On the eve of the Michigan football vs. Maryland game in 2023, there was a buzz that something was about to happen to the Wolverines coaching staff, exactly one week after Jim Harbaugh was summarily suspended by the Big Ten according to its sportsmanship policy. The latter came as a result of a campaign by coaches and athletic directors around the conference as the Connor Stalions saga was just starting to infiltrate the college football landscape.
And then a bombshell: then-Michigan linebackers coach Chris Partridge had allegedly instructed a student-athlete to lie to NCAA investigators and then destroyed crucial evidence. If that was the case, it was certainly a warranted firing.
According to The Michigan Insider’s Sam Webb ($), Partridge, “Advised some of the players on what to say (to investigators) about their interaction with Stallions. One or more of the players told investigators (what Partridge instructed them to do). When Michigan found out, they reacted with immediate termination. So it wasn’t involvement in the scheme itself, but it was an attempt to quell suspicion.”
Yahoo Sports’ Dan Wetzel and Ross Dellenger also reported that, “Partridge is not alleged at this time of knowing about the advanced scouting by Stalions, but acted after the fact to cover up evidence.” The covering up of evidence, according to Wetzel and Dellenger, involved the, “Destruction of evidence on a computer after the scandal broke.”
But as it turns out, according to the NCAA’s findings, that account turned out to be wholly inaccurate, and it found no wrongdoing whatsoever.
Finally, on November 14, 2023, Partridge had two exchanges with student-athlete 1. Specifically,student-athlete 1 had an upcoming interview related to the investigation and sought out Partridgefor advice on the interview process. The first exchange occurred prior to practice, when studentathlete 1 announced to Partridge and a group of about five other student-athletes that he was beinginterviewed the following day. Partridge stated that student-athlete 1 then followed Partridge intohis office to ask for advice about the interview. During that exchange, Partridge suggested thatstudent-athlete 1 retain counsel and talk to his father. Partridge said that student-athlete 1 thenasked if they could talk again later. In support of this account, Partridge submitted an affidavitfrom one of the other student-athletes who was present in the room.
Following practice, Partridge said he received a text from student-athlete 1 stating that he waswaiting in Partridge’s office. Partridge walked by his office and told student-athlete 1 to walk withhim and talk. Student-athlete 1 gave Partridge a summary of the conversation with his father, andPartridge reiterated that he thought student-athlete 1should get a lawyer, then they parted ways. Inaddition to the affidavit, Partridge’s account of the interactions is closely supported by camerafootage from around the facility.
The NCAA had also alleged that he had improperly contacted recruits, held improper workouts, and also gave out gear improperly. While it did say that he had some improper contact (a Level II violation), the rest of what was alleged did not happen.
More via the NCAA report:
The NOA alleged additional violations for Partridge, including: (1) arranging and conductingimpermissible tryouts with prospects; (2) providing an impermissible inducement to a prospect;and (3) failing to cooperate during and after his employment at Michigan. The recruitingallegations were presented as Level II. The failure to cooperate allegations were presented asLevel I. Partridge disputed each of the allegations. The panel concludes that the case record doesnot demonstrate that these violations occurred.
Impermissible TryoutsThe enforcement staff alleged that Partridge conducted impermissible tryouts with prospects onfour occasions during the spring and summer of 2023. Three of those alleged tryouts consisted ofindividual workouts with prospect 1 at Michigan’s practice facilities. The other alleged tryout wasa group workout on Michigan’s practice field.
Across his interviews with the enforcement staff, prospect 1 stated that he engaged in multipleindividual workouts with Partridge. However, some of prospect 1’s statements were unclear, andhe seemed to have trouble recalling the total number of workouts that may have occurred.
Partridge consistently denied conducting any individual workouts and suggested that prospect 1could have been referring to other, permissible interactions. Specifically, Partridge gave prospect1’s stepfather “film drills” to run and worked on technique with prospect 1 while watching film inPartridge’s office. Moreover, at the hearing, Partridge recalled that prospect 1 attended camps atMichigan in May and/or June, during which he and Partridge would have interacted.
Notably, the panel considered several text exchanges between Partridge and prospect 1 referencingworking out. During those conversations, Partridge made statements about needing “to do that inthe summer” because there were “[t]oo many people around now.” He also encouraged prospect1 to visit in May and June 2023 so they could “do some more ball” and “talk [football] and train.”At the hearing, Partridge explained that, although several of the text exchanges indicatedPartridge’s interest in working out with prospect 1, his messages were crafted in an attempt to pushoff the workouts until football camps started at Michigan in May and June. In that way, Partridgewas attempting to be responsive to prospect 1, while still complying with tryout legislation. Thepanel is persuaded by Partridge’s account of these events.
The panel is also persuaded by Partridge’s explanation of Michigan’s BBQ at the Big House Camp.All three prospects were registered camp attendees, and the timing of the workout appeared toalign with a scheduled camp activity.34 In light of Partridge’s arguments, the panel does notconclude that any individual or group workouts constituted violations.
Impermissible Recruiting InducementsThe enforcement staff alleged that, on one occasion, Partridge walked prospect 1 to the equipmentroom to receive gear. As addressed previously, Michigan disputed that prospect 1 received anygear from football staff members. Partridge also denied that he provided any gear to prospect 1,other than a camp T-shirt given to all attendees of the BBQ at the Big House Camp.
In prospect 1’s interview with the enforcement staff, he did not initially mention that Partridgeprovided him gear. After being asked multiple times, prospect 1 stated that Partridge, as well asClinkscale, each walked him to the equipment room on one occasion. The record contains a photoof Partridge and prospect 1, with prospect 1 holding the camp T-shirt.
Although the panel concludes that the other inducements are sufficiently supported by informationin the record, the panel does not believe that there is sufficient information to conclude thatPartridge directly provided or assisted in providing prospect 1 with an impermissible inducementin the form of gear.
There are certainly some questions that should be raised. First, who was the player who alleged that Partridge instructed him to lie to the NCAA when it turned out that that wasn’t the case? Also, what did Michigan know (or in this case, how was the athletic department deceived) through the process that resulted in Partridge’s dismissal? Also, why did the program note in Partridge’s firing that he’s not eligible for rehire when the facts had yet to be determined?
Back on November 7, 2023, Partridge released a statement denying wrongdoing, indicating he was being railroaded — which now looks prescient given the NCAA’s findings:
Unfortunately, the manner in which the termination of my employment and my role as a Coach at Michigan has been reported is inaccurate and has resulted in people speculating and making assumptions about my knowledge of, and connection to, the sign-stealing allegations within the football program. I want to be clear: I had no knowledge whatsoever of any in-person or illegal scouting, or illegal sign stealing. Additionally, at no point did I destroy any evidence related to an ongoing investigation.
Partridge has been a coach with the Seattle Seahawks the past two years and doesn’t appear to have interest, as of current, of returning to the college game. What’s more, the once-favored son in Ann Arbor who had helped Jim Harbaugh from his first year until 2023 — minus a couple of years at Ole Miss — was railroaded for what ended up being no reason.
It will be interesting to see if we ever learn who was behind the purported lie that lost him his job in Ann Arbor.
#NCAA #clears #Michigans #Chris #Partridge #signgate #probe