Further details have been released via ESPN on Monday in regards to how deep Connor Stalions' involvement in alleged in-person scouting violations goes.
While on the face of it, the optics aren't great at all. However, we're still left with just as many questions and very few answers less than a week after the news broke.
It's now being learned that Stalions purchased tickets for over 30 games in a three-year span for opponents on the Wolverines' schedule. Some tickets were transferred to three people in different areas of the country. The NCAA is also expected to receive video evidence of illegal technology being used to record teams in the seats that Stalions purchased.
Again, on the face of it, this is damning evidence.
However, there are still so many questions that need to be answered before we truly know how deep any of this goes.
Let's go over them.
Who funded the tickets?
The question comes down to who funded these tickets over the years.
If Stalions acted alone in purchasing them, that gives U-M plausible deniability in all of this, where you can make the argument that Stalions was running a lone-wolf operation and the program had zero knowledge of his operation.
The paper trail, if any, will be the telling evidence in this case.
If there's evidence of anyone higher up in the university paying for these tickets or giving a reimbursement to Stalions, now you're starting to tread in deeper waters.
What does the video evidence show?
The other part of the equation is the alleged video evidence that will be turned into the NCAA.
What does this video show?
If Stalions is filmed at any games himself, then you have the smoking gun that could implicate the program further if the NCAA wanted to. You also have to consider who was going to the games if Stalions wasn't there himself. If it were anyone not associated with the program, then you have some gray area to dissect within a vague NCAA ruling.
Some random person in a seat not linked to Michigan filming a sideline is a harder argument to make compared to a Michigan staffer filming an opposing sideline.
The video could be the evidence that could make or break U-M's case.
How does vague wording impact potential punishments and what does it look like?
There's a difference between clearly breaking the rules and breaking the spirit of the rules and the game. Which one does this case fall under? It depends on the evidence found and how deep this may or may not go.
Because there are no clearly defined wording when it comes to the in-person scouting rules, there are still so many loopholes the program could punch through when it comes to a potential argument.
Obviously, if there is damning evidence to suggest that the program was aware and he was clearly scouting these teams himself, you won't be able to talk your away out of it.
To add, there isn't an associated punishment linked to the rule, so what does a punishment look like depending on what the evidence suggests? That's another question that needs to be answered.
In short, if there is clear evidence that U-M broke the rules, then it goes without saying that punishment needs to be taken and accountability needs to be had.
If it's proven that Stalions acted alone throughout the whole process, you're talking about someone losing their job and a lengthy show clause established in the process.
Until then, we're still left with more questions than we do answers and it doesn't appear that we will know how this one ends any time soon.
---
Discuss this article with our community on our premium message boards
Not a subscriber to Maize & Blue Review? Sign up today to gain access to all the latest Michigan intel M&BR has to offer
Follow our staff on Twitter: @JoshHenschke, @Berry_Seth14, @TrevorMcCue, @DennisFithian, @BrockHeilig, @JimScarcelli, @lucasreimink
Subscribe to our podcasts: Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts and Spotify
Check out Maize & Blue Review's video content on YouTube
Follow Maize & Blue Review on social media: Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, and Instagram
