The NCAA’s football oversight committee has told everyone that Michigan’s 13-12 Week 1 win over Western Michigan “would have been different” if officiating protocols were followed, but it cannot do anything about it. The committee asserted Wednesday that it “does not have the authority to overturn the contest,” even as it acknowledged the call as made stood outside the proper process.
Michigan won after an officiating crew added one second back on the clock, which led to a 47-yard Hail Mary touchdown pass from Bryce Underwood to JJ Buchanan. The play capped a dramatic finish that decided the game in the Wolverines’ favor. But the call that put that second back on the clock was made without following the NCAA’s stated protocol, and now the governing body is on record saying the result would have been different if the rules had been applied correctly.
How the Call Was Made
The sequence unfolded in the final moments of the game. With time winding down, the officiating crew determined that a second needed to be restored to the clock. That decision allowed the ball to stay alive long enough for Underwood to find Buchanan for the winning score.
- The crew determined a second needed to be restored to the clock.
- The ball stayed alive long enough for Underwood to find Buchanan.
- Buchanan caught the 47-yard pass for the winning touchdown.
The Big Ten has since defended the call, claiming the officials got it right by choosing to add a second back to the clock. That determination is at odds with the FBS Oversight Committee’s conclusion.
The MAC’s Appeal
Western Michigan’s conference, the Mid-American Conference, is not letting the matter drop. The MAC filed a formal appeal with the NCAA’s FBS Oversight Committee and the College Football Playoff, asking both to recognize the Broncos as the winner. The request has not been met, and the committee’s public statement now stands as the official word on the matter.
The MAC’s position is straightforward: the Broncos believe they should have won the game, and they want the NCAA and the Playoff to agree. The appeal itself has forced the NCAA to address the issue publicly.
What the NCAA Says It Can’t Do
The NCAA’s football oversight committee made its position clear on Wednesday. It said the result “would have been different” if officiating protocols were followed, but it lacks the authority to overturn the contest. The distinction is important. The committee is acknowledging that the call as made was wrong, but it is also recognizing that its hands are tied.
Matt Young, the NCAA secretary rules-editor for football, issued guidance before Week 2 action on game timing protocols. He stated that timing decisions should be based on the “embedded game clock contained within the program feed.” Following that method would have meant no time was put back on the clock in the Michigan-Western Michigan game.
The committee’s statement does not specify what the difference would have been. It could mean a missed field goal, a timeout, or simply a different ending. What is clear is that the committee believes the game’s outcome was altered by a protocol violation.
The Official Record
The official record of the game shows Michigan winning 13-12. That record is not being changed by the NCAA’s statement. The committee’s acknowledgment of the protocol issue is separate from the result itself. The committee’s statement is an admission of a mistake, not a correction of it.
The Big Ten has also defended the call, claiming the officials got it right by adding a second back to the clock. The league’s position is that the call was made according to the rules as understood by the officials who made it. That defense is at odds with the NCAA’s conclusion, which suggests the call was made despite the rules, not because of them.
The Replay Review System
The Big Ten has enhanced replay review transparency during TV broadcasts. The league provides viewers live audio of discussions between field and replay officials paired with video footage. This system allows fans to hear the conversations that shape the final decision on a play.
The system was not mentioned in connection with the Michigan-Western Michigan game specifically. Its existence is noted here as part of the broader context of how the Big Ten handles replay reviews.
Who Is Protecting Whom
The NCAA’s statement leaves everyone with a question: what is protecting the call? The Big Ten defends the call, the committee admits the protocol was broken, and the MAC wants the game overturned. No one has authority to make that happen.
The NCAA’s position is that the committee can acknowledge a mistake but cannot undo it. That leaves the MAC with no path to relief through the NCAA. The MAC appealed to both the NCAA and the College Football Playoff, and the request has not been met.
The Big Ten’s position is that the call was made correctly by the officials on the field. That position is at odds with the NCAA’s conclusion, which suggests the call was made despite the rules, not because of them. The league’s defense of the call is a statement of confidence in its officiating, but it does not change the NCAA’s assessment.
What Happens Next
The NCAA has spoken, and the official record stands. Michigan won, and the game remains in the books as a 13-12 victory for the Wolverines. The MAC’s appeal has not been met, and the committee’s statement is the final word on the protocol issue.
The committee’s statement does not settle the controversy. It shifts it to a new channel: the question of whether the officials who made the call were acting within their authority. The Big Ten’s defense of the call is a statement of confidence in its officiating, but it does not change the NCAA’s assessment.
The NCAA’s statement is a recognition of a mistake, not a correction of it. The committee has acknowledged that the game’s outcome would have been different if the rules had been followed, but it has also made clear that it cannot undo the result. That leaves the Broncos with a loss they believe they should not have suffered, and the Wolverines with a win that carries the shadow of a protocol violation.
The controversy is not over. The MAC has appealed, the NCAA has responded, and the Big Ten has defended. Each side has made its case, and the record now reflects the committee’s assessment that the game “would have been different” if officiating protocols were followed.
The question of who is protecting the call remains unanswered. The Big Ten defends the call, the committee admits the protocol was broken, and the MAC wants the game overturned. No one has authority to make that happen. The NCAA’s statement is a recognition of a mistake, not a correction of it. The committee has acknowledged that the game’s outcome would have been different if the rules had been followed, but it has also made clear that it cannot undo the result.
The controversy is not over. The MAC has appealed, the NCAA has responded, and the Big Ten has defended. Each side has made its case, and the record now reflects the committee’s assessment that the game “would have been different” if officiating protocols were followed.
What remains unclear is whether the committee’s acknowledgment of the protocol violation will lead to any further action. The NCAA has spoken, and the official record stands. Michigan won, and the game remains in the books as a 13-12 victory for the Wolverines.
Where the paper stands
The paper backs the autonomy of college sports governance and is against any national office gathering power over how games are decided. The NCAA’s statement that it cannot overturn the Michigan-Western Michigan game is an admission of a protocol violation, not a correction of it. The committee has acknowledged the call as made was wrong, but it lacks the authority to undo the result.
This is the same principle the paper applies to technology regulation: when the biggest firms ask to be regulated, the paper asks who those rules would lock out. Here, the Big Ten defends the call, the MAC wants the game overturned, and the NCAA admits it cannot act — leaving everyone with no path to relief.
The NCAA’s hands-tied position mirrors the paper’s concern about concentrations of power. When an office writes its own authority, it locks out smaller interests, just as licensing regimes and compliance costs lock out startups from competing with giants. The NCAA’s statement is a recognition of a mistake, not a correction of it — a safeguard that protects nothing and serves no one.
See the video the story is built around at Cbssports.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.