There is a theory going around that UM accepted the game suspension and cancelled the TRO because there was a risk of admitting the wrong doing under oath. I'm curious if that theory holds water. The TRO was about the process, not the facts of the investigation. Whether Michigan was cheating seems immaterial to their argument that the Big 10 was acting prematurely.
A counter-theory would be that judges don't generally like getting involved in affairs of voluntary organizations. Is it also possible Michigan was anticipating losing the injunction and Big 10 offered a deal to limit their scope to the regular season punishment?
A counter-theory would be that judges don't generally like getting involved in affairs of voluntary organizations. Is it also possible Michigan was anticipating losing the injunction and Big 10 offered a deal to limit their scope to the regular season punishment?
