This post is only the conference's options. The NCAA has its own rules. Michigan can impose its own sanctions, as it did in suspending head coach Jim Harbaugh for three games to start this season. Conference coaches and athletic directors however think that the NCAA's processes are too slow and that the conference must impose some discipline on Michigan during the current season.
I would like to break down the B1G's options.
The B1G commissioner is limited in the sanctions that he can impose unilaterally to 1) a fine of $10,000 and 2) a suspension of offending individuals of two games (10.3.3 below). Sanctions more severe must be approved by the B1G executive board of presidents (10.3.3.2).
You read reporting that the gravamen of the B1G policy is to prohibit a school's team from gaining a "competitive advantage" over opponents. That may be the spirit but the phrase "competitive advantage" is not mentioned in the B1G's Sportsmanship Agreement Policy:AGREEMENT 10. SPORTSMANSHIP POLICY (Adopted 1974; revised 1991; 1995; 2000; revised 6/2/13 & effective 8/1/13; revised 1/12/22)
10.01 General Purpose and Scope. The Big Ten Conference expects all contests involving a member institution to be conducted without compromise to any fundamental element of sportsmanship. Such fundamental elements include integrity of the competition, civility toward all, and respect, particularly toward opponents and officials. Accordingly, each member institution, through the actions of the individuals or groups of individuals listed in Agreement 10.1.1 below, has an obligation to behave in a way that does not offend the elements of sportsmanship described above. Actions that are offensive to the integrity of the competition, actions that offend civility, and actions of disrespect are subject to review and are punishable in accordance with the terms of this policy.
To a lawyer, that is really vague: "any" fundamental element of sportsmanship; "includes" but is not limited to "integrity of competition".
The commissioner would decide whether Michigan's sign stealing is "offensive" to one fundamental element, the "integrity of the competition" He would look, among other places, to NCAA rules. He would consider that sign stealing during games is permitted by the NCAA. The commissioner would consider that the NCAA does ban remote scouting of future opponents. Michigan did that, "elaborately", and did so to steal opponents' signals. By conference by-laws these are the factors the commissioner "may" consider:
10.2.3 Factors that may be Considered when Deciding upon Disciplinary Action. In deciding whether to impose disciplinary action, factors to be considered by the Commissioner may include, but shall not be limited to, the following: a) the general nature or severity of the offensive action b) any injury or damage that results directly from the offensive action c) the manner in which the offensive action fits within the context of the rules of the game for the sport at issue d) any action taken or imposed in accordance with the applicable rules of the game (e.g., actions taken by game officials) e) the response of and/or any action taken by the involved member institution(s) f) the response of and/or any action taken by any other entity that may have jurisdiction over the offensive action (e.g., law enforcement) g) any prior offensive action(s) as contemplated within this policy
More squish. The commissioner may or may not consider those factors. He "shall not" be limited to those factors.
The B1G commissioner would decide whether Michigan's elaborate sign stealing scheme was "offensive" to the "integrity of the competition". One metric would be the outcomes of Michigan games in which sign stealing was proven to have occurred. On that point,
The most powerful message, according to sources familiar with the call, came from Michigan State athletic director Alan Haller. He mentioned the alterations Michigan State needed to undergo in order to prepare for its Oct. 21 game against Michigan after receiving a call Wednesday of that game week about Michigan having Michigan State's signals.
Making "alterations" is what coaches do. Michigan State made the necessary "alterations", Michigan won the game 49-0. In this lawyer's judgment, to a standard of beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt, Michigan's sign stealing did not affect the integrity of the Michigan State competition as measured by the metric of outcome of game.
Michigan won its other games by scores of 30-3, 35-7, 31-6, 31-7, 45-7, 52-10. By the same standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, on the metric of game outcome, on the policy of "integrity of the competition", Michigan did not violate conference policy.
Also on this point, the B1G commissioner would consider the remarks of, among others, Deion Sanders that a coach could have an opponent's entire playbook mailed to him and, "you still have to stop them". No team, whether with "alterations" or without, has come close to stopping Michigan this season.
Haller worried about players potentially getting hurt because Michigan players, in theory, knew where they'd be going on plays.
To the undersigned, that is rank speculation that should play no part in the B1G commissioner's evaluation of Michigan's conduct.
To this lawyer, the B1G commissioner would be reasonable in finding that Michigan’s sign stealing “offended” the elements of sportsmanship, that it was “offensive” to the “integrity” of competition (although having no effect on the outcome of competition), that the conduct was a “standard", not “major” offense, and that the proper punishment by the B1G would be a "standard" $10,000 fine, the suspension of head coach Jim Harbaugh and his offensive and defensive coordinators for two games.
