NCAA COI spares Michigan's wins, titles, bans in ‘signgate' due to ineligible player rule

USA Today

3 days ago

For years now, rival fans and media, and some national media, waited with bated breath, insisting that the NCAA was going to vacate Michigan football's victories from 2021-23, the national championship, and then institute a postseason ban for years to come. But on Friday, the NCAA did levy a hefty punishment in terms of fines, recruiting prohibitions, and show-cause penalties, but nowhere were the two big things that constituted the supposed 'hammer' that was set to drop.
After the NCAA Committee on Infractions released its findings, chair Norman Bay and panelist Kay Norton spoke with reporters, answering their questions about the ruling. First, addressing vacating games and stripping the championship, both noted that Michigan's violations did not meet the rubric that the NCAA uses to do so.
"First, vacation of records is only in play when there's ineligible competition," Bay said. "That was not a factor present in this case. And so it was not a penalty. In other words, that could be considered, and we did not impose it."
"I was just going to add that, in addition, the NCAA took very quick action once it was apprised of the possibility of these violations," Norton added. "And therefore, there was insufficient evidence in the record that the outcome of games was affected."
As far as postseason bans are concerned, the 74-page decision noted directly that it wouldn't do so because of the effect it would have on the current student-athletes. While the decision noted that a postseason ban actually would have been appropriate, it noted that a financial penalty was more appropriate, as that wouldn't rob the current players for things that happened outside of their purview.
In addition to Michigan's status as a repeat violator, the panel also considered the current state ofcollege athletics when arriving at appropriate penalties. Aligning penalties with the currentlandscape required deviating in some areas—namely, postseason ban and scholarship reductions.Importantly, the fact that the current landscape of college athletics has evolved faster than potentialchanges to the Figure 19-1 Penalty Guidelines does not absolve Michigan from required core penalties. The panel remained true, where possible, to the Figure 19-1 Penalty Guidelines. Inareas where it could not, it prescribed appropriate equivalent penalties. For instance, the panelconverted the required postseason ban and scholarship reductions to equivalent financial penalties.
A postseason ban is required in this case. Michigan's case is Level I-Aggravated. See Bylaw19.12.7.1 (establishing that postseason bans are reserved for Level I cases that lack exemplarycooperation and shall be prescribed in Level I-Aggravated cases). Michigan is also a repeatviolator. See Bylaw 19.12.6.2 (identifying that repeat violator status is sufficient grounds toprescribe a postseason ban, even in cases where the institution earned exemplary cooperation).Given those facts, a multi-year postseason ban would be appropriate. That said, the NCAAConstitution states, 'Division and, as appropriate, conference regulations must ensure to thegreatest extent possible that penalties imposed for infractions do not punish programs and studentathletes not involved nor implicated in the infractions.' See NCAA Constitution 4-B-4. The paneldetermines that a postseason ban would unfairly penalize student-athletes for the actions ofcoaches and staff who are no longer associated with the Michigan football program. Thus, a moreappropriate penalty is an offsetting financial penalty.
Bay and Norton reiterated this when asked if they would have more so considered a postseason ban if Jim Harbaugh was still the head coach. Both refused to play that hypothetical, still acknowledging that they did not want to harm the current Michigan players. Norton added, however, again that would have been more likely with ineligible players used, which wasn't the case here.
"I don't, I should defer to Kay on this one, but I think you're asking us to engage in speculation," Bay said. "And so I don't really know what the answer to that question would be, but I think it's fair to say that the NCAA has said that it wants to ensure that penalties that are imposed do not harm or penalize current student athletes who had nothing to do with a violation that may have occurred in a sports program. And so even if -- but the difference in your hypothetical would be that Harbaugh was still the head coach, but still you would worry about penalizing student athletes, but I really can't speculate on the answer to that question."
"I would simply add that it's unknowable and that I'm not sure there's a connection between Harbaugh's employment status and the question of a postseason ban," Norton said. "Which, again, is triggered by ineligible competition. If he were, had remained employed at Michigan, there probably would have been additional or complex, or different issues about cooperation and the nature of any show cause order that might have been issued, but it's all complete speculation. So that's not really our department."
Meanwhile, an Ohio State writer filibustered on the conference call, confused as to why Michigan wasn't punished more to his or his constituency's liking. Bay answered simply:
"I think it's important to reiterate a point that President Norton made, and that is that because the NCAA faced with this truly unprecedented situation, decided to notify the Big Ten and Michigan on October 17, 2023, Michigan was able to respond pretty quickly," Bay said. "Mr. Stalions was suspended from the football program the next day, and shortly thereafter, in about two weeks or so, he ended up leaving Michigan. And so after October 17, 2023, there's no evidence that anything that he did affected the outcome of Michigan's games that season. And, I hear your concern about the penalty, but I think the penalty here was very significant. I think it was meaningful, and I think it sends a message to the membership that these rules matter, that having a compliance program and a strong culture of compliance matter, and that schools and individuals that fail to comply will be held accountable."
Now the Wolverines can put this debacle behind them, for the most part. Of course, they're now under probation and Sherrone Moore has a two-year show-cause penalty, in addition to the fines and recruiting restrictions. But for now, there's no more waiting and wondering what the NCAA might do -- that part of this saga is over.