Who ordered the code red? UCLA AD Dan Guerrero ordered the code red. But why did he order the code red? That’s another question entirely.
In the wake of a 10-5 vote to ban all off-campus camps earlier this month, Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott told reporters Wednesday the Bruins’ AD “did not vote the way he was supposed to.” In an email obtained by Sports Illustrated‘s Andy Staples, Guerrero explained to his colleagues why.
In short, Guerrero’s vote came at the end of the line, when it appeared Proposal 2015-59, authored by the ACC, to ban coaches from working camps off their own campuses, was going to pass no matter how he voted. In his mind, voting for that ban made more sense for the Pac-12 than allowing Proposal 2015-60, a rule forwarded by the SEC that would ban coaches from working more than 50 miles off their own campuses because the Pac-12 already had a similar rule on its books. If Proposal 2015-60 passed, Guerrero reasoned, Pac-12 schools would be at a disadvantage relative to other conferences, whereas 2015-59 put everyone on the same (albeit non-sensical) playing field.
Why Guerrero couldn’t have voted for Proposal 2015-60 and then urged the Pac-12 to change its rule is another question altogether.
Dear Pac-12 colleagues,
Recognizing the inquiries made to the Pac-12 Conference office about the decision rendered at NCAA Division 1 Council meeting this past week to pass Proposal 2015–59, ending “satellite camps”, I thought it best convey my rationale for voting to support this piece of legislation. Prior to these meetings, I had extensive conversations with Pac-12 representatives in regard to the Conference’s position on a number of legislative proposals—the “satellite camp” proposals included. With an 0–11–1 vote cast by the Pac-12 Council, a vote to oppose proposals 2015–59 (sponsored by the ACC) and 2015–60, (sponsored by the SEC) was the charge with the ultimate goal to refer the legislation to the Football Oversight Committee (FOC).
Going into the meetings, it was the feeling of many members of the D1 Council that these proposals would be tabled at the request of the FOC, thereby rendering both of these proposals moot, and keeping the current rule relative to “satellite camps” unchanged. In fact this was the preferred outcome by our Conference as indicated in the preparatory materials I received prior to the meeting.
When this did not happen, it was conveyed on the Council floor that the FOC 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 of the two options.
Proposal 2015–59 was clearly preferable from a Pac-12 perspective because it is aligned with current Pac-12 legislation SPR 6–6(a) that limits institutional camps to the campus. If 2015–60 had passed, other conferences would have had a more lenient camp rule than the Pac-12 . As such, avoiding that outcome became my top priority.
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.
Hopefully this sheds some light on the process.
Director of Athletics, UCLA
Guerrero wasn’t alone in voting against his league’s wishes. Texas State AD Larry Teis voted for the ban, though a majority of Sun Belt schools wanted to keep satellite camps intact.
Had those two voted in their conference’s best interests, a 10-5 vote for the ban would have swung to a 9-6 vote against (as a Power 5 school, the Pac-12’s vote counted double).
As fate would have it, UCLA chancellor Gene Block sits on the Division I Board of Directors, which will meet next week and is widely expected to revisit the D1 Council’s vote, if not walk it back altogether. It’s a safe assumption Block will walk into that meeting with a mind to take an extinguisher to the tire fire his athletics director started.