Everything that was said during the NCAA’s press conference on Michigan’s COI punishments

Opening Statement

*Opening Statement cut off* … materials and information, but the intent was clear, to gain a substantial competitive advantage. You don’t put together a network of individuals called the KGB that records what they call dirty film, where the cost of doing this is in the tens of thousands of dollars over three seasons, unless you intend to gain a competitive advantage, a substantial competitive advantage. In other words, this case and the panel’s decision was limited to and based on information found through the NCAA enforcement staff’s investigation. This brings us to the extensive cover-up in which the involved individuals failed to meet the membership’s expectations of cooperation. Their conduct included destroying relevant materials, Stalions himself described smashing his phone into a thousand pieces and throwing it into a pond, providing false and misleading information during interviews, telling a potential witness to lie when interviewed, and some staff members, most notably Harbaugh, not participating in interviews at all. Stalions said that he disposed of his personal phone and a hard drive in a pond. He also instructed an intern to clear out emails, photos, texts, and videos related to the scouting scheme and more deleted his entire 52 message text thread with Stalions from his personal phone. Harbaugh failed to cooperate by refusing to provide necessary records or participating in interviews with NCAA enforcement staff.

[Sign up for Maize & Blue Review for $1 and get PLUS access for 7 days!]

The scouting scheme and recruiting violations in the football program demonstrate that Harbaugh violated the principles of head coach responsibility. His program had a contentious relationship with Michigan’s compliance office, leading coaches and staff to disregard NCAA rules. Based on interviews and statements, the education and monitoring efforts of the chief compliance officer and their staff were not welcomed by the football program. Instead, they were viewed as, quote, a thorn in Harbaugh’s side, quote, a roadblock, and described as, quote, scum of the earth. As a result, Michigan failed to create a culture of compliance in the football program or to educate its football staff and interns. Unfortunately, this is evident by Michigan’s back-to-back infractions cases. Three parties, Michigan, Harbaugh, and Moore are repeat violators under NCAA rules.

Michigan’s repeat violator status, coupled with its level one aggravated case classification, are sufficient grounds for a multi-year postseason ban. However, the panel determined that a postseason ban would unfairly penalize student athletes for the actions of coaches and staff who are no longer associated with the Michigan football program. Thus, the panel determined that an offsetting financial penalty is more appropriate than a two-year postseason ban.

In addition, previous cases have included scholarship reductions as part of the penalties. However, given the recent shift from scholarship limits to roster spots, the membership has not yet determined whether roster reductions should or would replace scholarship reductions. Therefore, the panel opted to prescribe an additional financial penalty equivalent to the value of the scholarship reductions that the panel would otherwise have prescribed.

The penalties the panel has prescribed in this case are extremely significant. The total financial penalties in this case will result in a multi-million dollar fine. The panel also prescribed substantial recruiting penalties and significant show cause orders that hold the individuals involved in wrongdoing personally accountable.

Notably, Stalions received an eight-year show cause order and Harbaugh received a 10-year show cause order. For a full description of the penalties, I would direct you to the news release and full decision of the committee. This concludes my opening remarks.

On whether Stalions’ outside funding for tickets was considered

There was evidence in the record suggesting that Stalions told an intern or others that there was an individual who provided funding to him. But Stalions himself denied receiving funding from any other person and enforcement staff was not able to substantiate where the money came from. So as a result, in my view, it raised a question about Stalions’ credibility, but we do not know where the money came from.

On Sherrone Moore’s additional one-game suspension

Yes, the University and Coach Moore proposed a two-game suspension for the 2025 season. In light of the totality of circumstances here, in light of the record that was developed and presented to the panel, we determined that a more appropriate penalty would add an additional one-game suspension for the 2026 season. So that’s what we did.

On whether vacatings wins were on the table for Michigan

Sure. First, vacation of records is only in play when there’s ineligible competition. That was not a factor present in this case. It was not a penalty, in other words, that could be considered and we did not impose it.

NCAA Committee on Infractions Chair Kay Norton: Well, 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 and therefore there was insufficient evidence in the record that the outcome of games was affected.

On whether evidence was found that Jim Harbaugh was aware of Stalions’ scheme

Yeah, you know, one of the problems here was that Coach Harbaugh never turned over any emails or text messages and then refused to be interviewed by NCAA enforcement staff and so the record is incomplete. In addition, as I indicated, Mr. Stalions said that he destroyed his iPhone and threw it in a pond along with a hard drive, so we may never know the full extent to which others in the program were aware of what Mr. Stalions was doing.

There was some evidence in the record that some of the witnesses believed that senior members of the football staff had no interest in knowing whether or not or any detail this scheme occurred or any details about it.

On how the severity of the case is impacted by people lying or misleading the NCAA

I think the efforts to obstruct and the failure to cooperate aggravate what happened here. In other words, it made what would have been a serious violation even more serious, and so I think a clear takeaway here for any university is that if something like this comes to light, you will want to make sure that the involved individuals cooperate and fully cooperate with the NCAA when the NCAA does its investigation because there’s no doubt that in some instances the cover-up can be worse than the violation. Here I would say the violation was serious to begin with, but the cover-up made it even worse.

On using strong language in the press release not resulting in harsher penalties

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. 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, you know, 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.

On whether Harbaugh still being the coach at Michigan would’ve result in a bowl ban

I think that’s, I mean, I should defer to Kay on this one, but I think you’re asking us to engage in speculation. 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, you know, that Harbaugh was still the head coach, you know, but still you would worry about penalizing student athletes.

But I really can’t speculate on the answer to that question.

NORTON: Yeah, 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, which is, again, is triggered by ineligible competition. If he 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.

On whether financial punishments would help deter further rule-breaking moving forward

NORTON: Well, I would emphasize, Nicole, that the COI as an entity does not actually write the rules, that the membership writes the rules. We apply the rules as they are articulated by the membership and keep in mind how those change over time. So, for example, there have been changes in relation to postseason bans, but there have not been changes in the rules in terms of the vacation of records. And the COI is on record as feeling that that is one of the most powerful tools remaining for the Committee on Infractions in the case of ineligible competition because it directly, it is an example of the punishment fitting the crime. That is, if ineligible competition occurred, then it affects the potential for fair competition.

On using not punishing the current players as an out for not handing out bowl bans

NORTON: Well, again, it’s not the role of the Committee on Infractions to address philosophical questions like that. That is a matter for the membership. And there certainly is a lot of conversation going on among the membership about given how the landscape has changed with free transfer, for example, how does that affect the infractions process? So, we await any changes that the membership chooses to make.

On the third-party investigation and how the NCAA used the evidence from it

I would say that the decision itself says about all we know about the confidential source and the report that was provided to enforcement. Under the NCAA’s bylaws, the use of confidential sources is expressly permitted, and enforcement staff can begin an investigation based on information from a confidential source but, and this is important, under the bylaws, the identity of the confidential source cannot be disclosed to the panel, to the institution, or involved individuals. So, that’s why our report notes that the investigation began with information provided by a confidential source, but doesn’t go into greater detail than that.

NORTON: Well, in addition, as is stated numerous times in the decision, we did not find any violations that were not corroborated by more than one source, and were the result of the investigation of the NCAA enforcement division. So, you know, we did not rely upon simply a package of information or a number of allegations that were not then independently by the NCAA infractions process corroborated and established.

On whether Stalions’ scouting efforts went beyond the Big Ten

Well, we went back to the rule against in-person scouting is of future opponents that are on the schedule, and that, so that’s where the investigation was focused.

On whether any criminal charges were found

That wasn’t part of our charter, and NCAA enforcement does not have criminal investigative authority, and certainly the COI does not sit in judgment on criminal violations.

On whether this case sets a precedent moving forward

I would hope that the takeaway is not that you can fail to cooperate and get away with it. I would hope that the takeaway is that if you fail to cooperate, there can be really serious consequences, just as the consequences here were serious. So I guess I’d be very disappointed if people read this decision in a contrary fashion.