Leak and insider review.
When something inside the building got out.
When information left the building that was never public, Smilodon maps how it actually moved, reviews access and interviews the people who handle it as colleagues rather than suspects, and writes the most probable paths and the remedies without naming anyone. Two to four days on campus, from $8,000. It is never surveillance, monitoring or investigation of a client's own people.
- Format
- Two to four days on campus, interviews and document review
- Audience
- The staff who handle the information in question
- From
- $8,000
- Never
- Surveillance, monitoring or investigation of a client's own people
What the engagement covers.
Information appeared outside the building that was never public: a personnel decision in the press before the team meeting, an injury known to a rival, a recruiting target called by another school the day after the board was updated. The review establishes who had access, how the information moved, and what to change.
- A map of how the information actually moved: who held it, in what form, on which devices and drives, and who else was on the thread.
- Interviews with the people who handle it, conducted as colleagues, not suspects.
- An access review: keys, credentials, shared drives, group messages, and former staff still on any of them.
- A written account of the most probable paths, usually several, and the habits that opened each.
- Remedies the department can make the same week, without naming anyone.
This is a review of access and process. It is not surveillance of staff, and the firm does not read anyone's messages or monitor anyone's accounts. Should the department decide that an investigation of an individual is warranted, that is a separate engagement conducted under the applicable state license or referred to a licensed partner, and the firm will say when it considers that the wrong course.
Asked about this one.
Will the review tell us who leaked?
It tells the department how the information moved and which habits opened the paths, usually several. If the department then decides an investigation of an individual is warranted, that is a separate engagement under a state investigator's license, and the firm will say when it considers that the wrong course.
Does the firm read staff messages or monitor accounts?
No. The review is conducted through interviews and document review. Nobody's messages are read and nobody's accounts are monitored.
What does the department receive?
A map of how the information moved, a written account of the probable paths with no names, and remedies the department can make the same week.
Read before the call.
- Who works a buildingInsightBoosters, donors, vendors, media and the recruit's uncle: the people in a football facility because someone let them in, how a few of them collect, and the five building habits a staff can own for a season.
- A device plan for a coaching staffInsightThe game plan lives on thirty telephones and tablets. Seven rules a staff will actually keep, the one scenario to rehearse, and what to do in the first hour after a device goes missing.
- After the Michigan case: what a mid-major's signal plan should look like nowInsightThe NCAA finished its first sign-stealing case in August 2025. What the penalties were, what helmet communication does and does not cover, and the four parts of a signal plan a Group of Five or FCS staff can run.
Twenty minutes on a call. Then you decide.
What prompted it, the shape of the program, and whether this engagement or the assessment is the right first step. A written proposal follows within three business days.