The punishment is toothless so far (yes Harbaugh doesn't need to be there on the sideline). You have predicted what could absolutely happen if they win it all. However, it is more likely that they are exposed and lose without the stacked list of plays and a shaken set of coordinators. It will be fascinating to see what result will seal their legacy.
I am unsure how we can look at this situation and blame Michigan for being upset over the lack of due process. Every single coach and higher-up at Michigan has said explicitly that they are cooperating with the NCAA, that they will accept whatever punishment comes, after they are done with a thorough investigation. The B1G, on the other hand, really botched this whole thing from top to bottom. I think Michigan is justified in its anger to how this has been handled by the B1G. And even if this is the "best case" outcome, that doesn't change the unfair process.
Substantively, the idea that there was a material competitive advantage on the field is tenuous at best. Let the punishment come for the rule infraction, if indeed it happened as alleged, but lets be reasonable here. Vacating wins would be overly harsh. Loss of scholarships or other financial sanctions seem more appropriate (let us remember the in-person advanced scouting rule was established for financial purposes, not for the integrity of the game.)
The risk of getting it wrong and punishing a team prematurely and hampering their chances at success far outweigh the benefits.
Double barreled question (really disguised comments)...both with IF TRUE qualifiers...
1. Do you have any sympathy for 'don't punish the innocent student athletes ' argument? Seems like arguing don't punish the innocent QB for a tacklers holding.
2. What do you think of significant forfeiture of TV revenue as a sanction? If this is about an unfair advantage, this would diminish the entertainment value knowing the deck is stacked.
Thanks Faux. Looking forward to your amicus brief on the TRO.
All points and perspectives well reasoned and consistent as we’ve always appreciated (and typically laughed). No doubt the commissioner is in a tough spot, but he has now made himself the bad guy. Like it or not, it does not appear due process or conference bylaws have been followed. The mob won (short term) and I anticipate this precedent will haunt this commissioner throughout his tenure...which my be shorter than Kevin Warren’s service.
The punishment is toothless so far (yes Harbaugh doesn't need to be there on the sideline). You have predicted what could absolutely happen if they win it all. However, it is more likely that they are exposed and lose without the stacked list of plays and a shaken set of coordinators. It will be fascinating to see what result will seal their legacy.
I am unsure how we can look at this situation and blame Michigan for being upset over the lack of due process. Every single coach and higher-up at Michigan has said explicitly that they are cooperating with the NCAA, that they will accept whatever punishment comes, after they are done with a thorough investigation. The B1G, on the other hand, really botched this whole thing from top to bottom. I think Michigan is justified in its anger to how this has been handled by the B1G. And even if this is the "best case" outcome, that doesn't change the unfair process.
Substantively, the idea that there was a material competitive advantage on the field is tenuous at best. Let the punishment come for the rule infraction, if indeed it happened as alleged, but lets be reasonable here. Vacating wins would be overly harsh. Loss of scholarships or other financial sanctions seem more appropriate (let us remember the in-person advanced scouting rule was established for financial purposes, not for the integrity of the game.)
The risk of getting it wrong and punishing a team prematurely and hampering their chances at success far outweigh the benefits.
Double barreled question (really disguised comments)...both with IF TRUE qualifiers...
1. Do you have any sympathy for 'don't punish the innocent student athletes ' argument? Seems like arguing don't punish the innocent QB for a tacklers holding.
2. What do you think of significant forfeiture of TV revenue as a sanction? If this is about an unfair advantage, this would diminish the entertainment value knowing the deck is stacked.
Thanks Faux. Looking forward to your amicus brief on the TRO.
All points and perspectives well reasoned and consistent as we’ve always appreciated (and typically laughed). No doubt the commissioner is in a tough spot, but he has now made himself the bad guy. Like it or not, it does not appear due process or conference bylaws have been followed. The mob won (short term) and I anticipate this precedent will haunt this commissioner throughout his tenure...which my be shorter than Kevin Warren’s service.