To say the NCAA’s decision to ban satellite camps has been met with controversy is putting it mildly. Well, the controversy just got a lot deeper.
On Wednesday, it was revealed the Pac-12’s representative didn’t vote how he was supposed to. If you don’t remember, the Pac-12 voted in favor of the ban. However, Pac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott has revealed that 11 of the 12 conference members were in favor of keeping the status quo on the use of satellite camps. Meaning, UCLA Athletic Director Dan Guerrero, who represented the Pac-12 at the meetings, essentially went rogue with his vote.
So how did that affect the vote?
First, let’s remember that the measure passed with a vote of 10 for and five against. So, since the Pac-12 is a power-five conference member and their vote is worth double, had Gurrero voted against the ban, the vote would have been eight for and seven against. Meaning, the ban would have still passed.
Or would it have?
Apparently, the Sun Belt’s representative, Texas State AD Larry Teis, also went rogue with his vote, and the majority of the Sun Belt conference is against the ban. Which means, had Teis voted in accordance with his conference’s wishes, the vote to ban satellite camps would have failed with a count of seven for and eight against.
Someone has some explaining to do.
For Guerrero’s part, he tried to explain his decision in a letter to his fellow Pac-12 colleagues.
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
In light of all this, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the ban repealed here quickly. NCAA exec Oliver Luck has already said he expects the issue to be revisited, and even though the ban was put into effect immediately, it still needs final approval from the Division I Board of Directors. They will meet next week and could nix the ban altogether.