LOOK: Michigan’s Full 10-Page Letter To The Big Ten
The University of Michigan released its formal response to the Big Ten’s notification of an investigation into the league’s sportsmanship policy earlier this week. The University of Michigan released its formal response to the Big Ten’s notification of an investigation into the league’s sportsmanship policy earlier this week. The 10-page answer was a vehement defense of Michigan’s right to due process, as well as a vehement rejection of any prospective punishment imposed by Commissioner Tony Petitti. 
Here are some key parts of Michigan’s response:
However, as discussed further below, any disciplinary action in this situation at this time would be procedurally incorrect, premature, and unnecessary. However, I must underline that the NCAA investigation is still ongoing, and we have yet to analyze practically any of the material or comment meaningfully. Furthermore, NCAA rules restrict Michigan’s ability to conduct its own inquiry. As a result, our capacity to convey our position at this time is limited, and Michigan reserves the right to make additional declarations of position as the investigation progresses.
The Big Ten Conference Handbook prohibits disciplinary action based on unadjudicated rule infractions. And any disciplinary action against Coach Jim Harbaugh based on this record would go beyond the Commissioner’s powers under the Sportsmanship Policy and be factually unjustified.
To state the obvious, none of these procedural safeguards were followed in this case, from the first vote by the Compliance and Reinstatement Committee that found a reasonable foundation for a severe violation to the comprehensive appeals procedure provided to institutions and their constituents. As a result, all of the rule infractions underlying your email are unfounded.
Under Agreement 10, the Commissioner also lacks the ability to discipline Coach Harbaugh. Discipline would be an obvious violation of the (Big Ten Conference) Handbook.
Instead of evidence, your email depends heavily on summaries and descriptions of evidence you received second- or third-hand. However, descriptions of evidence provided by NCAA enforcement personnel or other identifiable individuals are not evidence under the Handbook and should not be considered. The normal evidence requirement is “testimony, documents, and tangible objects.” Your email, from what we can discern, is mostly based on gossip. We are unable to evaluate, let alone deny or explain, such knowledge.
Furthermore, the Conference should proceed with caution when creating the precedent, given the possibility that in-person scouting, collaboration among opponents, and other problematic actions are considerably more common than previously thought.
If the Stallion’s coordination with third parties to undertake in-person scouting on opponents breaches the scouting regulation, it looks that other teams may be breaching the rule as well by using each other’s personnel to scout their opponents in person. Exhibit 2, which Michigan acquired from a former Purdue coach, is yet another example of a Conference opponent effectively interpreting Michigan’s signals. Unlike Exhibit 1, Michigan has no idea how Purdue obtained these signs. The current inquiry may necessitate a broader investigation and reckoning with regard to how teams throughout the league and NCAA engage in signal decoding.
Michigan takes any infractions of the rules seriously and is fully working with the NCAA’s ostensibly thorough but hurried investigation. Based on the findings of the study, Michigan is willing to bear responsibility for its employees’ actions as well as its institutional duties. However, fundamental justice, let alone the Conference Handbook, necessitates a comprehensive, fair process for adjudicating rule infractions, providing mitigation, and assessing punishment. For the reasons outlined above, disciplinary action would be technically incorrect, exceedingly premature, and disproportionate in this case.
