Rutgers trailed Michigan 14–7 at halftime Sept. 23. As Scarlet Knights coach Greg Schiano was headed to the locker room, he did a brief sideline interview with the Big Ten Network. He was asked about first-half penalties but took the answer in a different and unusual direction.
“Well, there’s some stuff going on out there, so we’ve got to slow it down a little bit,” Schiano said. “Just some things going on that aren’t right as well. So we’ll talk about how to handle it.”
Well, well, well. pic.twitter.com/geTSFpUzaH
— Matt Hayes (@MattHayesCFB) October 19, 2023
“Some things going on that aren’t right,”—wait a minute. Here was the rare, interesting in-game comment from a coach. Unfortunately, the follow-up question to Schiano was about Rutgers’ passing game, instead of asking what the coach was asserting “wasn’t right.” And then the moment was gone, soundbites washed away and largely forgotten as Michigan rolled to another easy victory in the second half.
Now Schiano’s veiled comment takes on new resonance. The Big Ten has confirmed an NCAA investigation into “sign-stealing” by Michigan football. Sources tell Sports Illustrated the inquiry stems from alleged impermissible in-person scouting of opponents and prospective opponents, confirming a bombshell report earlier Thursday by Yahoo Sports.
“Late Wednesday afternoon, the Big Ten Conference and University of Michigan were notified by the NCAA that the NCAA was investigating allegations of sign stealing by the University of Michigan football program,” the Big Ten said in a statement released Thursday afternoon. “The Big Ten Conference has notified Michigan State University (which plays Michigan Saturday) and future opponents. The Big Ten Conference considers the integrity of competition to be of utmost importance and will continue to monitor the investigation. The Conference will have no further comment at this time.”
Sign-stealing, in and of itself, is not against NCAA rules. But there is a prohibition on in-person scouting of opponents and on using video or audio methods for recording signals. There are no firm details of what has been alleged against the Wolverines beyond personnel of some kind conducting in-person scouting and sign-stealing. (A story in The Athletic cited a source saying Michigan allegedly used a “vast network” of people to steal opponents’ signs.)
Clearly, Rutgers seemed to think something was afoul in the Big House last month. Sources at two other schools that have played Michigan this year told SI they suspected the Wolverines of cheating to get their signals. Another Big Ten source, whose school has not played Michigan this year but has in the past, said, “With Michigan, I wouldn’t doubt it one bit.”
We’ll see where this goes, but a cloud of doubt has formed over the No. 2 team in the nation. The scene at Spartan Stadium on Saturday night already figured to be charged to a potentially toxic degree after the postgame brawl that marred last year’s game in Ann Arbor. Now Michigan is walking in as an object of outright mockery.
And if the allegations wind up being substantiated, that cloud will dump a repugnant rain on the Wolverines. This would be cheating at a frankly obnoxious level, and no amount of hollow institutional rhetoric about integrity would whitewash it.
It also could paint Michigan as unapologetic recidivists. If the program was out committing violations while deep into a previous investigation for other alleged violations—impermissible recruiting contact during the COVID-19 dead period, using too many on-field coaches and impermissible monitoring of offseason workouts—that would be a complete disdain for the rules manual. And it could leave the program vulnerable to enhanced penalties.
But that’s part of the unknown here—the potential penalties are not spelled out anywhere and would depend upon the extent of any actual violations that are charged and upheld. Regardless, the reputational hit could be significant.
If almighty Michigan, with its large contingent of blue-chip recruits and future NFL players and well-paid coaches, is stooping to spying on the likes of East Carolina, Bowling Green, UNLV, Rutgers, Nebraska, Minnesota and Indiana, that’s just shameful. If there is such a scheme, everyone involved in it should be embarrassed.
Michigan, the winningest program in college football history, can’t line up with an opponent and play fair and square for three hours on Saturday? Really?
Dylan Widger/USA TODAY Sports
This isn’t wading into the old ethical gray area of paying players to come to your school. This is seeking a clear competitive advantage between the lines, which is the boundary schools do not want crossed. It is a demarcation where there must be significant repercussions, or else what’s the point of having any rules?
The NCAA has proved itself starkly incapable of enforcing many of its bylaws. If Michigan is found to have blatantly cheated by spying on other teams via impermissible scouting, then the Big Ten itself should take action—because the Wolverines would be directly impacting other league members on the field of competition. Conferences have become comfortable sidestepping rules enforcement and leaving it to the NCAA, but this is one instance where that would be an unacceptable path by the Big Ten.
The future course of this investigation is unknown, but it will impact Michigan’s past. As was the case with the New England Patriots during Spygate and the Houston Astros with their trash-can scheme, every recent accomplishment could be viewed with a freshly cynical eye.
Were the Wolverines back-to-back Big Ten champions in 2021 and ’22 due to talent and attitude and teamwork? Or because of spying and cutting corners? Were those big second halves against Ohio State the past two seasons the result of exerting their will, or did they gain some in-game intelligence via nefarious means? When a program rises from 21–11 from 2018 to ’20 to 32–3 from ’21 to ’23, maybe it’s not all simply the result of hard work and clean living.
This is the cloud over Schembechler Hall.
Fans looking for potential rationalizations will be able to find plenty of them. Is there really a big difference between advance scouting to steal signs (not allowed) and doing it in game (discouraged but not against the rules)? Is Michigan being singled out for something other programs probably are doing? Is this part of an NCAA witch hunt as relations have soured between the association and the school during the Not About a Cheeseburger investigation?
In point of fact, there are reasons coaches are wildly paranoid about practice attendance, play signals, game plans and communications: They know the rogues among them. Coaches cover their mouths with play sheets while talking on headsets because opponents dispatch lip readers to decipher what they’re saying. They have dummy signals for plays because they know some coaches (hi, Brent Venables) have elaborate sign-stealing operations. They put up wind screens and grow trees around practice fields to make viewing more difficult because people do try to spy.
I remember attending a basketball walk-through at Freedom Hall some 20 years ago on the morning before a visiting team played Louisville. The first thing the visiting head coach did upon entering the arena was to dispatch his security team and strength coach to canvass the arena walkways and alcoves, looking for spies. Those same members of the contingent kept their eyes trained on the stands for the full practice, ready to spot any security breach.
Oftentimes, it takes a con man to catch a con man. And given the level of secrecy and paranoia in college sports, it makes you wonder how many con men walk among us.
