LOOK: Michigan's Full 10-Page Letter To The Big Ten

After the Big Ten issued a notice of an investigation into the leagues sportsmanship policy earlier this week, the University of Michigan issued its formal response on Wednesday.

After the Big Ten issued a notice of an investigation into the leagues sportsmanship policy earlier this week, the University of Michigan issued its formal response on Wednesday. The 10-page response was a forceful defense of Michigan's right to due process, along with a forceful pushback on any potential punishment that would be handed down by commissioner Tony Petitti. 

Here is Michigan’s 10-page letter to the Big Ten responding to the sportsmanship investigation, reporting with @RossDellenger 1/3 pic.twitter.com/P0oYgIbS67

— Dan Wetzel (@DanWetzel) November 9, 2023

Here are some key parts of Michigan's response:

As explained below, however, any disciplinary action in this matter at this time is procedurally improper, premature, and unwarranted. But I also must emphasize that the NCAA investigation is ongoing and we have not yet had an opportunity to review almost any of the evidence or to meaningfully respond. And NCAA rules limit Michigan's ability to conduct its own investigation. Our ability to state our position at this time is therefore inherently limited, and Michigan reserves the right to make additional statements of position as the investigation develops. 

Disciplinary action premised on unadjudicated rule violations is a breach of the Big Ten Conference Handbook. And any disciplinary action against Coach Jim Harbaugh on this record would exceed the Commissioner's authority under the Sportsmanship Policy and be factually unwarranted on the current record. 

To state the obvious, none of these procedural protections has been followed in this case, from the initial vote by the Compliance and Reinstatement Committee finding a reasonable basis for a major violation, to the extensive appeals process guaranteed to institutions and their constituents. All of the rules violations that underlie your email are therefor unproven. 

The Commissioner also lacks authority under Agreement 10 to punish Coach Harbaugh. Imposing disciplinary action would be a clear breach of the (Big Ten Conference) Handbook.

Instead of evidence, your email relies overwhelmingly on summaries and descriptions of evidence that you yourself are receiving second - or third-hand. But descriptions of evidence by NCAA enforcement staff or other unidentified persons are not evidence within the meaning of the Handbook, and therefore should not be considered. The usual standard for evidence is "testimony, documents, and tangible objects. From what we can tell, your email largely relies on rumor. We are not in a position to evaluate, much less refute or explain, such information.

Moreover, the Conference should act cautiously when setting the precedent given the reality that in-person scouting, collusion among opponents, and other questionable practices may well be far more prevalent than believed. 

If Stalions coordinating with third parties to perform in-person scouting on opponents violates the scouting rule, then it appears that other teams may also be violating the rule by employing each others' employees to scout their opponents in person. Indeed, Exhibit 2, which Michigan received from a former coach at Purdue, is another example of a Conference opponent successfully decoding Michigan's signals with alarming success. Unlike Exhibit 1, Michigan does not know what methods Purdue used to steal these signs. The current investigation may call for a broader investigation and reckoning on how teams across the conference and NCAA engage in signal decoding. 

Michigan takes all rules violations seriously and is fully cooperating with the NCAA's apparently thorough but expedited investigation. Based on what that investigation shows, Michigan is prepared to accept responsibility for its employee's conduct and its institutional responsibilities. But fundamental fairness - not to mention the Conference Handbook - requires a robust, fair process for adjudicating rules violations, providing mitigation, and determining punishment. For the reasons stated above, disciplinary action at this state would be procedurally improper, extraordinarily premature, and disproportionate based on the context of this case.