The NCAA Committee on Infractions (“Committee” or “COI” or “panel”) recently issued its findings and found that the University of Michigan (“Michigan” or “institution”) committed violations of NCAA legislation. This case involved highly publicized violations in the football program at Michigan. At the core of this case was a scouting scheme directed by former football staff member Connor Stalions (“Stalions”). In addition to that conduct, multiple football staff members were involved in unrelated recruiting violations. The underlying violations resulted in a head coach responsibility violation for former head football coach Jim Harbaugh (“Harbaugh”), and a failure to monitor violation for the institution. Further, several individuals failed to cooperate with the investigation and processing of this case.
The panel processed violations for two involved individuals—former assistant football coaches Jesse Minter (“Minter”) and Steve Clinkscale (“Clinkscale”)—through separate negotiated resolutions (“NRs”), in which those individuals agreed to facts, violations, and penalties.
The panel classified the case as Level I-Aggravated for Michigan, Stalions, Harbaugh and Denard Robinson (“Robinson”); Level II-Standard for Sherrone Moore (“Moore”); and Level II-Mitigated for Chris Partridge (“Patridge”). The panel noted that, pursuant to Bylaw 19.12.6.1, Michigan, Harbaugh and Moore are repeat violators.
Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.01.1 and 11.6.1
During the 2021, 2022 and 2023 football seasons, the Committee concluded that Stalions and members of the Michigan football program violated the principles of honesty and sportsmanship when Stalions conducted and/or directed and arranged for other individuals to conduct 56 instances of off-campus, in-person scouting of 13 future regular season opponents across 52 contests. This violation is Level I.
Over the course of three football seasons, the Committee found that Stalions spearheaded a scheme whereby he directed and arranged for individuals to attend the games of future Michigan football opponents. While in attendance, those individuals—who included acquaintances, another football staff member, interns, and student-athletes—would film the signal callers on the future opponents’ sidelines and give that film to Stalions. Using the footage they collected, Stalions was able to compile a comprehensive list of opponents’ signals, which he documented and communicated to other coaching staff members before and during Michigan’s games. On one occasion in 2023, Stalions personally attended a future opponent’s contest. The panel concluded that his conduct constitutes a Level I violation of Bylaws 10 and 11.
At the hearing, Michigan and Stalions acknowledged that factual aspects of the scheme were correct. Specifically, they did not dispute that Stalions attended and instructed individuals to attend opponents’ contests, or that those individuals, at least occasionally, provided him with film. They also agreed that Stalions deciphered and documented opponents’ signals for in-game use by Michigan. Despite those concessions, the parties argued that most of the scouting instances alleged by the enforcement staff did not constitute violations. Those arguments generally fall into three categories: (1) the parties’ legislative interpretation of Bylaw 11.6.1; (2) the sufficiency of the evidence produced by the enforcement staff; and (3) the citation to Bylaw 10.01.1.
With regard to Bylaw 11.6.1, Michigan and Stalions argued that the scope of the scouting bylaw is narrow. Based on the text of the bylaw, both parties claimed that an institutional employee must attend the contest in-person to commit a violation. Thus, they both agreed that Stalions’ in-person attendance at the Central Michigan game constituted a violation. Absent in-person attendance, though, the parties argued that the bylaw does not expressly prohibit scouting from occurring “indirectly” through other actors. As such, Stalions asserted that his mere review of film that he received from other individuals who attended in-person on his behalf did not violate Bylaw 11.6.1.
Michigan took a similar but somewhat broader reading of the legislation throughout most of this case. Specifically, because Article 11 governs the conduct of “athletics personnel,” Michigan argued that the bylaw only limits scouting by athletics staff members or other affiliated personnel. In other words, Michigan believed that the prohibition did not extend to Stalions’ acquaintances but could apply to the seven instances of scouting conducted by the football program’s interns. At the hearing, Michigan maintained this position; however, Michigan’s chief compliance officer opined that she would have advised Stalions against the scheme and that the parties’ rigid reading of the “in-person” requirement would have rendered it meaningless. The panel agreed.
Bylaw 11 expressly prohibits off-campus, in-person scouting of future opponents. Through their byzantine legislative analyses, the parties overcomplicate a straightforward rule. Stalions orchestrated a scheme in which he directed a network of individuals to attend games and film future opponents’ sidelines. With Stalions’ planning and instructions, those individuals were able to gather targeted footage for Stalions to analyze and incorporate into his game-day sheets. Regardless of whether it was Stalions or someone acting on his behalf, their physical presence at the game essentially gave them front row seats to a key element of opponents’ offensive and defensive strategies. The panel also infers that the information contained on Stalions’ personal cell phone and hard drive would have further supported the scouting violation. See Bylaw 19.7.5.1.20 At the hearing, Stalions acknowledged that his personal phone contained relevant information. The panel’s inference is especially prudent here, where Stalions specifically stated that his phone, along with a hard drive containing film, were at the bottom of a pond. Therefore, the Committee concluded the scouting scheme violated Bylaw 11.6.1.
Beyond the legislative arguments, Michigan asserted that the case record did not support all 56 instances of impermissible scouting alleged by the enforcement staff. At the hearing, Michigan stated that the panel would have to make too many assumptions to conclude that impermissible scouting occurred in most of those contests. More specifically, Michigan pointed to instances where corroborating information (i.e., video evidence, ticket transfer data and interview statements) may have been lacking. Conversely, the enforcement staff argued that the totality of the record demonstrated a sufficient pattern to conclude that each of those instances occurred.
There is no legislated multi-factor test to prove that impermissible scouting occurred. Under Bylaw 19.7.2, a hearing panel shall 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. Taking the record in its totality, including inferences drawn from withheld materials, the panel reasonably determines that it illustrates a consistent pattern of impermissible scouting across at least 52 contests. For games where less corroborating information was available, the gaps are filled in by the Master Chart and Google calendar.
Further, the institution did not agree that the impermissible scouting scheme violated Bylaw 10. At the hearing, the enforcement staff stated that the scheme was intended to provide a substantial or extensive competitive advantage and, therefore, threatened the principles of honesty, sportsmanship, and the integrity of the collegiate model. Michigan and Stalions disagreed that the scheme provided a competitive advantage.
In its response and at the hearing, Michigan provided historical context for Bylaw 11.6.1. Specifically, Michigan noted that the limitation on in-person scouting was adopted as a cost-saving measure—not as an attempt to reduce competitive advantage by limiting the observation of opponents. Accordingly, Michigan argued that scouting is not related to honesty, sportsmanship or competitive balance.
Stalions also criticized the significance of the scouting bylaw in today’s landscape. In his NOA response, Stalions referred to the rule as “antiquated” and “obsolete” given the wide availability of game film that can be analyzed permissibly. Further, during the hearing, Stalions repeatedly diminished the advantages of sign stealing and his role on Michigan’s staff. For instance, Stalions said that the number of times a coaching staff member actually used his signal deciphering information was “closer to never than sometimes.”
Despite the parties’ arguments, the Committee stated the scouting scheme likely provided Michigan with a competitive advantage. Further, the panel stated it was confident that the scheme was intended to provide Michigan with an advantage over all of its opponents. In the documentary, Stalions referenced trading valuable information with analysts, including signals. That permissible practice, coupled with his claim that most programs have a designated signal decipherer, suggests that the signals provide an advantage. Relatedly, Stalions claimed that he received a game ball as a result of his signal decoding, which he took as a stamp of approval and appreciation from Harbaugh.
A financial rationale may have been the starting point for this bylaw. However, that does not mean that there is no competitive advantage component or that future abuses are somehow permissible simply because they were not contemplated at the inception of the rule. Rather, violating any rule can create an advantage over other compliant institutions. The panel also notes the significant amount of time, effort and resources that Stalions put into the scheme, as well as his attempts to cover up his conduct. In short, there was a clear, sophisticated and well-resourced operation in place to skirt a rule, all aimed at gaining an advantage over competitors. That alone contradicts the principles of honesty, fair play and sportsmanship in violation of Bylaw 10. Although not quantifiable, Michigan’s on-field success during the time the scheme was in place further suggests that the advantage gained was more than marginal.
In addition to their disagreements with the violations themselves, Michigan argued that any violations should be designated as Level II. Stalions believed that his attendance at the Central Michigan game should be designated as a Level III violation. The panel disagreed.
Bylaw 19.1.2 defines Level I violations as those that seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model, including any violation that provides or is intended to provide a substantial or extensive competitive or other advantage. Examples of Level I conduct expressly include intentional violations or reckless indifference to NCAA bylaws. See Bylaw 19.1.2-(h). Alternatively, Level II violations are significant breaches of conduct that provide or are intended to provide more than a minimal but less than a substantial or extensive advantage. See Bylaw 19.1.3. Conversely, Level III violations are isolated or limited in nature. See Bylaw 19.1.4.
In-person scouting violations are uncommon, particularly in cases decided by the COI.21 In fact, Bylaw 11.6.1 has been implicated in only three prior infractions cases. See Baylor University (2016) (concluding as part of a larger case that a Level III violation occurred when an assistant football coach observed a portion of a game in which a future opponent participated); University of Utah (2003) (concluding as part of a larger case that a secondary violation occurred when a men’s basketball staff member arranged for a former student-athlete to scout a future opponent); and University at Buffalo, The State University of New York (2001) (concluding that a major violation occurred when a head men’s basketball coach permitted an individual to scout two upcoming opponents during the fall of 1999, and generate scouting reports that were distributed to the team). The individuals in Baylor and Utah both engaged in one instance of scouting, which resulted in a Level III or a then-secondary violation. Although the coach in Buffalo engaged in only two instances of scouting, that conduct was packaged with a separate coaching limitation violation. Thus, the COI determined that those violations were “major” (now, depending on severity of the conduct, Level I or II).
This case is one of one, essentially an issue of first impression for the NCAA and the COI. At the hearing, Michigan all but recognized as much, noting that it could have sought an interpretation to determine if Stalions’ conduct constituted a violation. Instead, Michigan “ultimately decided that the panel was the appropriate place to take this issue.” Here, the Committee stated the conduct at issue implicated critical pillars of integrity and fair play of college athletics. The scope and scale of the scheme are unlike any scouting cases previously encountered by the COI. Thus, case guidance is unhelpful in determining the level of the violation. In looking at the legislated definitions for Level I, II and III violations, the panel considered the extent of competitive advantage and the impact on the collegiate model. As stated above, the scheme was, at a minimum, intended to provide Michigan with a substantial or extensive competitive advantage. The panel concluded that all 56 instances of scouting occurred, and they resulted in violations of Bylaws 10 and 11. Those violations are Level I.
Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1-(b), 13.2.1.1-(e), 13.5.3 and 13.7.3.1.2
In the spring and summer of 2023, Clinkscale and Robinson provided impermissible recruiting inducements to prospect 1 and his parents in the form of gear, transportation and a meal. Additionally, Clinkscale attempted to assist prospect 2 with verifying his Instagram account and donated $100 to the charity golf outing of the father of prospect 3. These violations are Level II.
The majority of these violations centered on the provision of inducements to prospect 1. Specifically, in conjunction with an unofficial visit, Clinkscale drove prospect 1 and his parents to an off-campus restaurant where he paid for their meal. Additionally, while prospect 1 was on campus, Robinson gave him a drawstring bag containing gear. On a separate occasion, Clinkscale walked prospect 1 to the equipment room and gave him gear. An unidentified football staff member also gave prospect 1’s mother and stepfather gear during prospect 1’s official visit. Around the same time, Clinkscale also provided inducements to two other prospects. The panel concluded that this conduct constitutes a collective Level II violation of Bylaw 13.
Michigan acknowledged that Clinkscale provided impermissible recruiting inducements to prospects 2 and 3 in the form of Instagram “blue check verification” and a charitable donation to prospect 3’s father. However, Michigan did not agree that any football staff members provided inducements to prospect 1 or his parents. In its response and at the hearing, Michigan criticized what it perceived to be a lack of consistency in prospect 1’s interview statements. Specifically, Michigan stated that the prospect could not recall important details about the meal and the gear, and that he appeared to change his answers as topics were revisited.
Although the panel acknowledged that several of prospect 1’s answers could have been clearer, it finds that his statements, coupled with other information in the record, support the conclusion that these violations occurred. Specifically, the panel noted that prospect 1 recalled details about the meal, including the type of food and general location. In his second interview, prospect 1 identified Robinson as directly giving him gear on one occasion. He also noted that, in addition to Clinkscale walking prospect 1 to the equipment room on one occasion, Clinkscale would tell people to give him gear. Further, Robinson’s text exchange with another staff member clearly demonstrated his intent to provide gear to prospect 1.
The COI has consistently concluded that Level II violations occur when coaches arrange for or provide impermissible inducements to prospects. See High Point University (2025) (concluding via summary disposition that Level II violations occurred when the women’s volleyball staff arranged for three prospects to receive free housing); California State University, Northridge (2022) (concluding via summary disposition that the head coach provided impermissible inducements to a prospect in the form of shorts and a shirt to use during an impermissible tryout); and Louisiana State University (LSU) (2022) (concluding that Level II inducement violations occurred when an assistant coach and assistant recruiting director provided a highly touted prospect with several items of LSU athletics gear on two separate occasions). As with the violations in these prior cases, the Committee concluded the recruiting inducements in this case are Level II.
Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.1.3.1 and 13.4.1.1
Between January 18 and April 25, 2023, Minter and Partridge sent a total of nearly 100 text messages to a prospect prior to the permissible date. This violation is Level II.
Over the course of three months, Partridge and Minter sent a total of 95 impermissible text messages to a high school prospect. Partridge sent 77 of the texts, while Minter sent 18. Both Michigan and Partridge acknowledged that the conduct occurred and that it violated the restrictions on permissible telephonic communication outlined in Bylaw 13.2. The panel concluded that the texts messages constitute a Level II violation.
Throughout this case, Michigan and Partridge agreed that this violation occurred. Specifically, Partridge explained that he “screwed that up” and did not realize the prospect’s age due to his early commitment to the institution. Further, neither Partridge nor Minter reported their conduct to compliance or other coaching staff members.
At the hearing, Michigan agreed that the violation should be designated as Level II. However, Partridge argued that the violation should be designated as Level III because his impermissible text messages were limited to one prospect. Partridge also attempted to diminish the significance of the text messages, stating that prospect 4 often initiated the conversations and Partridge’s texts were largely acknowledgements. Lastly, Partridge suggested there was no competitive advantage because the prospect had already committed to Michigan at the time of the messages, and because Michigan later declined to accept the prospect’s commitment.
In relevant part, Level II violations are significant breaches of conduct that provide or are intended to provide more than a minimal but less than a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other advantage. See Bylaw 19.1.3. Under Bylaw 19.1.3-(d), multiple recruiting violations are expressly listed as an example of Level II conduct. Conversely, Level III violations are isolated or limited in nature and provide no more than a minimal advantage. See Bylaw 19.1.4.
Although case guidance is somewhat limited, texting high school prospects prior to the permissible time period has previously resulted in Level II violations. See The Ohio State University (2022) (concluding that a Level II violation occurred, in part, when an associate head women’s basketball coach had a nonscholastic coach pass along recruiting text messages to three prospects who were too young for the associate head coach to contact) and University of West Virginia(2015) (concluding that coaches in 14 sports sent 294 impermissible texts and placed 66 impermissible telephone calls to prospects, resulting in a series of violations that were largely designated as Level II).
The panel recognized the differences in the scope and scale of the impermissible text messages across all three of these cases. However, the panel noted that, in the present case, Partridge and Minter impermissibly contacted the prospect nearly 100 times. While Partridge argued that the texts provided a minimal recruiting advantage due to the prospect’s commitment status, the panel disagreed. By Partridge’s own account, he felt compelled to at least react to the prospect’s texts because “you never want to ignore a recruit.” Under that logic, the recruiting process is never ending and there is an inherent recruiting advantage gained by responding to a prospect—even one who has committed to the institution—at a time when no other program could permissibly do so. Consistent with case precedent and Bylaw 19.1.3, the Committee concluded the impermissible recruiting communication is Level II.
Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 11.1.1.1
As a result of the underlying scouting and recruiting violations, Harbaugh violated the principles of head coach responsibility. This violation is Level I.
The Committee stated Harbaugh ran a program that was largely dismissive of rules compliance. There was little, if any, emphasis on following the rules. To the contrary, his program saw compliance as the enemy, made their own decisions regarding interpreting the rules to their benefit, or outright committed rules violations. Harbaugh failed to rebut his presumption of responsibility for the scouting violations that occurred during the 2021 and 2022 seasons because he did not demonstrate that he adequately promoted compliance and monitored his program. Harbaugh is also automatically responsible for the scouting and recruiting violations that occurred after January 1, 2023. The panel concluded that this is a Level I violation of Bylaw 11.
Michigan agreed that Harbaugh violated head coach responsibility legislation. Harbaugh, however, disagreed with this violation in his response to the notice of allegations. Specifically, Harbaugh stated that a head coach responsibility violation would constitute “double jeopardy,” since he already received a three-game suspension from the Big Ten Conference in response to the scouting scheme. However, the conference’s imposition of a penalty does not impact the COI’s ability to conclude that a violation occurred.
When addressing his efforts to monitor staff and promote an atmosphere of compliance, Harbaugh argued that there were no “red flags” with regard to Stalions’ sign stealing practice that would have warranted Harbaugh questioning his staff members. Harbaugh did not discuss the impact of the recruiting allegations or the legislative change on his head coach responsibility allegation.
With regard to Harbaugh’s promotion of an atmosphere of compliance, the Committee stated the underlying allegations involved at least four full-time football staff members, three football interns and two football student-athletes. Per his own staff’s account, compliance education in the football program was lacking, in large part because the compliance staff was not welcomed into the program. Staff members also made statements indicating a disconnect from and disdain for Michigan’s compliance staff members—with one referring to compliance staff members as “[t]rue scum of the earth.” Michigan’s compliance staff also acknowledged the unwelcoming culture of the football program and stated that it made their jobs difficult. In sum, Harbaugh conditioned his staff to view compliance as, at best, a burden, and at worst, adversaries.
Regarding Harbaugh’s monitoring efforts, the Committee stated the record does not show that he took any steps to determine how Stalions was evaluating opponents’ signals. At the hearing, Stalions stated that, with regard to the scouting scheme, “no one really cared…or communicated how you got it done as long as you got it done.” Harbaugh’s approach is particularly troubling because he was directly involved in hiring Stalions full-time in 2022. Similarly, Harbaugh did not ask about recruiting practices or make any modifications to his monitoring practices following Michigan’s 2024 case, which involved similar recruiting violations.
Pursuant to Bylaw 19.1.2-(e), the level of a head coach responsibility violation is determined by the level of the underlying violations. The COI has recently concluded that Level I head coach responsibility violations occur when the head coach’s staff members committed Level I violations, and the head coach fell short of their monitoring and compliance efforts. See University of Tennessee, Knoxville (Tennessee) (2023) (concluding that a Level I head coach responsibility violation occurred when the head football coach personally provided impermissible inducements and benefits, and failed to monitor his staff when at least a dozen of them engaged in more than 200 violations over the course of two years) and Auburn University (2022) (concluding that a Level I head coach responsibility violation occurred when the head men’s basketball coach failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance and failed to monitor an associate head coach who committed inducement and benefit violations). As with the head coaches in those cases, Harbaugh’s violation is Level I.
Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 19.2.1, 19.2.1-(b), 19.2.1-(c), 19.2.1-(d), 19.2.1-(e), 19.2.1-(f), 19.2.1-(h), 19.2.2, 19.2.2-(a),19.2.2-(b) and 19.2.2-(c)
At various times throughout this investigation, the Committee concluded Stalions, Harbaugh, Moore and Robinson each failed to cooperate under Bylaw 19. Each of those violations is Level I, except for Moore’s failure to cooperate, which is Level II.
A. Stalions
Between October 19 and November 2, 2023, the Committee concluded Stalions failed to cooperate when he failed to preserve relevant materials and provide access to all relevant electronic devices. Specifically, he declined the institution’s request to provide his personal phone for imaging, withheld hard drives by removing them from the football office, put documents in a backpack and instructed a student-athlete to bring them from the football offices to an intern’s home, and instructed an intern to delete information. This conduct occurred while Stalions was still employed at Michigan, and the panel determined that it constitutes a Level I violation for both Stalions and the institution.
Stalions’ response to this allegation consisted primarily of procedural arguments. At the hearing, Stalions once again expressed his concern with the enforcement staff’s use of a confidential source in this matter. Specifically, Stalions questioned the motivations of the confidential source, who triggered the investigation and who is also relied upon as an on-the-record witness in some allegations but not identified as the initial source. Relatedly, Stalions also re-raised concerns about the confidential source’s provision of Stalions’ documents to the investigative firm and, later, the enforcement staff. Simply put, Stalions suggested that certain information may have been illegally obtained from his Google drive, resulting in the rest of the investigation being “fruit of the poisonous tree.” In addition to Stalions’ procedural concerns, Michigan raised substantive disagreements with the allegations. Both parties’ arguments are addressed in turn.
The Committee stated the use of a confidential source and an investigative firm in this matter has resulted in significant briefing and correspondence between the parties. Due to the parties’ concerns, the chief hearing officer conducted an in camera review of the investigative file to ensure that all information supporting an allegation was attributable to an on-the-record witness. The chief hearing officer confirmed that it was. Thus, the identity of the confidential source remains irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the enforcement staff sufficiently corroborated its allegations based on on-the-record information. Where the panel concluded that violations occurred, the Committee concluded the enforcement staff met that burden. Where the panel concluded that violations were not demonstrated, the panel concluded that there was not sufficient information to demonstrate a violation.
However, the panel was sensitive to the continued credibility concerns raised by the parties—particularly with regard to one witness. The panel assessed the credibility of all witnesses and has concluded that, regarding that specific witness, some of the witness’ statements are not as credible as others. At no point in this decision are the panel’s findings or conclusions based solely on the statements of that witness. While it is the panel’s obligation to assess credibility and, in some instances, it may have been reasonable to make findings or conclusions based on a witness statement alone, all findings and conclusions in this case are corroborated by other information in the record.
Turning to Stalions’ “fruit of the poisonous tree” argument, the panel was not persuaded that the doctrine would apply under the facts and circumstances of this case. First, although Stalions alleges that illegal activity may have taken place, he never contacted law enforcement. The panel refused to speculate on the reasons for declining to do so.
Second, there is no information in the record to suggest that the enforcement staff was complicit in the origin of the outside investigation or how the investigative firm obtained its information. Rather, as Stalions’ counsel characterized it, the enforcement staff simply received “gift wrapped” documents in the investigative report.
Third, Stalions gave the student interns access to his Google drive and calendar. Specifically, multiple members of the “KGB” stated that they had log in access in order to view documents like the Master Chart and Google calendar. In short, Stalions willingly gave football interns access to the information that he now claims was obtained illegally. By doing so, the number of individuals who could have shared and acquired that information is unquantifiable and does not lead the panel to believe that illegal activity occurred.
Lastly, Stalions had a duty and obligation to produce the documents that he alleges were illegally obtained and others that have never been produced. Stalions has never taken any steps to produce the requested documents. Instead, he has represented that they are destroyed.
Again, there is no information in the record suggesting that any illegal activity occurred in this case. Moreover, and without making any legal judgments, if such activity occurred, it does not appear to have had any material effect on this case, and there are appropriate avenues for Stalions to take utilizing the traditional legal process.
The institution’s arguments regarding Stalions’ failure to cooperate violations are similarly unpersuasive. With regard to the institution’s request for Stalions’ personal cell phone, Michigan argued that Stalions did not fail to provide the device until after his employment at Michigan ended. Specifically, at the hearing, Michigan stated that Stalions was navigating hiring an attorney before agreeing to have his phone imaged. Michigan also denied that Stalions removed hard drives or relevant documents from the football office, stating that there is no evidence that those items were removed. Further, Michigan acknowledged that Stalions instructed intern 1 to delete information related to the scouting scheme but asserted that the violation should be designated as Level II.
To begin, Michigan’s chief compliance officer asked Stalions to turn over his personal cell phone on October 19, 2023. Per her account, Stalions “declined to do so.” Despite knowing that Stalions had been identified in connection with the scheme, Michigan allowed Stalions to leave the premises without imaging or securing the information on Stalions’ personal phone. In the following weeks, staff members made additional attempts to have Stalions image his personal phone while he was in the process of finding legal counsel. However, upon securing his attorney, Stalions abruptly resigned. There is no information in the record that suggests that Stalions took steps to produce that phone prior to resigning on November 3, 2023.
At the hearing, Michigan articulated the difficult position that institutions face when determining whether to terminate an employee who is under investigation. As Michigan pointed out, an institution can choose to retain the employee and attempt to secure their cooperation but will then be responsible for their conduct should they fail to cooperate. Although the panel is sympathetic to the institution’s position, it does not believe that the facts demonstrate that Stalions planned to cooperate—especially in light of his express refusal. Michigan failed to preserve any information from Stalions’ personal phone. Thus, a violation occurred.
Additionally, Stalions was known to use hard drives to store information related to the scouting scheme. After Stalions asked student-athlete 1 and intern 1 to remove items from the football office in backpacks, the enforcement staff asked both individuals about the contents of the bags. Notably, student-athlete 1 recalled putting a variety of items—including a “little black box kind of thing”—in a backpack. Intern 1 also indicated that the backpack he removed could have contained a hard drive, as Stalions essentially put “everything on his desk and some files next to his desk” into the backpack. According to another football staff member, Stalions called him later that evening concerned about a hard drive that he may have left in the football office. Roughly two weeks later, Stalions was recorded telling student-athlete 1 that both his phone and a hard drive with “dirty film” were at the bottom of a pond. Given the ample record information, the panel concludes that this violation occurred.
Lastly, Stalions instructed intern 1 to “clear out” emails, photos, texts and videos related to the scouting scheme. Intern 1 complied and then instructed a friend, who attended and recorded three games as part of the scheme, to do the same. Although the institution argued that the violation should be Level II, failure to cooperate violations are presumptively Level I. See Bylaws 19.1.2-(c). The panel believes that designation is appropriate in this case, as well.
The scope and scale of Stalions’ failure to cooperate is one of the more significant and serious failures the COI has seen. The COI has previously concluded that Level I violations occur when parties fail to cooperate, including failing to produce requested records. See Arizona State (concluding that an associate head football coach failed to cooperate when he refused to provide his bank records); Youngstown State University (2022) (concluding that a head women’s soccer coach failed to cooperate when he refused to sit for a second interview with the enforcement staff and provide his cell phone for imaging); and Georgia Institute of Technology (2021) (concluding that an assistant women’s basketball coach failed to cooperate, in part, when he failed to produce the requested bank records). The COI has also concluded that Level I violations occur when individuals instruct others to delete information. See University of Mississippi (2016) (concluding that Level I violations occurred when staff members personally deleted or instructed a student-athlete to delete relevant information and told the student-athlete to provide false or misleading information). As with the individuals in those cases, the violation is Level I.
After resigning from Michigan on November 3, 2023, Stalions continued to fail to meet his legislated responsibility to cooperate. Specifically, the Committee stated Stalions instructed a student-athlete to provide false or misleading information related to the scouting activities; refused to produce the full scope of requested records; failed to assist the enforcement staff in its development of full information during his interview; provided false or misleading information related to his involvement in the scouting activities; and failed to maintain the integrity of the investigation when he disclosed information on X (formerly Twitter) and during the production of a Netflix documentary. The panel determined that this constitutes a Level I violation for Stalions.
In his response, Stalions rejected each subpart of the enforcement staff’s allegation. Stalions contended that his conduct either did not occur or did not constitute a violation. The panel is not persuaded.
The information in the record substantiates each of Stalions’ post-separation failure to cooperate violations. Stalions expressly instructed student-athlete 1 to “lie [his] ass off” about specific aspects of his involvement in the scheme. He also refused to provide full, or even close to full records requested by the enforcement staff. During his interview, Stalions and his counsel would not agree to confidentiality procedures, would not directly answer many questions and were hostile towards the enforcement staff. Additionally, Stalions denied his involvement in the scouting violations because he disagreed with the enforcement staff’s interpretation of the bylaw. Further, using two alias X accounts, Stalions posted case information, along with sensitive details like the names of enforcement staff members, and included portions of his interview in the Netflix documentary.
At the hearing, Stalions primarily addressed his disagreement with the documentary portion of this allegation. Specifically, Stalions claimed that his participation aligned with Bylaw 19.3.1, which permits parties to confirm, correct or deny information that has been made public. In addition to putting forward justification for why he should have been permitted to participate in the documentary, Stalions also accused the enforcement staff—both in his response and at the hearing—of breaching confidentiality. The enforcement staff vigorously denied that accusation in its written reply and at the hearing.
The panel recognized that, under Bylaw 19.3.1, public statements are permitted. But they must align with the constraints of the bylaw. By participating in the documentary, Stalions did far more than confirm, correct or deny public information. Instead, the documentary was a piece of public advocacy that shared confidential details, including footage of the enforcement staff from their April 25, 2024, interview. Stalions and his counsel also sat for interviews with the production company. There are appropriate ways to comment publicly under Bylaw 19.3.1, and it is not uncommon for parties to do so. Stalions’ conduct went far beyond the outermost limits of the bylaw. Such behavior threatens the integrity of the process and the people involved in it. In light of this conduct, Stalions’ participation in the documentary violated his legislated responsibility to cooperate.
The COI has previously concluded that Level I violations occur when parties influence someone to provide false or misleading information. See Florida International University (FIU) (2023) (concluding that a head softball coach engaged in a Level I violation when she told a prospect to lie about being related if anyone questioned her presence on campus) and U.S. Air Force Academy (Air Force) (2023) (concluding that Level I violations occurred when an assistant coach encouraged a prospect to not post on social media about his visit, which occurred during the COVID-19 recruiting dead period). Additionally, Level I violations occur when parties personally provide false or misleading information. See Arizona State (concluding that Level I violations occurred when two football staff members denied their knowledge of or involvement in recruiting violations) and Michigan (2024) (concluding that a Level I violation occurred when the head football coach denied his knowledge of or involvement in recruiting violations, but his conduct was significantly supported by the record). As stated above, Level I violations may also occur when parties fail to provide the enforcement staff with requested records. See Arizona State; Youngstown State; and Georgia Tech. The panel concluded that Stalions failed to cooperate following his employment at Michigan, and that violation is Level I.
B. Harbaugh
From January 24, 2024, to the present, the Committee concluded Harbaugh failed to cooperate when he did not provide the enforcement staff with requested text and telephone records from his personal cell phone. Harbaugh also refused to participate in an interview with the enforcement staff. The panel concluded this violation is Level I for Harbaugh.
In his NOA response, Harbaugh disagreed with this allegation, stating that he never refused to comply with the enforcement staff’s requests. Rather, he claimed that he did not have time to participate in an interview or produce the significant number of requested records. The panel disagreed with Harbaugh’s characterization.
Following the enforcement staff’s October 20, 2023 rolling production request, Michigan used a private company to conduct device imaging for its staff members, including Harbaugh. On December 7, 2023, the institution provided Harbaugh and his counsel with “priority reports” of the device images from his personal cell phone. However, as a result of the vendor’s error, some of Harbaugh’s personal messages were inappropriately included in the report. Over the next few weeks, the enforcement staff contacted Harbaugh’s counsel in an attempt to retrieve the records. But, according to Michigan, Harbaugh was still in the process of reviewing his phone images to exclude personal materials. Michigan also noted that Harbaugh’s January 24, 2024, resignation came one week before the enforcement staff’s “final” document production deadline. After his employment at Michigan, Harbaugh continued to be nonresponsive to the enforcement staff’s May 17, 2024, final request for an interview and the outstanding records. To date, Harbaugh has never produced the requested records or sat for an interview. Therefore, the Committee concluded he failed to cooperate.
As stated above, the COI has previously concluded that Level I violations occur when parties fail to provide the enforcement staff with the requested records. See Arizona State; Youngstown State; and Georgia Tech. Consistent with case guidance, the panel concluded that Harbaugh’s failure to cooperate violation is Level I.
C. Moore
On October 19 and 20, 2023, the Committee concluded Moore failed to cooperate when he failed to preserve relevant information—text messages with and related to Stalions. Specifically, Moore deleted 52 text messages exchanged with Stalions on his personal phone, and deleted a single message sent from his work phone that referenced Stalions. The panel concludes that the violation is Level II.
All parties agreed that this violation occurred. According to the record, Moore deleted his text thread with Stalions approximately 30 minutes after news of the allegations broke on October 19, 2023. The following day, he deleted a text he sent to another staff member that referenced Stalions standing by Moore during a game. Notably, Moore deleted at least one of the text messages after receiving a preservation notice from the institution. Moreover, Moore did not proactively disclose that he deleted the texts, and he attempted to blame the lack of retention on storage space. When Moore eventually admitted to the conduct, he explained that his decision to delete the texts was an emotional reaction to the allegations.
As stated above, failure to cooperate with an NCAA investigation is presumptively a Level I violation. See Bylaw 19.1.2-(c). However, the parties agreed that the case-specific facts weigh in favor of a Level II designation for Moore’s conduct. Specifically, Moore’s texts were recovered without issue, he acknowledged and provided an explanation for his conduct upon being questioned and he continued to cooperate through the remainder of the investigation. Moreover, and while not directly relevant to the underlying conduct, Moore attended the two-day in-person hearing and provided candid, valuable perspective. Importantly, Moore—Michigan’s current head football coach—explained his views on compliance and the culture of compliance he intends to instill in his program. Michigan’s chief compliance officer confirmed that Moore has taken a new and different approach than his predecessor. The panel factored this positive development into Moore’s violation, classification and ultimate penalty.
The COI has previously concluded that partial or belated cooperation is Level II under similar circumstances, particularly when the conduct did not impede the investigation. See Siena College (2020) (concluding that a Level II violation occurred when a head coach denied providing a cash payment to a student-athlete, but that denial did not impede the investigation because the violation was substantiated by other information); University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (2017) (concluding that a curriculum secretary committed a Level II violation when she did not participate in the investigation for nearly three years but eventually sat for an interview and participated in the infractions hearing); and Syracuse University (2015) (concluding that an academic coordinator committed a Level II violation when she did not participate in the investigation initially). As with the individuals in those cases, the Committee concluded Moore’s conduct warrants a Level II designation.
D. Robinson
On April 23, 2024, the Committee concluded Robinson failed to cooperate when he provided false or misleading information during his interview with the enforcement staff. Specifically, Robinson denied providing gear to prospect 1. The panel concluded that this is a Level I violation.
During his interview with the enforcement staff, Robinson asserted that any gear provided to prospect 1 was given to him as an award during the institution’s football camp. However, prospect 1 recalled receiving a bag of gear from Robinson. The case record also contains Robinson’s contemporaneous text messages asking another staff member about getting gear for prospect 1. Thus, Robinson’s denial is inconsistent with the information in the case record and constitutes false or misleading information.
As stated above, the COI has consistently concluded that Level I violations occur when individuals knowingly provide false or misleading information about their involvement in violations. See Arizona State and Michigan (2024). Because the panel concluded that the underlying recruiting violation occurred, it also determined that Robinson provided false or misleading information when he denied that conduct.
Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Constitution 2.8.1 and Bylaw 8.01.3
From the fall of 2021 into the fall of 2023, Michigan failed to monitor its football program. The violation is Level II.
The underlying scouting and recruiting violations demonstrate that Michigan failed to monitor its football program. Specifically, Michigan failed to create a culture of compliance in the football program and educate and monitor its football staff and interns. The panel concluded that this is a Level II violation of Bylaw 8.
As stated above, the relationship between Michigan’s football staff members and the compliance office was often challenging, tense and disrespectful. That atmosphere was due in large part to the culture fostered by Harbaugh. According to Michigan’s chief compliance officer, Harbaugh viewed her as “a thorn in his side.” At best, compliance was seen as a “roadblock,” and at worst, they were seen as the enemy “working against” the football staff from the inside. The culture was dysfunctional and fell short of the expectations of a Division I athletics program.
In addition to being unwelcoming towards Michigan’s compliance staff, the culture of compliance within the football program was not one that proactively identified and reported violations. Even when individuals raised concerns, those concerns never made it to the compliance staff. They were shut down within the program and/or individuals were encouraged to let concerns go. Again, as demonstrated by his approach with Stalions, Harbaugh’s promotion of compliance appears to have been minimal to nonexistent. Due to his lower-level analyst role, Stalions was able to operate a self-described “counterintelligence” operation in the football offices that was either embraced by the program or went largely unnoticed.
Compliance is a shared responsibility on campus. However, Michigan’s football program did not embrace that responsibility. Unfortunately for the compliance staff, Harbaugh’s football program had become impenetrable and unmanageable.
In reference to its interns, Michigan acknowledged that they were involved in the scouting scheme and did not receive targeted rules education. According to Michigan’s chief compliance officer, the interns had varying start and end dates and would “come and go” quite a bit, which made them difficult to keep track of. Accordingly, Michigan did not have any formal processes to identify educate and/or monitor its interns. Further, the chief compliance officer explained that the institution was targeting compliance education efforts towards other on-field staff members given the violations in Michigan’s previous case.
More broadly, the chief compliance officer noted that the football program was not proactively educating any of their staff members. Specifically, she stated that “I can’t think of [a] time when we scheduled a meeting at football’s request. I feel like it was pretty much always at our — like we were saying, hey, we’ve got to get in there, we’ve got to do some education.”
In this case, two interns involved in the scheme reported they were unsure whether their actions were permissible. Additionally, an intern who participated in impermissible campus tours in Michigan’s previous case has, once again, been involved in violations at the direction of full-time staff members. The overarching lack of education for interns is concerning—particularly in a program where staff have repeatedly shown their disregard for compliance and willingness to involve interns in their schemes.
Pursuant to Bylaw 19.1.3-(b), failure to monitor violations are presumed to be Level II unless the conduct is substantial or egregious. While aspects of this case are particularly troubling and could support a Level I violation, the panel strongly considered the appropriate balance of responsibility and with whom it most appropriately rests. Although Michigan acknowledged compliance shortcomings, the failures do not and should not rest with Michigan’s chief compliance officer or her staff. She faced an insurmountable challenge with Harbaugh and his football program, one in which she was never going to prevail. While not an excuse for the failure to monitor violation or the responsibility the institution shares in the violation, the Level I designation is more appropriate for the head coach responsibility violation. To be clear, more should have been done from an institutional leadership standpoint to provide Michigan’s chief compliance officer and her staff more support with the football program. However, based on the unique facts of this case, the panel concludes that Michigan’s failure to monitor violation is Level II.
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
Aggravating Factors for Michigan
Bylaw 19.12.3.1-(a): Multiple Level I and/or Level II violations for which the institution is responsible.
Bylaw 19.12.3.1-(d): Violations were premeditated, deliberate or committed after substantial planning.
Bylaw 19.12.3.1-(e): Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation or related wrongful conduct.
Bylaw 19.12.3.1-(g), A pattern of noncompliance within the involved sport program.
Bylaw 19.12.3.1-(i): Intentional, willful, or blatant disregard for NCAA bylaws by a person with institutionally derived authority.
Mitigating Factor for Michigan
Bylaw 19.12.4.1-(e): An established history of self-reporting Level III or secondary violations.
Aggravating Factors for Stalions
Bylaw 19.12.3.2-(a): Multiple Level I and/or multiple Level II violations.
Bylaw 19.12.3.2-(b): Failing or refusing to take all appropriate steps to advance resolution of the matter.
Bylaw 19.12.3.2-(c): Violations were premeditated, deliberate or committed after substantial planning.
Bylaw 19.12.3.2-(d): Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation or wrongful conduct.
Bylaw 19.12.3.2-(f): Conduct or circumstances demonstrating an abuse of a position of trust. Bylaw 19.12.3.2-(i): Intentional, willful or blatant disregard for NCAA bylaws.
Mitigating Factor for Stalions
Bylaw 19.12.4.2-(e): The absence of prior conclusions of Level I, Level II or major violations by the involved individual.
Aggravating Factors for Harbaugh
Bylaw 19.12.3.2-(a): Multiple Level I and/or multiple Level II violations.
Bylaw 19.12.3.2-(b): Failing or refusing to take all appropriate steps to advance resolution of the matter.
Bylaw 19.12.3.2-(g): A pattern of noncompliance within the involved sport program.
Mitigating Factors for Harbaugh
None.
Aggravating Factor for Moore
Bylaw 19.12.3.2-(b): Failing or refusing to take all appropriate steps to advance resolution of the matter.
Mitigating Factors for Moore
None.
Aggravating Factors for Partridge
None.
Mitigating Factors for Partridge
Bylaw 19.12.4.2-(e): The absence of prior conclusions of Level I, Level II or major violations by the involved individual.
Aggravating Factors for Robinson
Bylaw 19.12.3.2-(a): Multiple Level I and/or multiple Level II violations.
Bylaw 19.12.3.2-(b): Failing or refusing to take all appropriate steps to advance resolution of the matter.
Bylaw 19.12.3.2-(d): Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation or wrongful conduct.
Bylaw 19.12.3.2-(i): Intentional, willful or blatant disregard for NCAA bylaws.
Mitigating Factors for Robinson
Bylaw 19.12.4.2-(e): The absence of prior conclusions of Level I, Level II or major violations by the involved individual.
Penalties
1. Probation: Four years of probation from April 10, 2027, through April 9, 2031.
2. Postseason Competition Ban: None.
3. Financial Penalty: Michigan shall pay a financial penalty comprised of the following:
a. Pursuant to Bylaw 19.12.7.1 and Figure 19-1, a core financial penalty of $50,000 plus ten percent of the budget for the football program.
b. Pursuant to Bylaw 19.12.7.2 and Figure 19-1, an additional fine equivalent to the anticipated loss of all postseason competition revenue sharing associated with the 2025-26 and 2026-27 football seasons.
c. Pursuant to 19.12.7.2 and Figure 19-1, an additional fine equivalent to the cost of 10 percent of the scholarships awarded in Michigan’s football program for the 2025-26 academic year.
4. Recruiting Restrictions:
a. Michigan shall reduce official visits in the football program by 25 percent during the 2025-26 season.
b. Michigan shall prohibit recruiting communication in the football program for a period of 14 weeks across the term of probation.
5. Scholarship Reductions: None.
6. Show-Cause Order (Stalions): Stalions shall be subject to an eight-year show-cause order from August 15, 2025, through August 14, 2033.
7. Suspension (Stalions): Should Stalions become employed in an athletically related position at an NCAA member institution during the eight-year show-cause period, he shall be suspended from 100 percent of the first season of his employment.
8. Show-Cause Order (Harbaugh): Harbaugh shall be subject to a 10-year show-cause order from August 7, 2028, through August 6, 2038.
9. Suspension (Harbaugh): Should Harbaugh become employed in an athletically related position at an NCAA member institution during the 10-year show-cause period, he shall be suspended from 100 percent of the first season of his employment.
10. Show-Cause Order (Robinson): Robinson shall be subject to a three-year show-cause order from August 15, 2025, through August 14, 2028.
11. Suspension (Robinson): Should Harbaugh become employed in an athletically related position at an NCAA member institution during the three-year show-cause period, he shall be suspended from 100 percent of the first season of his employment.
12. Show-Cause Order (Moore): Moore shall be subject to a two-year show-cause order from August 15, 2025, through August 14, 2027.
13. Suspension (Moore): Michigan self-imposed a two-game suspension for Moore during the upcoming 2025-26 football season. The panel determines that, consistent with his Level II-Standard classification, a suspension for one additional game is appropriate. Therefore, Moore is also suspended for the first game of the 2026-27 season.
14. Public reprimand and censure.
For any questions, contact Christian Dennie at cdennie@denniefirm.com.
