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
They'll do the right thing
many who would later be deemed as "Great Men, " were cosnidered as such for acting on information available to them and knowing their actions fo follow were, perhaps, the only chance to alter the outcome of many significant events, if they had gone the other way, or not taken advantage of an opportunity that almost assurredly would not present itself again.
But the type of things we are speaking of, and even in many of those cases it was recognized that a certain person, and that's why he had the position, would and could stray from plan if he deemed it appropriate.
Further, the types of events we're discussing rise a few nothces above a decision on satellite camps for cfb. And regardless of what they might do as to world changing events, the important things like the fox hunt, the venue and starting time for the poker game would go on as scheduled and "agreed" to.
f
You didn't just use a fictional play as historical evidence, did you?
April 21st, 2016 at 10:25 AM ^
I’ve done that play twice, and he’s referring to the line by Dr. Lyman Hall, a Georgia delegate to the Continental Congress. In the play, Hall quotes Edmund Burke, a member of the British Parliament, who said "that a representative owes the People not only his industry, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion.”
Which is great, except for one thing: The line clearly says “judgment,” which implies that the representative actually has some – and that he can clearly and logically explain his actions. Burke didn’t say, “Change your mind if you think you’re gonna lose the vote anyway.” That’s not judgment – that’s simply going along with the majority; swimming with the tide. It doesn’t take industry or judgment to do that.
Also, Guerrero wasn’t representing the ignorant, unwashed masses here. He was the spokesman for a committee of PAC-12 athletic directors – people who are presumably as smart (or smarter) than he is. One can assume they’d made their decision after giving the matter considerable thought. I’m betting that they didn’t need Danny Boy to do it for them.
April 21st, 2016 at 10:59 AM ^
I'm not really convinced that something is true because a line in a play said it was. Henry V has the Earl of Westmorland addressing Henry V at Agincourt, when the earl wasn't even present in that campaign.
April 21st, 2016 at 12:04 PM ^
Fair point. Burke may have said what he did, but I don't know that there's any historical proof that Lyman Hall quoted him. It might have only happened in the playwright's mind.
Then again, I refuse to believe that Doc Holliday didn't actually tell Ike Clanton, "I know - how 'bout a spelling contest?" after pointing out that poker might not be his game.
I just refuse.
April 21st, 2016 at 10:50 AM ^
Except he isn't the leader of that conference. He was sent as a representative. Big difference.
Dude just got pantsed by the SEC who are laughing their asses off. Now he's trying to make it sound like it's a good thing and the PAC 12 ought to appreciate what he's done.
April 21st, 2016 at 10:28 AM ^
It's not necessarily corruption. A course like Horse Trading 101 would have covered it, and anyone sent to vote on behalf of a conference should have the experience and intelligence to not fall for something like that. That scenario of course based on the assumption that Guerrero truly was too inexperienced and stupid to see through the ruse. Otherwise, it is corruption and he is at its epicenter.
Ya, the NCAA should have Bob from Wyandotte, frequent 97.1 caller, be casting the votes on the governance of college sports.
Good idea! Lets get rid of those rich folks!
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I will say that Guerrero's explanation is a good example of making an awfully thought out decision sound almost reasonable, even palatable, but that's all it is - an attempt. It does not successfully hide the fact that the man was a tool to his own conference for a very stupid reason. I read this last night and had to laugh because it is bad leadership being explained by the bad leader and usually there's humor in that.
I voted yes to join the guys in the back room smoking cuban cigars and drinking pappy.
Oh, and a nice vacation to aruba.
Late to the party here, but if the group you represent wants it voted one way then why do you vote the other way? He did not shed light on the part of the process I'm more interested in. That first paragraph seems to read that the PAC-12 voted 0-11-1 in oppostion of 2015-59 and 2015-60, but they decided to do whatever the FOC wanted, anyways.
Even if we accept the fact that the Guerrero was stupid enough to be stampeded into voting for something that was "going to pass" anyway, his description of his own role is entirely passive. He had a mandate from his conference members to defeat the proposals, but, in his own account, doesn't mention a single thing he did to fulfill his madate. Instead, he notes that the word was somehow, mysteriously (presumably noit through human agency, else he would need to say so) "conveyed to the Council floor" that the FOC favored the ban.
Following this divine revelation, he then passively noted that it "appeared' that the two measures would pass, so, rather than fighting for his conference interests, he just "made the call" to vote against the explicit instructions from his conference.
This email is a blunder. "Better to remain silent and have people think you a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
https://twitter.com/slmandel/status/722930602962395136
Stewart MandelNew twist in satellite camp ban. Pac-12 commish Larry Scott says their rep, Dan Guerrero, "did not vote the way he was supposed to vote."
April 21st, 2016 at 10:33 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Voting to not oppose his peers is psychological none the less. He wanted to fit in with the ACC and SEC. I'm glad we're above the cowardice that is.
The deal was, you vote with us and you will get special consideration from our infractions body in the future.
The truth is what we tell you it is. This is not the no vote you are looking for.
I cannot for the life of me decide if he's stupid, incompetent, corrupt, or dickless. I'm guessing it's probably a combination of all four, but the size of the wedges in the pie chart is impossible to figure.
This is some FIFA/IOC type shit.
It would have been 8-7 in our favor. Both conferences seem to have been overwhelmingly against the ban. My guess is that letters from the ADs of both the Sun Belt and Pac-12 supporting the camps could be enough for the NCAA to not ratify the decision from two weeks ago.
BTW - I'm really hoping for more Mike Leach quote-porn today.
April 21st, 2016 at 10:51 AM ^
But the latest twist is that a majority of Sun Belt schools now support the ban.
Sun Belt commissioner Karl Benson said if his league re-voted today, it would be 7-5 in favor of the satellite camp ban that passed.
— Stewart Mandel (@slmandel) April 21, 2016
April 21st, 2016 at 11:10 AM ^
That could be face-saving on behalf of the commissioner. There is a huge difference between him saying that he thinks the schools have come around to his way of thinking, and actually having evidence that they have done so. If he had evidence, he would say so.
Lacking evidence, I find his guess non-credible because self-serving.
SBC has Stockholm Syndrome.
April 21st, 2016 at 11:35 AM ^
They want to keep getting those 1 million dollar paychecks from the SEC.
Turns out the Sun Belt is currently 7-5 in favor of the camps.
Sun Belt commissioner Karl Benson clarified to me that he meant Sun Belt is 7-5 in favor of KEEPING satellite camps. Got mixed up in reports
— Tom VanHaaren (@TomVH) April 21, 2016
This reminds me of those ballot initiatives that are deliberately worded so that you have to vote "no" to get whatever the issue is enacted. Perhaps someone voted "yes" thinking that meant support for satellites, but it really meant they would be banned.
This is a clown show. After 150 years of sports and many contributions to the game of football, Michigan deserves so much better than this NCAA nonsense.
but now that you have forced me to, I can come to no nother conclusion than this is just one more reason those participating in this act of foolishness - an act that prior to conclusion will provide us with even more shit we never imagined.
If they actually believe it was necessary to hold onto their last obvious advantage, then I guess it had to be done. An alternative would have been to say, "Well, we knew it was going to happen. The fact that the chips were called in by a guy with just over a year on the job is embarrassing." Even that logic is fucked. Jim doesn't know, nor does he care what ghosts they may be hiding. He came down there to promote the game, a concept they have so much difficulty with if they can't reach into their front pocket and immediately recognize proof of their motto: extra work, extra dollars.
There are a number of other great schools, all having played major roles in developing collegiate sports to the level it is now. Not many reside in the SEC. But because he is considered the man that caused action on their part, as fucked as it is, and as clean as his hands are, they are swinging at Jim, and in so doing, Michigan.
Unless they figure there's a good chance these northerners coming down will find remains of Hoffa's body, I can't fathom the level of paranoia. Having no idea what will be exposed, who will gain, who will lose, just wanted to take the time to let you know providing to reading your post, had never thought in those terms. But I agree certain schools, for the same reasons behind satellite camps, understood and did not hesitate to grow this game in any way they can. Michigan is definitely among them. Good post.