Exploring perks, pitfalls of play signaling tech in college football

In less than two weeks, sign stealing and sideline communications in college football have become central talking points of the 2023 college football season, spurred on by the ongoing Michigan sign-stealing scandal. 

And while the particulars of that case continue to come into focus, questions and opinions about the use (or lack thereof) of technology to communicate plays from sidelines — similar to that of the NFL — have been plentiful. There are a handful of factors that have played a part in preventing widespread adoption of play-signaling tech in college football, from questions about disparate resources for acquiring and operating such technology to issues around liability. 

Dozens of coaches have said publicly in the weeks since the Michigan scandal broke that they’d like to see a shift to some sort of technology to communicate plays. Several people around college football who spoke with On3 also believe that adoption of some form of signal technology has become something of an inevitability at this point. 

A test run of play signaling technology will be happening this bowl season in the non-playoff bowl games, The Athletic reported last week, as a number of technologies are on the table going forward.

“The companies that are selling the helmets at the collegiate level have been selling that same helmet at the pro level with the device in. So they’re familiar with it. They understand how that works,” said Mike Oliver, the executive director and legal counsel for the National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE). 

NOCSAE is the body tasked with creating the testing methods and acceptable parameters for sports equipment of all stripes.

Liability concerns are a current rate limiter

One of the main hold ups over applying helmet communications is the issue of liability. Basically, in the NFL, players have forgone the ability to sue teams or helmet manufacturers for potential shortcomings of failures. 

Instead an NFL player, as an employee, can take recourse either through a league grievance policy or arbitration. As college football players remain non-employees (for the time being), there’s no such shield from liability for helmet makers. Were there to be a failure of some add-on technology that caused physical harm, a helmet maker and firm responsible for the tech could come under unwanted legal scrutiny.

Because of liability issues, one Big Ten program staffer — who remained anonymous to discuss this freely — who manages coaching communications on game days suspects other technology, like a Pitchcom-esque wristband, could become en vogue. Those devices would still need to pass muster for holding up on the field of play, but face a lower threshold as they’re not altering a key piece of safety equipment.

Given the lack of troubles with helmet communications systems in the NFL, Oliver suspects college football programs would have a similarly smooth experience. He explained that helmets, once the tech is added, get run through the NOCSAE testing anew as they’re considered an entirely new piece of equipment. 

The most likely problem for a helmet radio (beyond failing to function), Oliver said, is a whole unit somehow getting dislodged from a helmet and becoming a loose object amid a play — but even that seemed remote to Oliver. 

This is, in part, because the companies making the devices and helmet have plenty of incentive to make sure it works safely.

“This fear of getting sued or this fear of somebody getting hurt using your product does drive companies to make the right decision. And it’s more so I think maybe in sports, especially in the collegiate pro level, because if it happens, everybody in the world knows about it,” Oliver said.

Other practical benefits, pitfalls

One FBS coach, who spoke to On3 on the condition of anonymity to discuss these issues, said his staff spends an “inordinate” amount of time dealing with signals. He’d be happy to leave all that comes with it in the past, even if he’s not entirely sold on play signaling tech.

On top of spending time creating, teaching and using signals — now an ordeal usually involving multiple staffers blocking cards from TV cameras — staffs have to then spend time on the back end trying to suss out which signals have been burned. This coach remarked how he gets reminded not to stand by the signalers on his sidelines, so as to not show the signal cards on TV if the cameras cut to him on the sideline. It’s something he’d rather not have to think about on game days.

There is the issue of cost, too, but Oliver doesn’t think that will be prohibitive, ultimately. Teams would likely only be allowed one player on the field at a time with some form of play signaling tech, similar to the NFL’s rules around green dot players. As such, Oliver explained, teams only need a handful of units for the play signal tech, be it helmets, wristbands, or something else. 

“It may add an unnecessary layer of expense, but the concern about bringing a product to market whose sole purpose is to provide a level of protection, a level of protection in an environment that is really demanding, it’s a legitimate concern. The good news is — and I think it’s just a function of how long this has been going on — but the likelihood of a device like this injuring somebody, under the certification process that we require, I think, is really extremely remote,” Oliver said.

On top of paying for the equipment itself, it would then become the job of some neutral party — likely a game official of sorts — to monitor both teams systems to ensure they’re being used within the rules. 

And while there’s overhead on the operational side of play signal technology, it’s likely coming while any number of football program staffers come free from spending so much time absorbed in the world of signals.