April 21st, 2016 at 1:24 AM ^

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. 

East German Judge

April 20th, 2016 at 11:40 PM ^


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!



Dan Guerrero


April 21st, 2016 at 1:08 AM ^

We've all seen this situation before, on cop shows:

The detectives really need a guy to confess.

So they convince him that he's going to jail whether he confesses or not.

They tell him that if he confesses the sentencing will be easier on him.

So he confesses.

If he had just kept his trap shut, nothing would have happened. There would have been some angry talk, maybe a lawyer or two would have gotten involved, maybe some threats of making lives miserable. But without his cooperation, it all would fall apart and he could have the high ground.

This is what happened, I think. Somebody got into Dan's ear and whispered evil things.

kevin holt

April 20th, 2016 at 11:42 PM ^

Actually sounds kind of reasonable as a PAC12 rep. He's wrong that it would have passed anyway, and it sucks that they'd vote on it just because they have a self-imposed shitty rule, but it at least makes a lot of sense more than just "I hated it and decided fuck everyone else in the conference"


April 21st, 2016 at 5:50 AM ^

Clearly remembers what a asshole Harbaugh was when he was a part of it also, hence clearly siding with the SEC in a bitch slap to shut his obnoxious ass up. Dantonio was spot on when he said
" Abuse brings Control"
They were never a issue that warranted anyone's attention till crazy Jim started acting like a ass...


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. 




April 21st, 2016 at 5:29 AM ^

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 ^

I know these people always think the fans are stupid, but it's funny to see an example where they think their colleagues are stupid too.


April 21st, 2016 at 9:57 AM ^

"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 21st, 2016 at 9:46 AM ^

The letter appears to have been purposefully written so as to be unintelligible without a significant commitment of brain cells.

Edit: nevermind; the version of the letter that came up previously on my phone was cut off at the margins, making it very difficult to understand. I checked back on my iPad and could read it easily.


April 20th, 2016 at 10:58 PM ^

That's because this email says basically nothing. "I wasn't going to vote for it, until it was clear that it would pass, so I voted for it" is a pretty clear message that what he really means is "something else happened that I'm not going to talk about."

My guess: He struck some kind of deal. The people behind this wanted it to appear unanimous or supported by the vast majority, so this guy had some conversation with somebody where they made a threat or a promise, and bought his vote.