Harbaugh prohibited from being on teams sidelines

[Patsfan1958]

 

[Pape]

hahaharbaugh... loser

 

[Triumph]

The NCAA just torpedoed Michigan from being in the Championship game.

The last 3 games are vs (9th) Penn State. Maryland and (3rd) Ohio State. Michigan has not faced a ranked opponent until now.

 

[catent]

Pats fans mocking a team/coach for coordinating a scheme to record/decipher signals in an attempt to gain a competitive advantage is the peak of hypocrisy. It's quite literally the same thing the Patriots did pre-2007. It's a piece of the puzzle, or "mosaic" as BB said. It's not meaningless but it's not the end-all-be-all by any means. I didn't give a **** when the Pats did it and I don't give a **** that Michigan did it.

Players still have to throw, catch, block, tackle, etc. Kickers, punters, and long-snappers still have to execute. And signals themselves can be changed, modified, altered ... there is no guarantee you get consistently good/reliable info from them. It's a potential advantage in certain situations, but it's not a silver-bullet, trump card, "auto-win" type of thing, either.

If you're OK with one but not the other, you're very openly saying that you judge rightness/wrongness not based on the action itself, but based on one's personal biases/allegiances.

 

[sb1]

Pats fans mocking a team/coach for coordinating a scheme to record/decipher signals in an attempt to gain a competitive advantage is the peak of hypocrisy. It's quite literally the same thing the Patriots did pre-2007.

No it’s not the same. This isn’t even about signals. It’s about advance scouting at games which is clearly against the rules and they did it anyway to cheat.

 

[catent]

I'll patiently wait for someone to explain to me how the Patriots recording signals is somehow different from Michigan (or anyone else) recording signals. For the sake of my life, I won't hold my breath.

And if one's argument is, "well, it's against the rules in the NCAA but not in the NFL", that's a load or horseshit. It's equivalent to saying it's legal to turn right on red in one place, but not the other, and then making some moral judgment about turning right at red lights based on the written law instead of the action itself. Lots of terrible things are technically legal, and a lot of harmless things are technically illegal. That's no basis for which to judge rightness/wrongness.

 

[catent]

No it’s not the same. This isn’t even about signals. It’s about advance scouting at games which is clearly against the rules and they did it anyway to cheat.

So it's not about the signals ... it's just about scouting? Huh. Scouting ... ? Like, preparing for a team, "scouting" them, is morally onerous? That's absolutely ****ing stupid.

You just described what every team does to prepare. They scout teams, their players, their tendencies, their formations, etc. That's a standard practice in competitive sports. Because they had someone doing it in-person (which is extremely common as far as I know), that's awful in your mind? That's ridiculous. And to then fallback on the written rule as justification for why it's wrong is also really stupid; by that logic, what the Pats/BB did was wrong because it violated a written rule. Tremendously dumb (and hypocritical).

FWIW, you could substitute your post as a boilerplate response to the Patriots actions. "They were recording from a prohibited location which is clearly against the rules and they did it anyway to cheat". ****ing stupid, all around.

 

[sb1]

Scouting ... ? Like, preparing for a team, "scouting" them, is morally onerous? That's absolutely ****ing stupid and you're dense as a rock if you really believe that. You just described what every team does to prepare. They scout teams, their players, their tendencies, their formations, etc. That's a standard practice in competitive sports.

So it's not about the signals ... it's just about scouting? Huh.

FWIW, you could substitute your post as a boilerplate response to the Patriots actions. "They were recording from a prohibited location which is clearly against the rules and they did it anyway to cheat". ****ing stupid, all around.

Funny how you forgot to read or more likely ignored the word “advance” in front of scouting. Look it up if you don’t know what that is.

It’s against NCAA rules. Period, full stop, end of discussion.

Not the same. Not even in the same ballpark.

 

[catent]

Funny how you forgot to read or more likely ignored the word “advance” in front of scouting. Look it up if you don’t know what that is.

It’s against NCAA rules. Period, full stop, end of discussion.

Not the same. Not even in the same ballpark.

All scouting is advanced scouting.

Scouting is performed before playing a team in order to prepare to play them. The "advanced" part is literally inherent to the practice; it's implied. There's no distinction.

 

[sb1]

All scouting is advanced scouting.

Scouting is performed before playing a team in order to prepare to play them. It's literally inherent to the practice.

Not when you are scouting by visiting an upcoming opponent’s game. That’s explicitly agaibst ncaa rules and they did it anyway and now there’s evidence the information that was collected was passed on to the UM football ops.

I don't see the connection between that and what the Pats did in 07 and before.

 

[catent]

Not when you are scouting by visiting an upcoming opponent’s game. That’s explicitly agaibst ncaa rules and they did it anyway and now there’s evidence the information that was collected was passed on to the UM football ops.

I don't see the connection between that and what the Pats did in 07 and before.

How would you feel about NFL teams sending scouts to upcoming opponents' games to scout in-person? I'll save you the trouble and tell you it's standard practice and happens ALL THE TIME. It's called scouting.

Do you think that's some horribly unfair, impermissible action? Or is it OK because it's not against NFL rules? You're either saying that every team in the history of sports who have scouted in-person are horrible cheaters, or you're saying you only judge an action based on the letter of the law.

If you weren't a Pats fan, you absolutely you would've been on the bandwagon calling them cheaters back in 2007, guaranteed.

 

[sb1]

How would you feel about NFL teams sending scouts to upcoming opponents' games to scout in-person? I'll save you the trouble and tell you it's standard practice and happens ALL THE TIME. It's called scouting.

Sure except it’s not forbidden by the NFL. It is in the NCAA. That’s what this scandal is all about not taping signals.

Do you think that's some horribly unfair, impermissible action? Or is it OK because it's not against NFL rules? You're either saying that every team in the history of sports who have scouted in-person are horrible cheaters, or you're saying you only judge an action based on the letter of the law.

I don’t see why one would think of it any other way.

If you weren't a Pats fan, you absolutely you would've been on the bandwagon calling them cheaters back in 2007, guaranteed.

Probably. But that’s because I wouldn’t have known any better.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I'll patiently wait for someone to explain to me how the Patriots recording signals is somehow different from Michigan (or anyone else) recording signals. For the sake of my life, I won't hold my breath.

[Science nerd] You can't kill yourself by holding your breath when there's enough oxygen around to breathe. Your body will knock you unconscious before that can happen.

 

[XLIX]

Pats fans mocking a team/coach for coordinating a scheme to record/decipher signals in an attempt to gain a competitive advantage is the peak of hypocrisy. It's quite literally the same thing the Patriots did pre-2007. It's a piece of the puzzle, or "mosaic" as BB said. It's not meaningless but it's not the end-all-be-all by any means. I didn't give a **** when the Pats did it and I don't give a **** that Michigan did it.

Players still have to throw, catch, block, tackle, etc. Kickers, punters, and long-snappers still have to execute. And signals themselves can be changed, modified, altered ... there is no guarantee you get consistently good/reliable info from them. It's a potential advantage in certain situations, but it's not a silver-bullet, trump card, "auto-win" type of thing, either.

If you're OK with one but not the other, you're very openly saying that you judge rightness/wrongness not based on the action itself, but based on one's personal biases/allegiances.

I said it 16 years ago and I will say it again today:

It is patently stupid that you can get in trouble for observing (and, yes, recording) a guy standing in plain view of 75,000 people during a game being broadcast nationwide.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Team seems to be rallying rather than spiraling. . . .

 

[BTTA]

How would you feel about NFL teams sending scouts to upcoming opponents' games to scout in-person? I'll save you the trouble and tell you it's standard practice and happens ALL THE TIME. It's called scouting.

Do you think that's some horribly unfair, impermissible action? Or is it OK because it's not against NFL rules? You're either saying that every team in the history of sports who have scouted in-person are horrible cheaters, or you're saying you only judge an action based on the letter of the law.

If you weren't a Pats fan, you absolutely you would've been on the bandwagon calling them cheaters back in 2007, guaranteed.

One difference is that what the Pats did is expressly made legal by the NFL, i.e. encouraged. The primary disagreement with the League was about whether they were going to use it at halftime to gain an edge; that part is illegal. Of course, the League had no evidence that the Pats were going to do that, so they made an assumption. The other, lesser aspect of it was that the Pats' camera person was a few yards closer than they were supposed to be. That's the entire case.

 

[sb1]

One difference is that what the Pats did is expressly made legal by the NFL, i.e. encouraged. The primary disagreement with the League was about whether they were going to use it at halftime to gain an edge; that part is illegal. Of course, the League had no evidence that the Pats were going to do that, so they made an assumption. The other, lesser aspect of it was that the Pats' camera person was a few yards closer than they were supposed to be. That's the entire case.

Exactly. What Josh did in Denver taping another team’s practice is a lot closer to this scandal than the Patriots in 2007. Or if the Patriots really taped that Rams walk though.

 

[sb1]

Wow I must have really triggered @Triumph … that or he’s still mad that the team has figured out his boi crappy zappy stinks like the morgue

 

[Patsfan1958]

 

[Patsfan1958]