The NCAA Bylaws prescribe four ways how alleged violations can be resolved. The highest and least desirable method is a full-blown hearing (trial) by the Committee On Infractions (COI), usually used for the most serious violations. The easiest and most frequently used resolution is a Negotiated Settlement (plea bargain).
Maybe negotiations are underway. Maybe the NCAA has evidence of more serious violations than the minor off-campus scouting bylaw. Maybe the NCAA is seeking settlement terms more punishing than Michigan feels appropriate. Or maybe the NCAA investigators actually want a COI Hearing. But wouldn't a Negotiated Settlement would be less damaging and more desirable than the constant, daily, drip-drip-drip of news which is not necessarily new or involving anyone other than a rogue low-level analyst, but keeps Michigan and Jim Harbaugh in the intense negative light of an unfriendly media publishing click-bait "news"?
Wouldn't agreeing to a settlement with more penalties than Michigan would like or feel appropriate permit the season to go on, where we will get good media coverage if the team performs as expected? Wouldn't settling permit us to go on and sign Jim Harbaugh to a healthy extension as both parties say is desirable? We probably wouldn't get everything we want in negotiating a settlement resulting from violations by lone wolf Connor Stalion breaking rules, but isn't that why they call it a negotiated settlement?
Or should we just buckle up, hope the public tires of reading "no new news" on Michigan sign-stealing, and let NCAA investigators continue to discover new violations to charge Michigan?