Bear Down Wildcats

So Harbaugh outsmarts the rules and the NCAA rushes to protect its sweet baby (the SEC) by instituting this new rule which really has no valid reasoning. Good to know they can get off their asses and make something happen immediately when it adversely affects their cash cow. Meanwhile watch it take them until December to decide Rawle Alkins is eligible.

So true about this farce of an orginization but I do think this rule makes sense. No reason for institutions to pay the expense of moving practice off campus to this degree IMO.

I don't think Michigan needs any more pub to recruit players nationally. Of course it would be fun to see any schools cut into the SEC and its money making capabilities

azcat49 wrote:So true about this farce of an orginization but I do think this rule makes sense. No reason for institutions to pay the expense of moving practice off campus to this degree IMO.

I don't think Michigan needs any more pub to recruit players nationally. Of course it would be fun to see any schools cut into the SEC and its money making capabilities

These are camps for prospective players. A lot of two/three star and no star kids go to be coached by the best in college football with the hope they get noticed.

Chi, you were very right on this subject. It really hurts teams like the cats and kids most teams recruit.

I guess the NCAA caved in to what the cash cow, the SEC wanted. Really a shame

Source told @ESPN conferences that voted against satellite camps: ACC, Big 12, SEC, Pac-12, MWC, Sun Belt. In favor: B1G, AAC, C-USA, MAC

MrBug708 wrote:Source told @ESPN conferences that voted against satellite camps: ACC, Big 12, SEC, Pac-12, MWC, Sun Belt. In favor: B1G, AAC, C-USA, MAC

Any school in the Pac-12 not located in Los Angeles are fricken morons if they supported this move. Then again Larry Scott tends to only care about the LA schools, so it makes perfect sense that the conference supported this measure.

That's hilarious.

If it hadn't been for satellite camps, my step brother probably would have spent last season leading South Dakota State in receiving instead of Iowa. Really bad for kids, especially the overlooked "diamond in the rough" ones.

Report: Marcus Lattimore can't have paid position at South Carolina

According to The State, the sanctioning body ruled that South Carolina could not hire Lattimore in a non-coaching capacity when he graduates in May. Why? We'll let the State explain:

The NCAA has stated that Lattimore cannot join Will Muschamp’s staff at USC due to Lattimore’s status as a former player and his presence through football camps and foundation. The NCAA considers it an unfair recruiting advantage.

Yes, you're reading that correctly. Because he's a former great football player, his influence could be deemed to be an unfair advantage. However, per the report, Lattimore can still speak to the team and be on the "periphery." So the NCAA isn't barring Lattimore from associating with the program and its players. It's just preventing him from getting paid by the school.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/blogs/ncaa ... 30162.html" target="_blank

Ucla causing some drama apparently. I'll link later

Thanks. Just came to do it. Dan went rouge. It was in UCLA's best interests, but you can't cast it a certain way when you were picked to vote another way. Larry Scott throwing him under the bus was dumb because now nobody is going to trust him

Said from the day he was hired he is corrupt. Just another piece of proof.

As for DG, if Scott fined Miller 50k then DG should get 11 times that given he went against the league. Or they should forfeit 11 Schollies over a few years

UCLA would be able to build an on campus stadium then

@Andy_Staples

Spoke to UCLA AD Dan Guerrero about his vote on the satellite camps. Will have his explanation on http://SI.com" target="_blank shortly.

I put this on LS. Why send a representative of the one school that didn't represent the will of the conference? Stupid as hell.

Can you make that a little smaller Bug?

MrBug708 wrote:Thanks. Just came to do it. Dan went rouge. It was in UCLA's best interests, but you can't cast it a certain way when you were picked to vote another way. Larry Scott throwing him under the bus was dumb because now nobody is going to trust him

You know, it's really hard to decide who to dislike in this scenario. The ban is dumb, so you have to think Dan G, but then you remember he's up against Larry Scott.

This may be the best thing Guerrero's ever done for the conference, if it ends up with Larry Scott going bye-bye.

You don't call out the AD of your No. 1 brand as not "voting the way we wanted him to," especially in the very public and petty way Scott has, and expect your job to be safe.

Scott has let his slip show here, big-time, and it's time for the presidents to back Guerrero and vote to terminate this idiot commish with cause.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

MrBug708 wrote:Thanks. Just came to do it. Dan went rouge. It was in UCLA's best interests, but you can't cast it a certain way when you were picked to vote another way. Larry Scott throwing him under the bus was dumb because now nobody is going to trust him

You know, it's really hard to decide who to dislike in this scenario. The ban is dumb, so you have to think Dan G, but then you remember he's up against Larry Scott.

I love Dan. Single-handedly destroyed UCLA basketball then tells Larry Scott to go shit in his hat.

It wasn't going to pass so I voted mainstream. That's his reasoning? What a fuck nut dumbshit. Still believe LS was behind this in some way. Corrupt to the core

http://www.si.com/college-football/2016 ... ro-ucla-ad" target="_blank

catgrad97 wrote:This may be the best thing Guerrero's ever done for the conference, if it ends up with Larry Scott going bye-bye.

You don't call out the AD of your No. 1 brand as not "voting the way we wanted him to," especially in the very public and petty way Scott has, and expect your job to be safe.

Scott has let his slip show here, big-time, and it's time for the presidents to back Guerrero and vote to terminate this idiot commish with cause.

I don't understand WTF you are talking about here.

Guerrero burned the PAC12 and poked his finger up the backsides of the other 11 ADs. That is a dereliction of his responsibility and probably illegal according to the Conference Charter and the NCAA 'rules of engagement'. The issue is no longer the rule they were voting on but on the vote that was cast.

The only way Scott could draw criticism would be if he had let it pass unmentioned.

Fuck Guerrero and fuck UCLA.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

MrBug708 wrote:Thanks. Just came to do it. Dan went rouge. It was in UCLA's best interests, but you can't cast it a certain way when you were picked to vote another way. Larry Scott throwing him under the bus was dumb because now nobody is going to trust him

You know, it's really hard to decide who to dislike in this scenario. The ban is dumb, so you have to think Dan G, but then you remember he's up against Larry Scott.

Guerrero is NOT 'up against Larry Scott' - he is up against the 11 AD's who he decided could go fuck themselves.

RichardCranium wrote:

catgrad97 wrote:This may be the best thing Guerrero's ever done for the conference, if it ends up with Larry Scott going bye-bye.

You don't call out the AD of your No. 1 brand as not "voting the way we wanted him to," especially in the very public and petty way Scott has, and expect your job to be safe.

Scott has let his slip show here, big-time, and it's time for the presidents to back Guerrero and vote to terminate this idiot commish with cause.

I don't understand WTF you are talking about here.

Guerrero burned the PAC12 and poked his finger up the backsides of the other 11 ADs. That is a dereliction of his responsibility and probably illegal according to the Conference Charter and the NCAA 'rules of engagement'. The issue is no longer the rule they were voting on but on the vote that was cast.

The only way Scott could draw criticism would be if he had let it pass unmentioned.

Fuck Guerrero and fuck UCLA.

You need to go back and read Scott's responses to the vote, then. It is not Scott's job to call out his rep in public about a vote that had no consequence. It didn't "burn" the Pac-12, and neither I nor Google have any idea WTF these "rules of engagement" are in the NCAA rulebook. Feel free to enlighten.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-footba ... reo-042016" target="_blank

Scott said league rules required Guerrero to abide by a “directed vote” that reflected its members’ consensus. “It’s still not perfectly clear how that happened,” said Scott, who said he’s spoken with Guerrero. “… I don’t think anything like this has happened before.”

In the wake of Scott’s comments Wednesday, the unwieldy satellite debate just spiraled into an even more awkward direction given that the Pac-12 commissioner didn’t provide much context, and that is likely not going to sit well within his conference.

"Probably" illegal? You're "probably" getting that confused with impolitic, which Larry Scott clearly was, and worse, in his response, to an 11-1 vote of otherwise little significance. He knows his commissioner script, but he didn't stick to it in this circumstance and put one of his conference ADs squarely on the spot over, at worst, a rule of decorum that lacks a deterrent:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/sto ... ioner-says" target="_blank

Scott said the only group that can do anything about it is the NCAA's Division I Board of Directors, but that he is not sure if anything can or will happen because the NCAA is under a new form of governance that's only two years old.

So where is the issue here? Supposedly here:

Scott said it is a Pac-12 rule that if there is a clear position from the league, then the representative has what's called a directed vote.

"They're really not supposed to use their judgment," Scott said. "It was a directed vote. We will discuss it when we're all together in Phoenix. This hasn't happened before to my knowledge."

"I don't know that it's going to come to a vote at the board, but certainly they will be aware of, let's call it, confusion coming out of our conference," Scott said.

Scott should've just said the bolded and left it at that. But he didn't. Guerrero, again, may have poor judgment, but Scott's judgment in his handling of the situation was even poorer.

Guerrero may not be the brightest bulb in the bunch, but at least he's been in the conference much longer than Scott has and can reasonably explain himself and his decisions. It's not like I agree with his 'No' vote either, and as fans, we can freely share that sentiment, publicly--or not.

But Larry Scott has a responsibility to his office. He was not given the commissioner's job to publicly tell university reps they need to "toe my company line." He did it with Sean Miller and he's doing it again with Guerrero.

Not even Tom Hansen, in all his vacuity, would be as publicly adversarial as Scott has chosen to be here. As misguided as he often is, Guerrero actually has been handling this situation the way Scott should be, but isn't--with maturity, and without publicly calling people out.

As a conference commissioner, it is absolutely Scott's job to let decisions he disagree with pass either unmentioned or behind closed doors. RC, you think he's fighting for the other ADs here when he's really just being an @$$hole.

No, the real issue here is Larry Scott and his "play by my rules" approach to being Pac-12 conference commissioner. It didn't work with the DirecTV negotiations and it's not going to work here.

catgrad97 wrote:No, the real issue here is Larry Scott and his "play by my rules" approach to being Pac-12 conference commissioner. It didn't work with the DirecTV negotiations and it's not going to work here.

OK, I get it. You are not a Larry Scott fan.

But which part of the 11-0-1 vote to instruct the PAC-12 representative to vote against the resolution do you not understand? Larry Scott didn't instruct Guerrero to vote against the resolution - the Member institutions instructed Guerrero to vote against the resolution. The PAC-12 is not owned by UCLA and it is not controlled by Guerrero. Guerrero was appointed to go to the meeting to cast the vote that the PAC-12 had agreed to, not go off like a loose cannon. The published excuse is patent nonsense.

You are using Scott's perfectly reasonable dumping on Guerrero as an excuse to press your case of obvious dislike for Scott. OK, fine, but I put it to you that the 11 AD who voted against the resolution and expected Guerrero to vote as they agreed, probably had a word to Scott about it and I doubt that the word was very polite about their feelings towards Guerrero and the middle finger he showed them. Scott is employed by and answerable to the Member Institutions, not the other way around. What is he supposed to say, "yeah the Members voted unanimously to oppose the resolution but that's OK, shit happens, Guerrero's really a nice Guy and knows what the Members want better than they do themselves"?

Miller's situation was completely different and you know it. Miller lost self-control in a public place and abused innocent people, bringing the Conference into ill repute. Guerrero violated a trust placed in him by his fellow Members. If your company sends you to a standards committee meeting with instructions to vote against some change in the standards, what would you expect would happen if you vote against you company's wishes? Do you think they will pat you on the back and trust you to represent them the next time? Sure you do.

And yeah, I know, calling the vote 'illegal' is hyperbole, I do that occasionally. Get over it.

Power Five conference votes count double, the result of the vote was 10–5 for the ban. Had Guerrero and Teis (Sun Belt) voted in accordance with the wishes of the majority of their respective conferences’ schools, the result would have been 8–7 against the ban.

Wilner tweet:

imo: Larry Scott wouldn't call out Dan Guerrero if believed he (Scott) could count on UCLA prez Gene Block's support w upcoming issues

Chicat wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

MrBug708 wrote:Thanks. Just came to do it. Dan went rouge. It was in UCLA's best interests, but you can't cast it a certain way when you were picked to vote another way. Larry Scott throwing him under the bus was dumb because now nobody is going to trust him

You know, it's really hard to decide who to dislike in this scenario. The ban is dumb, so you have to think Dan G, but then you remember he's up against Larry Scott.

I love Dan. Single-handedly destroyed UCLA basketball then tells Larry Scott to go shit in his hat.

The negative is the ban on satellite camps is so BS. I don't mind what Dan is doing at UCLA. He can hire more Alfords and I will back him 100%. Does Quin Snyder want to come back to college?

The ultimate ban is just such a a joke.

and props for this!

NCAA needs to fix these smaller things before they can seriously consider letting Olympic athletes keep their Olympic money (saw that on the ticker yesterday)

Must be a nice bike.

How dare they let him borrow a car to get somewhere! I mean, why didn't he get a job to buy a car himself? Oh what's that? The NCAA doesn't allow him to have a job? Well, what does the NCAA have to say about hitchhiking?

The NCAA is pathetic. What a busted institution.

Stanford should tell the NCAA to F off, and that "we're not going to have any penalties for this the end."

And when the NCAA tells Stanford they lose two scholis, Stanford should just give them out anyways and tell the NCAA to F off again.

The note from Stanford. They manage to not really apologize and brag all at one time

Dear Stanford Alum:

I have some bad news to share with you involving our Athletics Department. For the first time in the university’s history, the NCAA has determined that Stanford has committed Level II (major) violations.

Stanford will be penalized for two violations that occurred in 2014 and will be fined $5,000. One involved the softball team practicing more than the 20 hours per week allowed by NCAA rules. The other involved a football student-athlete receiving impermissible benefits from his summer landlord, including a ticket to the movies and restaurant meals with the family, use of a local vacation home, and a loan to purchase a bicycle.

In both cases, Stanford discovered the transgressions, conducted internal investigations and then self-reported the infractions to the NCAA. In addition, Stanford administered self-imposed penalties and took corrective actions, all before the NCAA delivered its ruling. Furthermore, in the course of their investigation, the NCAA commended Stanford for these efforts. You can find details about the NCAA's decision and the related sanctions here in the university’s official statement:
http://news.stanford.edu/2016/09/15/sta ... iolations/" target="_blank

For many Stanford alumni, yours truly included, Stanford's combined excellence in academics and athletics is a point of great pride. This is partly due to the fact that Stanford coaches, staff and student-athletes have made NCAA compliance a top priority and reality for decades. These two violations, therefore, will be painful to many of us. At the same time, our sincere hope and belief is that these infractions will further reinforce our emphasis on oversight and compliance to make certain that this does not happen again here at Stanford.

Thank you for your attention and your support of Stanford.


Howard E. Wolf, '80
Vice President for Alumni Affairs, Stanford University
President, Stanford Alumni Association

That's why Howard Wolf is a Stanford alum.

Because, as a less politic University of Arizona graduate, I would have simply sent the NCAA a list of the entire Southeastern Conference and ask what they do that is so much superior to Stanford that they don't get punished.

Typical NCAA bullshit

Very interesting.

Wow, that would up the floodgates.

well aren't graduate basketball transfers eligible immediately anyway?

ASUHATER! wrote:well aren't graduate basketball transfers eligible immediately anyway?

Only start of the next season. Never heard of any mid season grad transfers that were able to play in January.

I wonder if they would only play half a season though and lose 1 year like regular midseason transfers who have to sit out a year.

The NCAA reversed course and Isaiah Brock can play this year. Shocked they used common sense since I didn't think they had any...

Gotta lobby hard to keep the money you need to throw inauguration galas out of the hands of the student athletes who are responsible for pulling all that money in in the first place.

Time to begin sucking up for favors.

Pretty much cements that the NCAA views student athletes as indentured servants.