible scheme occurred. Instead, it offers only procedural and technical arguments designed to delay accountability,” Petitti said. “The University also argues that because it believes that others are engaged in decoding signs, there must be nothing wrong with the University’s activities. In addition to impermissible activities of others being currently unsupported by facts, the University’s culpability is not dependent on the actions of other institutions.”
After establishing some facts and addressing the punishment, Petitti’s letter lays out the evidence it has surrounding “the extraordinary nature of the offending conduct.”
It all began on Oct. 18 when Petitti was on a call with NCAA President Charlie Baker, along with other Big Ten and Michigan leaders in which Baker disclosed “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,” who has since been identified by media as Stalions.
Petitti said in his letter 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 one under investigation. But 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.”
He also called it “extraordinary” that Baker himself arranged and participated in the call, which underscored the severity of the allegations and its immediate impact.
The next day the NCAA shared with the Big Ten in a “master spreadsheet” it had obtained during its investigation, containing evidence of “the extensive in-person sign-stealing activities.”
The master spreadsheet included “a very large amount of detailed information” scheme including the following:
• 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
• 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,” Petitti said Stalions’ name “was prevalent in the Master Spreadsheet.” By the next day his name began appearing in media reports and Petitti called Manuel to see whether he was going to take action. Later that day, Stalions was suspended.
Over the next two weeks the Big Ten received additional documentation from other schools in the league indicating “that during the 2021, 2022, and 2023 football seasons, [Stalions] 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.”
That documentation showed that Stalions “had forwarded certain tickets to a network of individuals, many of whose names matched those included in the Master Spreadsheet.” The documents include game attendance information for forwarded and unforwarded tickets.
In addition, the SEC commissioner told the Big Ten that Stalions had purchased tickets to the SEC football championship game in Atlanta, which the conference has since charged with both Michigan and the NCAA.
Petitti says the Big Ten has also “reviewed photos and videos from the public domain (and thus available to the University) that show [Stalions] 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 his since-deleted Instagram page, showing him during Michigan’s Oct. 2, 2021 game at Wisconsin “standing shoulder-to-shoulder” with former defensive coordinator Mike Macdonald.
The photo shows Macdonald “focused on the field” and Stalions “looking intently in the direction of the opposing sideline,” according to Petitti.
There is also video of Stalions watching the opposing sideline during last season’s game at Ohio State “and then gesturing to the Michigan defense in reaction to the signals being provided to the opposing offense.” Video during Michigan’s College Football Playoff loss to TCU also shows Stalions carrying out similar actions with current defensive coordinator Jesse Minter.
During a Nov. 2 call with the Big Ten and Michgian, Baker and other NCAA officials provided the “evidentiary conclusions” from their investigation. During that call, the NCAA said, based on its investigation and the evidence it had collected, the NCAA “knew and could prove” the following:
• [Stalions] 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 Michigan 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 Michigan 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,’” Petitti said.
The NCAA indicated that it was continuing its investigation to determine, among other things, who else knew about and/or was involved in the scheme.
According to Petitti, “despite the remarkable and definitive statements” from the NCAA, Ono responded to a request for a meeting with an email contending that “oral updates from NCAA enforcement staff do not and cannot constitute evidence.” Ono further requested that the Conference “stand pat” and await the results of the NCAA investigation before imposing any disciplinary action.
The next day Petitti met with Ono, the general counsel and three members of the Board of Regents in Ann Arbor. During that meeting Michigan’s general counsel “confirmed that the University had access to the Master Spreadsheet that the NCAA had presented to the Conference.” Petitti says during that meeting he informed the school that the evidence the conference had “caused me to believe that the University had violated the Conference’s Sportsmanship Policy, but that I had not yet made any final determinations or disciplinary decisions.”
A formal notice of disciplinary action was provided the next day, stressing that “these were not isolated or haphazard incidents. The violations were pervasive, systemic, and occurred over multiple years.”
After agreeing to a request for an extension of the deadline to respond, Michigan officials sent a letter on Nov. 8.
“The University’s response did not deny that the impermissible scheme occurred but argued that the Conference did not have the authority to enforce its own rules. For instance, the University argued that a rule authorizing the Conference to impose additional penalties after an NCAA investigation based on the final results of that investigation actually prohibited the Conference from enforcing an entirely different rule (the Sportsmanship Policy) anytime the NCAA was conducting an investigation—even though the rule in question does not say anything of the sort. Finally, the University argued that it believed it had evidence of other Conference members engaging in impermissible in-person sign-stealing, and therefore urged the Conference to “act cautiously”—essentially an argument that violations of the Sportsmanship Rule should be overlooked if ‘everyone is doing it.’”
The University also asserted in its response that it “has not yet had an opportunity to review almost any of the evidence.”
“This is a concerning statement to the Conference in light of the extensive evidence provided to the University by the NCAA,” Petitti said.
"We assume the University’s first comment did not mean that it and its counsel had not taken the time to review the documents and other information upon receiving them. The University appears to suggest that imposition of discipline is inappropriate because the University claimed it had seen almost no evidence. But given the extensive evidence the University was in fact provided by the NCAA, it cannot possibly be true that the University had not seen “almost any of the evidence.” The evidence the University had should have allowed it to determine for itself the clear basis for concluding that the impermissible scheme occurred. And the combination of (i) the extensive evidence the University had, and (ii) the Conference’s reference in its November 4 notice to specific categories of evidence that it had reviewed surely allowed the University to know that the Conference was not “largely rel[ying] on “rumor.”"
While the process continues to play out, it is not clear when the NCAA may levy any potential punishments against Michigan or what they may entail. Despite a self-imposed three-game suspension of Harbaugh earlier this season, the school remains under investigation for alleged recruiting infractions.