Why It Makes Sense for Michigan to Appeal the NCAA Sign-Stealing Investigation Decision
Anyone who has a ear to or an eye on sports media in the past couple years knows about the highly publicized sign-stealing allegations the NCAA made against the University of Michigan (and a handful of individuals) during the late “Jim Harbaugh Era” of Michigan Football. So, I’m not here to talk about the allegations. I’m here to talk about the NCAA Committee on Infraction’s (COI) conclusion and penalty determination and why it is no surprise Michigan plans to appeal. Since I recently had the opportunity to briefly discuss this matter on 760AM WJR’s “Focus with Paul W. Smith,” I figured an expanded discussion is warranted. Let’s talk about what the COI actually said, what the NCAA Division I Bylaws actually say, and why it is important for Michigan to challenge this infractions decision for college sports’ collective well-being.
What the COI said
After an investigation, the COI determined, “Over the course of three seasons, the Michigan football program committed violations involving an off-campus, in-person scouting scheme, impermissible recruiting inducements and communications, head coach responsibility rules, individuals' failures to cooperate and Michigan's failure to monitor.” It charged Michigan with a long list of violations involving an off-campus, in-person scouting scheme; failure to cooperate; impermissible recruiting; head coach responsibility; and failure to monitor.
The COI referred to “overwhelming” evidence, the penalized individuals’ varying degrees of failure to meet expectations for cooperation, and the “repeat offender” status (“*”) for some in determining the levels and classifications for these violations:
Level I Aggravated = University of Michigan*, former football staff member and “architect behind an elaborate impermissible scouting scheme” Connor Stalions, former head coach Jim Harbaugh*, and former assistant director of player personnel Denard Robinson
Level II Mitigated for Partridge = then assistant football coach and current head coach Sherrone Moore*
Therefore, Michigan received the following penalties in accordance with the above:
Four years of probation;
$50,000 fine, plus 10% of the budget for the football program;
A fine equivalent to the anticipated loss of all postseason competition revenue sharing associated with the 2025 and 2026 football seasons;
A fine equivalent to the cost of 10% of the scholarships awarded in Michigan's football program for the 2025-26 academic year;
A 25% reduction in football official visits during the 2025-26 season; and
A 14-week prohibition on recruiting communications in the football program during the probation period.
Additionally, the COI issued show-cause orders and other specific restrictions to Stalions, Harbaugh, Robinson, and Moore. It processed violations for former assistant coaches Jesse Minter and Steve Clinkscale, who reached approved separate Negotiated Resolutions.
P.S. The COI is composed of individuals from NCAA member institutions and individuals from the general public. The COI panelists who reviewed this case are Norman Bay, chief hearing officer for the panel and attorney in private practice; Stephen Madva, attorney in private practice; Kay Norton, president emerita at Northern Colorado; Jill Redmond, deputy commissioner of the Missouri Valley Conference; Christian Spears, director of athletics at Marshall; and Maureen Weston, professor of law at Pepperdine.
Download the FULL August 2025 Michigan Infractions Decision Here
What the NCAA Bylaws Say (& Don’t Say)
The COI can conclude a violation occurred if it determines an allegation is supported by “credible and sufficient information (direct or circumstantial) on which a reasonable person could rely.”
NCAA Bylaws §19.12 explains the disciplinary measures the COI can prescribe where it concludes a violation occurred. There are three different levels and three different classifications, and, from there, the level and classification determine the penalties available. The panel determines the appropriate placement based on factors presented in the investigation record.
Source: 2aDays
Level I cases involve “a violation that seriously undermines or threatens the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model” (§19.1.2). This includes findings that provide or are intended to provide a “substantial or extensive” advantage like lack of institutional control, substantial or egregious failure to monitor, failure to cooperate with NCAA investigations, “Head Coach Responsibilities” violations, academic integrity violations, and collective level II or III violations. Level II cases involve “conduct that may compromise the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model” (§19.1.3). This includes findings that provide or are intended to provide “more than a minimal but less than substantial” advantage like failure to monitor, systemic violations not amounting to a lack of institutional control, and violations not rising to Level I status but are more than Level III status. Level III cases involve isolated conduct that is limited in nature and provides “no more than a minimal” advantage. The panel will also consider an institution a “repeat violator” if it finds that a Level I or II violation occurred within five years of the start date of a Level I or II penalty from a previous case (§19.12.6). Importantly, the panel can “depart upward from the core penalties … including the prescription of a postseason ban even if exemplary cooperation is present.” Individuals can be considered “repeat violators” as well, but our focus here is on the institutional infractions.
Once the level is set, the COI can consider what weight each factor for each party should receive. Aggravating status is reserved for “circumstances that warrant a higher range of penalties for a particular party” and includes factors like a pattern of noncompliance, premeditated or deliberate actions, willful disregard for NCAA bylaws, and authority figures condoning or negligently disregarding the conduct. Mitigating status is for “circumstances that warrant a lower range of penalties” and includes factors like self-imposed meaningful corrective measures, implementing a system of compliance measures and satisfying control standards, and prompt acknowledgement and acceptance of responsibility. Both statuses contain a provision that allows for other factors to be considered in warranting a higher or lower penalty, respectively. The Mitigating factors list was only adopted in 2022 and updated and effective last year for the 2024-2025 Bylaws edition, and it applies to all new and open cases decided by the COI on or after August 1, 2024, i.e., it includes Michigan’s case. In fact, a lot of these definitions or standards we are talking about were new as-is for the 2024-2025 Bylaws but apply for this investigation.
Once the level and factors are set, the COI must weigh the factors to determine which classification - Aggravation, Standard, or Mitigation - the case fits overall (§19.12.2). If “no mitigating or aggravating factors are present for a party or in which aggravating and mitigating factors for that party are generally of equal weight,” it is a Standard case. Notably, the weighing is not a pure numbers game, i.e., a case will not be Mitigating because the number of Mitigating factors is higher than the number of Aggravating factors. The Bylaws language gives quite a bit of discretion.
The Bylaws express precisely what penalties parties can receive based on their respective case’s level, and the guidelines to determine the specifics are also expressed and largely depend on the classification (§19.12.7 and Figure 19-1, which were also newly revised and effective as of August 1, 2024). These penalties are called “core penalties” and are divided into Level I and II core penalties and Level III core penalties. These are the core penalties for Level I and II violations from which the COI can prescribe disciplinary measures:
Competition penalties;
Financial penalties;
Scholarship reductions (or possibly roster spots in the future, as discussed below);
Show-cause orders;
Suspensions;
Recruiting restrictions; and
Probation, on a case-by-case basis.
All the penalties Michigan received derive from Level I and II core penalties for the most part. Competition limits are prescribed for Level I Aggravating cases, and if that case involves a repeat violator (like the COI says Michigan is), postseason bans can be ordered. Cases with Level I Aggravation status can receive a one- to three-year postseason ban, cases with Level I Standard status can receive up to a one-year ban, and postseason bans cannot be considered for cases with Level I Mitigation status. There are many additional penalties available for Level I and II violations that are more harmful than what Michigan received, such as a recommendation that its NCAA membership be terminated, prohibition against competition in the specified sport (e.g., think Tulane’s men’s basketball prohibition in the 1980s for point shaving if it had not been self-imposed), and prohibition against television appearances. Comparatively, available additional penalties for Level III cases include but are not limited to coaching or staff probation, fines ranging from $500 to $5,000, reduced scholarships (or possibly roster spots in the future, as discussed below), and institutionally imposed coaching or staff suspensions. Regardless, for those who are upset over the panel not vacating Michigan’s CFP Championship win, tough luck. The panel could not do such a thing! Michigan’s case does not involve an ineligible student-athlete participating, and that is the only expressed situation where team competition results may be vacated and trophies returned according to the list of core penalties.
Source: NCAA Division I 2024-25 Manual
The COI’s standard of review is a reasonable person standard. If it determines allegations are supported by “credible and sufficient information (direct or circumstantial) on which a reasonable person could rely,” it must conclude a violation occurred (§19.7.2). On appeal, the Infractions Appeal Committee (IAC) can “affirm, reverse, or vacate and/or remand the panel’s findings, conclusions, determinations and/or penalties.” It uses a reasonable person standard as well, but it is fundamentally a very high standard to meet. The IAC must only set aside the COI’s findings and conclusions if the appealing party shows that “no reasonable person could have made the decision after considering the record” (§19.13.1.1).
All that said, the IAC’s decision will not come for quite some time, roughly springtime. Since the COI published its public infractions decision on August 15, Michigan has until August 30 to file its written Notice of Intent to Appeal, which will probably include a request to stay penalty because that is not automatically given. The IAC will reply with an acknowledgement of timely notice, and then Michigan has 30 days to file its Initial Submission. From there, we can expect continued back-and-forth between the university, enforcement staff, and the IAC. The IAC will only call for an oral argument in extenuating circumstances, which is rare, before making its final, binding, and conclusive decision that is not subject to further review by any governance body.
Why Filing an Appeal is Important (Not Just for Michigan but for College Sports’ Future)
Warde Manuel commented that Michigan believes the COI decision contains “fundamental errors in interpreting NCAA bylaws” and “a number of conclusions that are directly contrary to the evidence - or lack of evidence - in the record.” So, given everything that is appealable according to the Bylaws, Michigan can phrase its appeal in a number of ways that, if successful to any degree, could result in a much more favorable outcome for Michigan.
Right now, contrary to what critics say is just a slap on the wrist, Michigan is sitting in a very unpretty spot. There are numerous violations in the Aggravation classification, and the university can attack the decision from different perspectives to lessen the violation classifications from Aggravation to Standard or Mitigating or no violation at all. It can argue that no reasonable person could have concluded based on the evidence in the record that a violation occurred. Furthermore, it could say that even if the IAC concludes that the COI was correct in finding violations occurred, no reasonable person could have concluded based on the record that the actions meet the Aggravation threshold; if anything, the actions would only satisfy the Standard or Mitigating classifications in that case. It could elaborate that these “factual” findings are false or pure misrepresentations; that these findings do not tie to the Bylaws’ classification or level language; that the COI’s interpretation of the language is incorrect itself; that the COI tied the findings to the language incorrectly; or that the penalty is interpreted incorrectly or the interpretation goes beyond the deference the COI may receive from the Bylaws. All in all, Michigan would be arguing that no reasonable person could have determined that credible or sufficient information exists to conclude violations occurred after considering the record, and even if they could, the case should be treated as a lesser category case warranting lesser penalties because no reasonable person could have elevated the matter to Aggravating status or determined the findings seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the NCAA model to warrant maximum/near maximum penalties after considering the record.
Putting forth these arguments challenging the “findings, conclusions, determinations and/or penalties prescribed for violations of NCAA bylaws” (§19.3.2) is extremely important from Michigan’s point of view because changing the classification significantly decreases competition penalties and the financial penalty range. As an attorney, I personally LOVE laws/rules/regulations/etc. that incorporate a “balancing test” because there is an inherent argument built in for a challenging party - YOU WEIGHED IT WRONG! Michigan can legitimately argue that the facts presented in the case were incorrectly construed to equate to Level I violation status and, moreover, the COI incorrectly weighed the factors presented to put this in the Aggravation classification bucket. For example, Michigan can argue that because of this, the COI incorrectly gave an alternative financial penalty by using the improperly applied two-year postseason ban as a basis for the loss of all revenue sharing in postseason competition for two years; a two-year postseason ban should have never been considered because this is not an Aggravating case nor should a year ban have been considered as a Standard case, which means the fine for the anticipated postseason revenue share should be diminished or removed completely. Then, Michigan would have to use what exists in the record to support that any violation finding could only be considered . By doing this, it could materially decrease or eliminate some of all of the financial penalties the university received. That estimated $20 million two-year postseason revenue share fine could be cut to $10 million or even $0 as a Level I Standard case, the percentage of total football budget fine could be decreased to $40,000 plus 3-5% (or other lower amounts in Figure 19-1 if the status changes or $0 if no violation occurred), and the 10% of football scholarship costs fine could be adjusted downward to 5% as a Level I Standard case (or $0 if no violation occurred or if Level II Mitigating). Michigan could attempt to get the institutional probation period reduced or eliminated by arguing that no reasonable person could have decided a four-year probation was appropriate because concluding that weaknesses exist in Michigan’s administration of its athletics programs is, in Manuel’s words, “contrary to the evidence - or lack of evidence.”
Unfortunately for Michigan, there has not been a great success rate for schools appealing infraction decisions of this magnitude because the “no reasonable person” standard of review is insanely tough to satisfy. Recent history shows it, too. Between 2021 and 2024, the IAC affirmed all eight appealed findings of violations and affirmed 10 out of 13 appealed penalties. For comparison, the COI concluded in 2023 that Tennessee committed 18 Level I violations in a 127-page public infraction decision, resulting in an extraordinary $8 million fine for its recruitment scheme.
Notwithstanding the unoptimistic appeals track record, filing an appeal here is important because this is an unprecedented determination in unprecedented times with an unknown future given the House settlement terms. Michigan not filing an appeal would be incredibly remiss for every NCAA member institution’s sake. Some estimate that Michigan could pay upwards of $30 million total due to this decision, which would be nearly four times the record-setting amount Tennessee paid in 2023. If the IAC affirms the COI decision, it certainly would be making a statement to the member institutions about the extent to which deference can go and financial punishments can go. Obviously member institutions do not expect or anticipate violating NCAA rules, but it is bound to happen at some level, and the pressure to self-report is on each institution’s plainly understaffed compliance department. At a time where figureheads are proposing not just a slight expansion for the College Football Playoff but a 24- or 28-team CFP model, more schools can benefit from postseason revenue but also be at risk for losing it all for something that is technically legal (like sign-stealing) but methods can be interpreted to walk the compliance line. Also, the COI said it decided against implementing roster reductions, for the House settlement terms say roster spots take the place of scholarship limits, because NCAA membership has not determined whether roster reductions will replace scholarship reductions as a core penalty, and the panel said it was not for it to decide. In reality, there are still a lot of things the NCAA, member institutions, and the brand new College Sports Commission need to figure out concerning rules, guidance, and general operations moving forward. [Note: I believe it would go against the NCAA’s mission and pillars to reduce roster spots as an available penalty due to athlete safety and well-being, especially since roster limits are being rolled out rather than having immediate effect. So, I do believe reducing scholarship allotment is a reasonable equivalent since it was the prior rule in place anyway.] In that vein, we should also shine light on the four year probation penalty. An extended probation is an awful spot to be in during a time of unprecedented change not just in football but for all college sports. Institutions are going to be vulnerable to fluctuating rules and regulations these next handful of years, and revenue and non-revenue sports alike are getting bigger stages with more broadcasting and marketing opportunities and, therefore, more risk of exposure and more money to lose than ever before. No institution is perfect, and they should be afraid of this decision getting affirmed.
If the Michigan infractions decision is affirmed, well, it will send a major message and put everyone on notice. The NCAA would be asserting its relevance and muscle by attacking a distinguished program like it as chosen to do - and not do - throughout its existence. Its relevance in this new era beyond organizing championships for programs except FBS football can be a derivative conversation for another day.