Big Ten Suspends Jim Harbaugh: Assessing Michigan’s Fortunate Outcome After Tilted Playing Field


The expansive arena where the Wolverines football team competes is Michigan Stadium, a name that succinctly reflects the grandeur of the venue. Unlike other stadiums, it doesn’t bear the branding of a corporate sponsor or the name of a program legend, despite the myriad notable figures associated with Michigan football, ranging from Tom Harmon and Bo Schembechler to Desmond Howard and even someone named Brady.

This colossal stadium is the battleground for Jim Harbaugh, who directs the team through numerous autumn contests, unless disciplinary actions intervene. Harbaugh, though influential, doesn’t own the place; he merely steers the team. The significance of this fact becomes apparent when one considers that the team’s identity, represented by the iconic helmets and six-figure crowds, transcends any individual, including the head coach.

Limiting the “SignalGate” scandal solely to Harbaugh is overly restrictive. It extends beyond the coach to encapsulate the essence of Michigan football—the collective responsibility of those involved in running the team, both on and off the field. Even the enigmatic figure who resigned from the UM staff contributes to the narrative.


The Big Ten’s decision to suspend Harbaugh from coaching until the end of the regular season is a step in the right direction, but it falls slightly short. To rectify the advantages gained through illicit in-person scouting, a more comprehensive sideline suspension, extending beyond just the head coach, would have been justified. With three crucial games left, including showdowns against Penn State and Ohio State, a broader suspension would have more effectively balanced the scales.

Connor Stalions, the staff member central to the controversy, emphasized in his resignation that no one, including Harbaugh, instructed any rule-breaking. However, acknowledging guilt isn’t necessary to recognize the unfair disadvantage imposed on Michigan’s opponents. A proportional remedy, disadvantaging the Wolverines for a similar period, would address this imbalance.

While Harbaugh may not be the primary play-caller for the offense or defense, his absence on game day will pose challenges for crucial decisions. However, merely sidelining him may not be sufficient. The Big Ten should have extended the suspension to the offensive and defensive coordinators to more equitably address the advantages gained by Michigan during Stalions’ activities.

Michigan’s focus on the alleged rapidity of the investigation and threats of court action are disappointing, especially as the team approaches the culmination of a successful season. The Big Ten, supported by a 13-page document citing evidence, acted in accordance with its Sportsmanship Policy to assign a punishment promptly.

Despite Michigan’s complaints, the league’s punishment could have been more severe, possibly leading to ineligibility for the Big Ten Championship game. Concerns about the impact on current players should be weighed against the potential disruption caused by their head coach’s absence during crucial games.

This scandal differs from typical college athletics issues, as it involves the active manipulation of fair competition. The focus should not solely be on Harbaugh’s involvement; instead, it’s a unique challenge to the integrity of the sport itself. Barring Harbaugh from short-term involvement is a warranted but not entirely sufficient punishment for the extent of the transgressions.