TTUN Scandal CCCXLI

Previous Thread | Anthology | NCAA Infractions Dashboard | TCUN Timeline (google drive)

NCAA will release Michigan penalties & infractions at noon ET today
— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) August 15, 2025

An NCAA press conference on Michigan sign-stealing penalties will be held at 1 pm ET. The decision likely released before that.

This is the normal process for high-profile cases. pic.twitter.com/OFxB0CKmFd
— Chris Vannini (@ChrisVannini) August 15, 2025

Per PD in the last thread, now that all parties up north have been notified:

Now that this phase of things - administratively speaking - is wrapped up, and the final report is already in UM leadership's hands, I can add a bit of context to previous reporting.

The multi-year postseason ban that was demanded in any settlement scenario isn't the wild axe UM-informed media all pretended it was. Aggravated L1 Failure to Monitor carries a 1-3 year postseason ban as a core penalty. It was always going to be on the table, and UM reporters' (and the national teetsuckers that follow their lead) who pretended it wasn't undermined the rest of their reporting with this factually wrong take.

On the famed "rear facing, record-correcting penalties," it's a bit more nuanced but no less significant. The NCAA bylaws don't have a standardized charge for "cheating." Instead, the rules spell out all the different ways you aren't allowed to cheat (illegal inducement, disallowed benefits, illegal contact, on-campus advance scouting, using electronic equipment to steal signs, etc.). So many people believed that correcting the from the time period where the impermissible scheme was taking place wasn't possible because they incorrectly believe that vacation of record and stats can only happen when "ineligible players" are involved. That perception only exists because those are just about the only other cases that the NCAA has had to deal with.

Enforcement believes they have a clear path to vacation of records within the bylaws and thus demanded that correction as a part of settlement talks. It was applied this way in the PSU case - where no ineligible players were involved - but much of those penalties were ultimately tossed out... NOT because that penalty was misapplied, but because the underlying charges were outside of the NCAA's jurisdiction. UM's charges are.

I can't say if the COI agreed with enforcement's take on this, but in all the conversations I've had over the last 22 months their reasoning has been sound and stable. If these sanctions aren't applied here, it won't be because they lack the authority to. It would have to be either that the COI seemingly accepted UM's loophole defense, or that there was much more substantial defense in UM's response to the NOA.