So, in baseball "pitching is about deception" and knowing what was coming helped the batters. The same concept applies to football, but you don't seem to agree with that. The Astros didn't "know the breaking ball wasn't going to be a strike." Breaking balls are thrown for strikes all the time. The Astro batters knew by the beats on the can what pitch was coming - fastball, breaking pitch, change-up, etc. and sat on the pitch. The case against the Astros went far beyond statistical analysis and included a lot of evidence on how they did it, so any suggestion that the case was made by statistical analysis is simply wrong. Some statistical evidence was available after the fact because the Astros were only able to steal signs at home. One could compare home/road stats for the batters then at how specific batters performed against specific pitchers in similar situations. Any attempt at analyzing the effectiveness of the Astros cheating against generic statistics for all of baseball would have been worthless since you wouldn't be comparing like samples. For example, I would expect Jose Altuve to hit better than most MLB 2B; it's only when you compare Altuve against Altuve that you get any meaningful information. That said, none of it mattered because, even without any statistical support, the evidence showed that committed serious violations. Whether their efforts resulted in tangible benefits was and is irrelevant.
You want some analysis of whether UM's performance is statistically possible, but that can only be determined by looking at UM, not analysis of other teams. Like the Astros, UM is very good, so one would expect them to be better than most other teams. You can't say they did benefit by looking at Purdue or Rutgers data and can't say they didn't by looking at UGA. The question, to the degree that's even relevant, is "how much better did they do by knowing the opponent's plays than they would have if they didn't" and there's no way to learn that by looking at any team other than UM.