The NCAA issued a Notice of Allegations to Central Michigan in late June over its connection to the Michigan sign-stealing scandal involving Connor Stalions.
In late June, Central Michigan University found itself pulled deeper into one of college football’s most controversial and far-reaching scandals in recent memory. The NCAA formally issued a Notice of Allegations to the university, tying it directly to the Michigan sign-stealing investigation centered around former Michigan staffer Connor Stalions. What began as whispers and speculation has now materialized into formal accusations, placing CMU in the national spotlight and demanding serious introspection about its role, oversight, and accountability in the unfolding scandal.
The origins of the controversy trace back to Stalions, a low-level analyst on the Michigan football staff who quickly gained notoriety for allegedly masterminding an elaborate and unauthorized sign-stealing operation. According to multiple reports and confirmed by investigations, Stalions is believed to have attended games of Michigan opponents in disguise, filming sidelines and gathering signals that would later be decoded and used by Michigan in future matchups. This goes beyond the typical in-game deciphering of signals—this was advanced reconnaissance, and it allegedly violated multiple NCAA rules about off-campus scouting and use of technology.
The most bizarre twist, and the one that directly entangles Central Michigan, occurred when photographic and video evidence surfaced showing someone strongly resembling Stalions on the sidelines during CMU’s season opener against Michigan State. That game took place on September 1, 2023, and Central Michigan had no immediate explanation for how the individual, wearing team-issued gear and a credential, ended up on their sideline. The man wore sunglasses—at night—along with a hat and a clipboard. Upon closer inspection of the footage, many believed it to be Stalions, though at the time, no official confirmation was offered by CMU or Michigan.
As questions mounted, Central Michigan launched its own internal investigation, while also cooperating with the NCAA and Big Ten inquiries. Their coaching staff, including head coach Jim McElwain, expressed surprise and concern. McElwain publicly stated that he did not recognize the individual and was unaware of how he got on the field. Still, skepticism lingered. For someone to gain sideline access at a Division I football game typically requires team approval, or at the very least, a network of connections that allows credentialing. The situation begged the question: was this a rogue operation, or were there people inside Central Michigan—knowingly or not—who facilitated Stalions’ access?
The Notice of Allegations issued in June suggests that the NCAA has found enough preliminary evidence to allege rule violations on the part of CMU. While the full details of the notice have not yet been publicly released, sources indicate that the allegations include failure to monitor sideline access, lack of institutional control, and potentially allowing an individual not associated with the program to pose as a staff member or credentialed guest. This puts CMU in precarious territory. Even if they didn’t actively participate in the scheme, negligence and lapses in oversight can still result in significant penalties under NCAA guidelines.
This moment is a major test for Central Michigan’s athletic department and its leadership. For a school that has long operated in the shadow of Power Five programs, especially those like Michigan just down the road, the scandal has created a crisis of credibility. It’s no longer just about the MAC, or about a September matchup with a regional rival—it’s about how the program conducts itself on a national stage, and whether it’s capable of enforcing boundaries and standards that prevent such a breach from occurring.
One of the more troubling aspects of this story is the access that Stalions allegedly enjoyed. If indeed it was him on the sidelines, then the issue is not just sign-stealing but impersonation, deception, and willful circumvention of access controls at a Division I event. The presence of someone in team gear, holding a credential, and mingling with coaches and staff raises serious questions about security and the processes involved in game-day operations. Who issues credentials? Who verifies the identity of those granted access? How many others may have seen him and failed to raise alarms?
Some reports have indicated that Stalions may have had connections within the CMU program, or at the very least, used relationships with former colleagues or acquaintances to secure his presence. The NCAA will undoubtedly investigate those ties, and Central Michigan is expected to provide complete transparency. Regardless of the intent, whether malicious or merely careless, the appearance of impropriety has already done damage. Perception is powerful in college sports, especially when it comes to integrity, and CMU is now fighting to repair its image.
The fallout from the Michigan sign-stealing scandal has already been far-reaching. Michigan head coach Jim Harbaugh served a suspension as a result of the school’s own internal discipline process tied to other NCAA violations, and the Wolverines have faced immense scrutiny during and after their national championship season. But Central Michigan’s entanglement represents something different. This isn’t just about a staffer pushing boundaries to gain a competitive edge—this is about another institution potentially being used as a vehicle to carry out that operation.
If the allegations against Central Michigan are substantiated, the NCAA could levy sanctions ranging from fines to scholarship reductions or even postseason bans. More importantly, it would signify a broader failure in intercollegiate collaboration, security, and institutional responsibility. For many, the scandal illustrates the growing complexity of modern college football, where surveillance, analytics, and gamesmanship blur the lines between strategy and cheating. The presence of a non-affiliated operative on a sideline brings those tensions to the forefront.
The university now faces a critical inflection point. It must determine how to respond publicly, how to discipline internally, and how to insulate itself against future vulnerabilities. The athletic department, coaching staff, and university leadership must conduct a thorough review not just of what went wrong in that one game, but of the entire system that allowed such a lapse to occur. It’s not enough to say they didn’t know—because institutional control demands that they should have known.
To many CMU fans and alumni, the news has been disheartening. A program built on grit and regional pride has been dragged into a scandal it never asked for. Yet, this is also an opportunity for Central Michigan to prove its commitment to integrity. How it handles the NCAA’s allegations—whether through cooperation, self-imposed penalties, or transparent communication—will shape how the school is perceived not just in the MAC, but across the country.
The incident has also reignited broader discussions about NCAA rules and enforcement. Sign-stealing, while not illegal in its basic form, becomes problematic when it involves unauthorized scouting and electronic recording. The Michigan case, and CMU’s potential role within it, underscores how far some programs or individuals are willing to go for a competitive edge—and how ill-prepared others may be to detect and stop it.
For now, the spotlight remains squarely on Mount Pleasant. The Notice of Allegations is a formal declaration by the NCAA that Central Michigan has questions to answer and responsibilities to address. The months ahead will involve hearings, statements, possibly more evidence, and certainly a lot of introspection. It’s a complicated and frustrating moment for a program that has never courted controversy but now finds itself at the center of one.
And so, the story continues to unfold. While the college football world prepares for another season, Central Michigan prepares for accountability. What started as a mystery man in sunglasses has evolved into a test of transparency, control, and ethics. The outcome remains to be seen, but the message is already clear: even the smallest lapse in oversight can open the door to consequences far beyond the field.
