Travis Kriens, KORN News Radio Sports Director
In the high-stakes world of college football, where millions of dollars, reputations, and legacies hang in the balance every Saturday, programs will always look for an edge. That’s the nature of competition. But when Michigan was hit with heavy penalties over sign-stealing allegations in 2023, it became clear that the NCAA and the Big Ten weren’t truly punishing an outlier. They were making an example out of the one who got too good at a game everyone plays.
Let’s be honest: Sign-stealing isn’t new, and it certainly isn’t unique to Michigan.
Across the sport, sign decoding has long been a part of coaching strategy. Teams study TV footage, review sideline camera angles, call former staffers, hire analysts just to break down signals, and even leave behind fake wristbands to bait the opponent. This isn’t conspiracy. it’s confirmed by countless coaches. NC State’s Dave Doeren said it plainly: “Everybody’s stealing signals on game day.” The only unwritten rule? Don’t get caught doing it in a way that technically breaks NCAA bylaws.
That’s where Michigan slipped, allegedly dispatching staff to scout opponents in person, violating NCAA rules against advanced in-person scouting. But let’s not confuse this with a crime against the integrity of the game. The punishment Michigan received wasn’t about fairness or sportsmanship. It was about optics. It was about perception. It was about political pressure from other programs that didn’t like losing and especially didn’t like losing to a program that might be better at playing the same behind-the-scenes chess game they were playing too.
Selective Enforcement Is the Real Issue
If the NCAA and the Big Ten are going to draw a line in the sand, they need to enforce it evenly. Yet across college football, there’s no shortage of stories about teams engaging in nearly identical, or worse behavior. From coaches recounting games where opponents had clearly cracked their codes, to stories of entire support staffs assigned to break signals for a full season’s worth of opponents, there is no moral high ground here.
Michigan wasn’t operating in a vacuum. It was participating in the sport’s under-the-radar arms race. If their approach crossed a technical line, the appropriate response should’ve been a clear rule change moving forward and a slap on the wrist. Not a mid-season suspension of a head coach and public shaming campaign fueled by rivals and media outrage.
The Hypocrisy of the Reaction
Let’s not forget the timing. Michigan had returned to national prominence, beating Ohio State, winning the Big Ten, and contending for national titles. That success didn’t sit well with many in the college football establishment. Suddenly, opponents who’d spent years watching Michigan struggle now found moral clarity once their longtime nemesis regained dominance.
It’s a tale as old as sports: When you’re winning, people start looking for reasons to tear you down.
There’s also a convenient amnesia when it comes to programs that may have benefitted from similar practices. Nobody seems to question how certain powerhouse teams have consistently sniffed out plays or defensive adjustments before the snap. Yet when Michigan’s staff allegedly got too systematic or sophisticated in their approach, the reaction was swift and disproportionate.
Bottom Line: Michigan Was Targeted, Not Protected
Michigan didn’t violate the spirit of the game, it violated an inconsistent rule enforced with selective outrage. Sign-stealing is as much a part of college football as the marching band and the tailgate. The problem wasn’t that Michigan tried to decode opponents. The problem was that Michigan did it well and that made enemies.
What Michigan deserved was clarity, not condemnation. Instead, they got a politically motivated penalty that ignored decades of widespread, accepted behavior. If we’re truly aiming for fairness, then every team playing this game in the shadows should be held to the same standard. Until then, Michigan’s punishment feels less like justice and more like jealousy.