What the Big Ten told Michigan in its letter announcing Jim Harbaugh's suspension

“We impose this disciplinary action even though the Conference has not yet received any information indicating that Head Football Coach Harbaugh was aware of the impermissible nature of the sign-stealing scheme,” Pettiti and the Big Ten wrote. “This is not a sanction of Coach Harbaugh. It is a sanction against the University that, under the extraordinary circumstances presented by this offensive conduct, best fits the violation because: (1) it preserves the ability of the University’s football student-athletes to continue competing; and (2) it recognizes that the Head Coach embodies the University for purposes of its football program.”

“As described below, the existence of the impermissible scheme is proven,” the Big Ten said. “While other investigatory bodies continue to develop additional evidence of the scope, extent and individual knowledge of the scheme that may advise additional or enhanced penalties in the future, taking immediate action is appropriate and necessary under the Conference’s Sportsmanship Policy.”

“It is rare and outside the NCAA’s typical protocols for the NCAA to disclose information about an active investigation to institutions other than the institution under investigation. However, the NCAA stated and believed that the disclosure was necessary due to the unprecedented scope of the then-alleged scheme, and because of the significant impact the impermissible scheme could have on competition during the current football season. It was also extraordinary that the NCAA president arranged for and participated in the call, underscoring not only the severity of the allegations but the immediate impacts. All of these circumstances were a clear statement from the NCAA that the nature and reliability of the evidence they had received indicated that the improper scheme relating to the University’s football team was ongoing and created a substantial risk of compromising the integrity of football competitions this season. At that point, the University’s football team had played seven games this season and had five more regular-season games remaining.”

“The University football team staff member engaged in an organized and extensive in-person, off campus advance scouting scheme, and that the staff member was in close communications with at least some of the coaches on the University’s football team.”

“In light of this information, the NCAA informed the University and me that the existence of the impermissible scheme by this University football staff member was ‘uncontroverted,’" the letter said. “The NCAA indicated that it was continuing its investigation to determine, among other things, who else knew about and/or was involved in the scheme.”

“For instance, the University argued that a rule authorizing the Conference to impose additional penalties after an NCAA investigation based on the final results of that investigation actually prohibited the Conference from enforcing an entirely different rule (the Sportsmanship Policy) anytime the NCAA was conducting an investigation — even though the rule in question does not say anything of the sort. Finally, the University argued that it believed it had evidence of other Conference members engaging in impermissible in-person sign-stealing, and therefore urged the Conference to ‘act cautiously’ — essentially an argument that violations of the Sportsmanship Rule should be overlooked if ‘everyone is doing it.’”

“I have concluded that the University engaged in the impermissible scheme resulting in unfair games on unequal terms and compromised player safety,” the letter states. “Nothing offends the integrity of competition more than attempting to gain an unfair advantage through impermissible means. It does not matter whether the NCAA ultimately finds that violations of its rules occurred, though it has already communicated to the Conference that the fact of the impermissible scheme is uncontroverted. The Sportsmanship Policy applies to any conduct that affects the 'integrity of competition.' Such conduct undoubtedly occurred here.”

“As the University readily admits in its response, it does not know the exact methods that it alleges other teams used to decode its own signs,” the Big Ten wrote. “The Conference has not received any information that any other member schools engaged in impermissible advance in-person scouting, let alone a scheme of the size and scale like the one at issue here. The Conference is unaware of any active NCAA investigations into impermissible advance scouting involving other members of the Conference. Should the Conference become aware of such impermissible conduct, it will take appropriate action. However, the Conference vehemently rejects any defense by the University or any other Conference member that cheating is acceptable because other teams do it too.”