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 11:52 PM ^
"People in charge of things are just in charge of things . . . "
April 20th, 2016 at 10:58 PM ^
April 20th, 2016 at 10:51 PM ^
April 20th, 2016 at 11:20 PM ^
April 20th, 2016 at 10:51 PM ^
April 20th, 2016 at 10:52 PM ^
OK, I'm going to be contrarian and say I can kinda see where he's going with this:
- Guerrero goes to the meeting intending to vote the conference's preference, which is against the two ban proposals.
- In the course of the meetings he learns - or comes to believe - there is enough support to pass the proposals with or without his vote. Satellite camps will be banned regardless of what the Pac-12 votes. (Which turned out basically true.)
- So he makes a decision: if it's inevitable that satellite camps will be banned, I need to decide which of the two proposals are better for the Pac-12 and support that one. So he votes in favor of one of them, which he perceives as the more favorable to the Pac-12 than the other.
Despite how much fun it is to imagine a bunch of drooling idiots gleefully shoveling piles of bribery cash into their pockets, the thought process here actually makes sense to me. I mean, not the ban itself, but why Guerrero would vote that way despite the conference not supporting it.
April 20th, 2016 at 10:59 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
April 20th, 2016 at 11:55 PM ^
This^. It was not that only his conference was going to be on the wrong side of a landslide. It was basically going to come down to a coin flip.
The man is lying out his ass.
April 21st, 2016 at 12:33 AM ^
Correct. The vote was 10-5 (P5 conferences count as 2 votes). If the Pac 12 flips it would be 8-7 and all he has to do is talk sense into the Mountain West.
April 21st, 2016 at 12:49 AM ^
Or talk sense into the Sun Belt rep, who, like the UCLA AD, voted against the wishes of the majority of his conference's schools.
Even if he could not talk sense into anybody, just go on record and vote what your conference tells you to vote.
Take a fucking stand.
April 21st, 2016 at 12:19 AM ^
p"articularly since if he voted the way he should." Do no more. You've got our decisions. Vote accordingly. Don't, and I can't emphasize this above, begin thinking.
I get the impression that he's been doing more lying than thinking.
He wants us to believe that he changed his mind because the poor little Pac12 was outnumbered, but it looks like he knew how he wanted to vote all along and now is throwing some shit against the wall to cover his ass.
April 20th, 2016 at 11:02 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
April 20th, 2016 at 11:13 PM ^
April 20th, 2016 at 11:33 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
April 21st, 2016 at 11:16 AM ^
Maybe, but I doubt it.
Guerrero is an idiot on his own terms and has really only shown deference to coaches in terms of what he needs to do in order to avoid firing them.
I don't think Mora cares much one way or the other as he has to deal with USC locking down a lot of LA's elite high school talent and has to recruit against a bunch of national schools for the ones who aren't hypnotized by the ketchup and mustard. California is basically the feeding trough for the PAC-12 regardless, so it's not like anything substantively changes for him.
https://gojoebruin.com/2016/04/20/dan-goes-roguerrero-and-bucks-pac-12-…
This article from a UCLA fan site argues that Mora is pretty non-committal about the whole thing.
April 20th, 2016 at 11:57 PM ^
If he had any decency and professionalism, he should have recused himself.
April 20th, 2016 at 11:19 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
April 20th, 2016 at 11:06 PM ^
If Guerrero were at all competent, he'd realize that this vote would be given an up or down vote at the April 28 meeting and that an on-record vote by a power five conference would be a strong statement in that forum.
So, yes, you are right that you can form a coherent train of thought behind his vote. He is still a moron.
April 20th, 2016 at 11:42 PM ^
So, yes, you are right that you can form a coherent train of thought behind his vote.
I don't think so.
Even if we assume Guerrero was certain the ban would pass, which is highly doubtful given that only one other conference needed to flip, his rationale still requires us to believe 1) that the difference between the PAC-12 and SEC rule was so significant as to justify ignoring the clear mandate from his conference and 2) that PAC-12 members did not consider the possibility of the SEC rule passing when they issued their instruction to him. What, the "extensive conversations" never addressed that extremely predictable scenario? Horseshit.
Agreed on both accounts, and his rationale about the one he voted for being better is laughably and demonstrably false. Everyone can see the two rules for themselves here: https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Feb2016DICouncil_Report_20160217.pdf
In short, the version of the rule that he voted for, Proposal 2015-59, both (1) required that an institution's camps be held on their facilities and (2) prohibited an institution's staff member from being employed at any camps other than their own. The version of the rule that he did not vote for, Proposal 2015-60, only prohibited an institution's staff member from being employed at any camps other than their own (i.e., using all the same language as prong (2) in 2015-59).
Essentially, they were only allowed to approve one of 2015-59 or 2015-60 and, instead of just voting no, he voted for the tougher rule because the PAC12 has a restriction similar to prong (1) and he decided for himself that the conference actually would be in favor of that restriction despite everyone else clearly voting against it. Put even more simply, he unilaterally thought having that restriction was better and decided to vote for it.
April 20th, 2016 at 11:10 PM ^
April 20th, 2016 at 11:41 PM ^
But so what? Who cares if you thought it was going to pass anyway? Your conference wanted you to be on record as opposing the ban.
Is the Pac12 that insignificant and fearful that it does not believe that it can ever let its opinion be known on an issue that its member institutiions feel strongly about?
Or . . . is he just lying about the real reason?
Mr. Elbel is focusing on what I too think needs further elaboration: who was telling everyone it would pass and how were they conveying that message? At best this sounds like deliberate coercion; at worst it sounds like something more sinister.
If what Guerrero is indicating is true - that there was someone in his ear(/pocket) trying to direct the outcome by providing false information (and/or perks) - then this is looking to be more about corruption than about an idiot not doing his job.
And if that same message was spread to other conference representatives prior to the vote (SBC, MWC), you now have a complete change of outcome.
He says right in his statement that he was made to believe the ban would ultimately pass prior to the vote. This is where any reporters/investigators/pirate coaches need to dig deeper.
What is the 0-11-1 vote all about? Also, it sounds like the conference never wanted to vote for or against the ban, but vote to postpone a ruling.
April 21st, 2016 at 10:22 AM ^
I like that it is objective confirmation of what Mike Leach said - that the conference unanimously opposed the legislation. While I had no reason to think Leach was making that up, it gives him a lot more credibility. Maybe his accusations of funny business should be taken more seriously.
April 21st, 2016 at 10:44 AM ^
I think it's pretty obvious he is trying to save face and lying to do so. If not that, he is inept. And in either case he needs to be shown the door.
April 20th, 2016 at 10:56 PM ^
April 20th, 2016 at 11:03 PM ^
April 20th, 2016 at 11:04 PM ^
Thinking something is going to pass anyway, so then changing your vote for it is so fucking stupid. No wonder they despise this guy in LA.
Fuck him and anyone who likes him.
April 20th, 2016 at 11:06 PM ^
They would look like erotic academy awards!
Ben Franklin would have loved it.
April 20th, 2016 at 11:19 PM ^
April 20th, 2016 at 11:42 PM ^
On so many levels. Yikes, UCLA, now what?!
April 20th, 2016 at 11:45 PM ^
April 20th, 2016 at 11:57 PM ^
The only conclusion I can draw is that the UCLA AD is an idiot, dishonest, or both.
Go with the first one. I am not sure he has the mental capacity for dishonesty on this level.
The guy is a fundraiser through and through and he's half decent at that aspect of his job, get him outside of his comfort zone and he is laughably bad, this is just another aspect of it.
April 21st, 2016 at 12:04 AM ^
April 21st, 2016 at 12:05 AM ^
God created Dan Guerrero so that even Dave Brandon could have someone to be appalled by.
April 21st, 2016 at 12:22 AM ^
I hope the IRS reads this.
April 21st, 2016 at 12:46 AM ^
Let me check.
The NSA says they got it.
Lots of legal talk in there.
Basically he wanted to keep HIS OWN options open if he gets a job in the SEC or ACC later.
The orginal vote was 10-5, if the UCLA AD would have voted against, as he was clearly instructed, it would have been 8-7. To overturn it you must get a higher percentage of individual schools to vote against the rule. As it stands now that would be a total of 86 of the 128 schools. That's not going to happen because his two votes are now worth about 17 schools, when orginally he was voting for 12.