NCAA Bylaw 11.6.1: The legalese of Michigan’s sign-stealing scandal

ANN ARBOR – The NCAA’s investigation into Michigan’s football program over alleged impermissible in-person scouting and sign-stealing has quickly developed into one of the most polarizing stories in sports.

The scandal has dominated headlines and sports talk shows over the past couple weeks, but many questions remain. The NCAA is in the early stages of its investigation, which was triggered by an outside firm’s investigation that reportedly turned up videos and documented plans and budgets for impermissible scouting of opponents.

More evidence has emerged in media reports since Yahoo! Sports first broke the story Oct. 19, including the probe revolving around Michigan low-level staffer Connor Stalions, who allegedly purchased tickets to more than 30 college football games over the past three years in an effort to film a future opponents’ sideline.

The crux of the investigation is to determine whether Michigan violated NCAA Bylaw 11.6.1, which states that off-campus, in-person scouting of future opponents in the same season is prohibited. Sign stealing is not prohibited under NCAA rules, but team officials are not allowed to scout future opponents in-person or use electronic devices to transmit data.

The bylaw was passed in 1994 as a cost-cutting measure designed to promote equity for programs that couldn’t afford to send scouts to other games, according to Jason Montgomery, a partner at Husch Blackwell law firm in Kansas City and former NCAA investigator.

The rule also prohibits an institution from “employing or paying the expenses of someone else, including professional scouting services, to scout the opponent.”

Since then, teams sharing All-22 film has become common practice. The All-22 is a birds-eye view of all players on the field for every play of the game, which also includes footage of the sidelines.

The issue, according to Montgomery, is that there is little precedent in enforcing the in-person scouting rule. The only other related incident was in 2015, when then-Baylor assistant coach Jeff Lebby was spotted on the sideline of a Tulsa-Oklahoma game. Lebby claimed he was in Tulsa to attend a wedding and his wife was invited to the game.

MORE: CFP committee ignores sign-stealing scandal at Michigan

Lebby was never accused of recording any signals while on the sideline but still violated bylaw 11.6.1. The NCAA later accepted Baylor’s self-imposed punishment for a Level III violation.

But Michigan’s alleged sign-stealing scandal is more complex. Plus, university officials and football staff members, the NCAA and the Big Ten have not publicly commented on the investigation, which has fueled speculation about possible punishment.

“You couldn’t pay someone to sit in the stands and film the other sidelines,” Montgomery told MLive in a phone interview. “But let’s talk about the value of that. How many clips are there out there? This is why some of this stuff is really silly and doesn’t make a lot of sense to the common person because it doesn’t make a lot of sense to experts doing this. The reality is, could we look at the sideline from a bunch of different angles that were provided through the normal tape exchange and come up with some ability to determine the plays? Maybe. It’s more work than going out there and filming the play card.

“It seems like this guy (Stalions) wanted to be king signal stealer and make his reputation on doing that and was willing to go to extremes to do that.”

Meanwhile, Central Michigan has opened its own investigation into photos circulating on social media purportedly showing Stalions on the Chippewas’ sideline wearing CMU team apparel during a game at Michigan State on Sept. 1.

Harbaugh, in a statement, has denied any knowledge or involvement in scouting violations or alleged signal-stealing. His team has won back-to-back Big Ten titles and is 8-0 in 2023, checking in at No. 3 in the first College Football Playoff rankings, which were released Tuesday night. Regardless if Harbaugh had knowledge of violations, he still couldl be held responsible under the newly-revised Head Coach Responsibility rule. The rule now reads, “a head coach shall be held responsible for their actions and the actions of all institutional staff members.”

“This is like the New England Patriots filming practices,” Montgomery said. “That’s what this is. This is going too far. From an NCAA perspective, what they are going to look at: was this authorized by Harbaugh? If it happened, it is pretty clear it would be a violation of the rule. He is automatically going to be responsible under NCAA rules for any violations of his program, regardless of whether he knew or not.

“Then the question becomes, if he didn’t know, was he doing anything to mitigate what was going on and did he actually have systems in place to do that? Or was he just taking advantage of what maybe he considered to be a loophole?”

Montgomery said the best-case scenario for Michigan would be for the investigation to proceed through the traditional NCAA infractions process.

Remember, Michigan and Harbaugh remain under NCAA investigation for other violations as well. Michigan reportedly received a notice of allegations involving recruiting violations on Jan. 5. Harbaugh also faces a Level I violation – the most serious – for allegedly misleading investigators. The investigation is still ongoing after the NCAA Committee on Infractions rejected a reported four-game negotiated suspension.

Instead, Michigan self-imposed a three-game suspension for Harbaugh to begin the season while also imposing other recruiting restrictions.

With how slow NCAA investigations usually take to adjudicate, Michigan is unlikely to face any punishment from the governing body of college athletics this season, according to Montgomery.

More immediate action would have to be taken by the Big Ten if Michigan was to face punishment this season. That is potentially on the table, as Yahoo! reported Thursday a suspension of Harbaugh is possible after conference athletic directors and coaches spoke with Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti this week and urged him to “step up” and take a stand against the Wolverines.

Petitti could levy punishment under the conference’s sportsmanship policy. If the Big Ten decides not to take action against Harbaugh or Michigan, Montgomery said there likely won’t be a resolution to the NCAA’s investigation for at least a year.

“This is more of a competition issue that should be decided by the entity that oversees that competition,” Montgomery said. “Overseeing the majority of these competitions is the Big Ten. The other entity would be the CFP. So you look at the competition rules to determine if there was a competitive advantage gained that was inappropriate.

“This is public commentary on the ‘Do something Big Ten’ (calls from conference coaches and ADs). It’s almost a shield because it is going to play out over time. Something (penalties) might happen, but it’s not going to immediately impact competition. So what if someone believes this is a significant issue? Well, take the NCAA out of it. Then there should be immediate consequences that affect the ability for that team that gains a competitive advantage moving forward. But because we are in a system where no one wants to have immediate accountability, and we created this bizarre set of rules and infractions process, just like all those (NCAA) FBI basketball cases. This thing isn’t going to mean anything by the end, so who cares?”

As of last week, Michigan has not yet received a notice of allegations from the NCAA. The university would then have 90 days to respond, continuing a laborious process that can last years.

By the time the NCAA completed its investigation, several coaches and players may longer be with the program.

For instance, Tennessee’s football program faced hundreds of NCAA violations, and the lengthy investigation that was launched in 2020 didn’t conclude until July 2023.

Despite facing 18 Level I violations, the Volunteers avoided a bowl ban, which is considered the most severe. Instead, the football program was placed on probation for five years, ordered to pay a $8 million fine and had to vacate wins and reduce scholarships over a five-year period. Former head coach Jeremy Pruitt also was hit with a six-year show cause penalty.

“In the end, a year down the road, Michigan could be the one that is ultimately held responsible for these potential violations if the committee were inclined to do so through significant financial fines if these are Level I violations and competition fines,” Montgomery said. “But it is an interesting situation that the NCAA would then, with respect to competition, because competition is probably the most effective deterrent and way to address it. But there is this concern for existing student-athletes and their actual involvement, which is what happened in Tennessee. Tennessee bought their way out of significant competition penalties.”