Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

And, whatever the answer is, it's certainly not that the penalties aren't called because Michigan's DL gets held less often than other DLs.
Elite DLs get held more, not the same or less.

So here's the real question to me, why are not good defenses drawing so many holds?
Like if OSU/UW/PSU were at the top and Mich was the bottom, that's fishy. But OSU is bottom half, UW somewhat better, IU and Minnesota up high?

A conspiracy theory against at worst the 2nd biggest money generator in the league fails to even get off the ground.

That's also only accepted holding calls.  I'd be far more interested in seeing total holding calls.  First, it would make sense that an elite defense would have a lower percentage of called holdings accepted because there's a higher chance of a play being made elsewhere.  Either one player getting held while another player got a sack, or still getting an incomplete pass on a 3rd down.  Something like that.  Second, an elite defensive line presumably would cause teams to scheme differently.  Why is Indiana at the top of that list and Michigan at the bottom?  Possibly because the gameplan against Michigan is that you better get that ball out quickly to try and negate that DL.  Third, maybe there's some amount of coaching involved there.  Just like you see more and more basketball player flail their heads back driving down the lane, you see more and more defensive linemen throw their hands up in the air, drawing fouls where (a) one may not exist or (b) one may exist, but would not have been seen but for the arms flailing.  Or maybe it's just dumb luck.

I think you need to go back and look at the post. It distinguishes between accepted and total per 100 snaps and the numbers are pretty glaring.
I don't think any of your explanations are reasonable. If you're looking at one game, then maybe, but over the course of 2 1/2 seasons you think everyone is just game planning better for Michigan than Indiana? Or Coaching? C'mon. We're not talking about a small difference here. We're talking the average is 49.8% higher than Michigan's average per 100 plays. That's a significant difference.

I didn't see that the bottom number was total called.  Then yes, that negates #1.
But no, who says that's game planning BETTER against Michigan?  I never said they were game planning better.  I said they were game planning different.  If you trust your OL to hold up you are going to game plan different than if you don't.  You are going to trust longer pass plays to hold up, you are going to trust your OL to establish the run game.  So while over the course of a game against Indiana you are probably going to hit more deep passes and successful runs, you are also putting yourself in position to get called for more holdings in the times you don't.  And yes, coaching.  Not better or worse coaching, but specifically coaching your defenders to throw their arms up (which I personally hate).
I'm not saying that one is legit, I'm just saying that is a far more reasonable explanation than actually thinking the Big Ten would have any sort of anti-OSU or UM or PSU bias.  That mere suggestion made me literally lol.  Maybe they hate money, and adding Rutgers was a purely football move.