Email UCLA AD Sent to Pac12 Colleagues Regarding Vote
This is the e-mail Guerrero sent to his fellow ADs on April 13. pic.twitter.com/GJ1CkbfrX7
— Andy Staples (@Andy_Staples) April 21, 2016
April 20th, 2016 at 10:30 PM ^
This is the e-mail Guerrero sent to his fellow ADs on April 13. pic.twitter.com/GJ1CkbfrX7
— Andy Staples (@Andy_Staples) April 21, 2016
both a coward and a tool.
In Guerrero's own words:
“When my read of the situation was that 2015-59 was going to pass, regardless of a Pac-12 vote against, I voted in favor of this proposition as it was the more consistent of the two with current Pac-12 legislation.”
In other words, he failed to represent his conference so that he could vote with the majority.
Interestingly, it sounds like Harbaugh and Leach's take on the meeting was not so far off: It sounds like the Committee told voters what outcome they wanted to see. That the Committee led the discussion:
"[I]t was conveyed on the Council floor that the FOC [Football Oversight Committee] was supportive of 2015-59 and/or 2015-60. Based on the subsequent discussion it appeared as though passage was imminent. Therefore, I made the call to support 2015-59, which was the preference [who’s preference?] of the two options."
Whether or not this counts as undue influence, it was structured as a Bond-villain style meeting. And cowards and tools predictably folded.
Did he get help writing this from Dave Brandon at 1:00 AM?
Plus one for you
April 20th, 2016 at 11:03 PM ^
April 20th, 2016 at 11:30 PM ^
April 20th, 2016 at 11:40 PM ^
Translation:
Dear Colleagues,
Yeah I know I screwed up and did the opposite of what you all wanted and did what Skankey wanted, but let me write this totally fucked up and confusing response so that no one can follow what I did!
Sincerely,
Dan Guerrero
April 20th, 2016 at 11:48 PM ^
The man is either a liar or a fool.
Or both.
He turned a one-day story into a two-day story.
If he wasn't a dick in the first place, none of this would have happened.
April 21st, 2016 at 10:24 AM ^
April 21st, 2016 at 12:08 PM ^
April 21st, 2016 at 12:37 PM ^
I am wondering how he keeps a job.
April 20th, 2016 at 11:42 PM ^
April 20th, 2016 at 11:48 PM ^
"I hated it and decided fuck everyone else in the conference"
Fixed it.
He knew the PAC-12 was going to do away with their rule restricting camps, There was zero doubt about that. He then uses that rule as the reason for voting for the more restrictive proposal.
his story is not credible.
April 20th, 2016 at 10:31 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
April 20th, 2016 at 10:33 PM ^
So... it's beneficial for UCLA and USC since they're located in SoCal.
Maybe Stanford and Cal benefit over in NorCal too?
Aka the Pac12 just said fuck you to any school not in California in their conference.
lol.
April 20th, 2016 at 10:38 PM ^
April 20th, 2016 at 10:50 PM ^
April 20th, 2016 at 10:36 PM ^
Do people really have a hard time understanding the e-mail or do they just not care? Or maybe people don't know there were 2 proposals. He said he voted for the one preferable to the Pac-12 given that one of them would pass. Obviously that was bad info, and he seems like a fool for believing it, but that's the rationale.
Having said that, weren't there only a handful of people there? He talks about being on the floor like it's the House with hundreds of people. He seems like an idiot or a liar.
April 21st, 2016 at 10:56 AM ^
We do understand it. It's BS. He had to say something after screwing up and this nonsense is the best he could do.
It wasn't clear that it was going to pass and if he was concerned he could ask to put it over. There were only 10 people there to vote. In a small group like that it would be surprising if that courtesy wasn't extended to him.
April 20th, 2016 at 10:39 PM ^
April 20th, 2016 at 10:40 PM ^
I vote yes. wait. what did I just vote for? oh well. Yes it is.
"You see I had my hand up because I was trying to get the waiter's attention, and that happened to coincide with when they were asking for who was in favor of the proposition, and I didn't want to explain myself, and really our vote doesn't count anyway, so whoops, my bad."
"Also, the steak and lobster was just ok, so I was already thrown off my game."
April 20th, 2016 at 10:41 PM ^
April 20th, 2016 at 10:44 PM ^
synopsis: The SEC gave me a million dollars to screw over my conference.
Honest to God, that's the only way to read it. Somebody promised him something, so he sold out his entire conference.
Are you trying to imply that the $ec gives secret money out? There is not money in those bags with the dollar sign on them, why would you think there is?
April 20th, 2016 at 10:45 PM ^
April 20th, 2016 at 10:50 PM ^
April 20th, 2016 at 11:11 PM ^
April 20th, 2016 at 10:48 PM ^
April 20th, 2016 at 10:59 PM ^
April 21st, 2016 at 12:57 AM ^
April 21st, 2016 at 10:01 AM ^
to cover up what really happened.
April 20th, 2016 at 10:48 PM ^
I've read this letter three times, and I still don't understand why he voted yes.
April 20th, 2016 at 10:58 PM ^
April 20th, 2016 at 11:06 PM ^
April 20th, 2016 at 11:23 PM ^
There's some sausage makin' for ya.