Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

NCAA shuts down satellite camps

DavisBuff

DavisBuff

Club Member
http://www.buffzone.com/columnists/...pointed-ruling-ban-satellite-camps?source=rss
I really hate the NCAA. Their rules just keep the select few in the money at the expense of the student athletes.
Coach MacIntyre make some good points about how this hurts the players.
It seems the student athletes have no representation in the NCAA decision process. At some point the players are going to stand together like Mizzo did and boycott a game. Then the NCAA will have to listen; think how much money would be lost if the multiple teams refused to play one Saturday.
The NCAA sucks!
 
Apparently the B1G was the only P5 conference that opposed.
 
Could be a blessing in disguise, with more coming to Colorado and seeing the facilities first hand.
 
Buffnik said:
Did the NCAA do what was best for players on this one? I'm finding it hard to find the argument that it benefited or protected the players here.

Click to expand...

To answer you question, no. Honestly, i have heard so many stories of the NCAA screwing athletes over, I don't know of any stories were they ruled in the kids favors less it was mutually beneficial for their financial interests. Like postponing the suspension of a few star Ohio State Players for selling their jerseys and rings until after the Sugar bowl a few years back.
It's odd to hit "like" on that post. There should be an agree, but don't like button.
 
Guerrero, the AD from UCLA apparently screwed his conference mates. He didn't vote the way the way he was supposed to vote, apparently confirmed by Larry Scott according to Twitter:

Stewart MandelVerified account‏@slmandel
New 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."
 
Darth Snow said:
Chianti Dan living up to his rep
Click to expand...

The sad thing is I don't know if it was a conscious decision on his part or if he's just a complete idiot. Everything I've read about him seems to indicate its a 50/50 proposition. Its amazing how some of these ADs manage to land and keep their positions.

Andy Staples ‏@Andy_Staples 15m15 minutes ago
As we said when the vote happened, the only way it would go down that way is if people were stupid, corrupt or both.
 
It matters to me because the recorded vote doesn't make sense. Pac 12 screwed up, even if the change would have passed anyway.
 
He did it on purpose because "it was going to pass anyway," or something like that:

CgiFLLBUoAA7Red.jpg:large


Jesus Mary and Joseph. Next time send RMFG in there.
 
Had he voted correctly, it would have still passed, but at 8-7 - which would lead to a whole different narrative. The news reports would call it "controversial," which leads to more exposure and more scrutiny - and a higher probability of it getting overturned.

But dueschenozzle got confused by a hanging chad.
 
skibum said:
Had he voted correctly, it would have still passed, but at 8-7 - which would lead to a whole different narrative. The news reports would call it "controversial," which leads to more exposure and more scrutiny - and a higher probability of it getting overturned.

But dueschenozzle got confused by a hanging chad.
Click to expand...

Except that there have been reports that the Sun Belt rep from Texas State also voted against the will of his conference, and apparently even his own football coach disagreed with the decision. If the those conference reps voted the way they were suppose to its 8-7 against. Who the hell knows what the MWC conference was thinking, I'd think they'd be right there with the MAC against this thing, but I think I saw that their rep was from San Diego State?
 
Chances that the next dozen or so requests that UCLA and Texas State make to their respective conference are favorably received?

I mean the Texas school I sort of understand, someone told them to act like a successful P5 school if they want to become one, and they choose to act like UT.

But UCLA? They better hope that they don't need a favor from the conference anytime soon.
 
skibum said:
Had he voted correctly, it would have still passed, but at 8-7 - which would lead to a whole different narrative. The news reports would call it "controversial," which leads to more exposure and more scrutiny - and a higher probability of it getting overturned.

But dueschenozzle got confused by a hanging chad.
Click to expand...


Because of the weighting of voters it was 20-10. If he had voted the other way, 16-14, as I read it.

Basically, the talent rich regions (BigXII, ACC, PAC and SEC) voted to block these camps because they dont want share their talent per se.

Screen Shot 2016-04-21 at 2.27.19 AM.png

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/April2016DICouncil_Report_20160418.pdf
 
A little interesting that Scott has called out Guerrero on this. Very rarely do you see a conference commissioner do that. How 11 out of 12 Schools are against the ban and you still vote for it tells me something is very wrong here.
 
patebuff said:
A little interesting that Scott has called out Guerrero on this. Very rarely do you see a conference commissioner do that. How 11 out of 12 Schools are against the ban and you still vote for it tells me something is very wrong here.
Click to expand...

Makes Larry Scott look weak as a leader and the Pac-12 look rudderless, iyam.
 
Scott shouldn't have to micro manage the obvious. Time for a new rep at these votes.
 
goalline said:
Scott shouldn't have to micro manage the obvious. Time for a new rep at these votes.
Click to expand...
You think the guy didn't know his marching orders when he submitted his vote? To me, that was the action of a man who deliberately knew what he was doing and firmly believed that the benefits far outweighed any potential repercussions. This is as much on Scott as it is on this fucla d-bag. We need a leader with more bite than bark.
 
I think we'll find out how pissed off the league is when complaints about Pac-12 refs start up again this fall.

Don't be surprised if 12 coaches and ADs complain about bad calls, but only one also complains that the league won't even listen to their complaints.

Larry Scott: "hey intern, type up another press release apologizing to Cal and CU for the bad calls at the end of their games."
Intern: "what about the refs not stopping the clock when UCLA players ran out of bonds at the end of their game?"
Larry Scott: "thanks for reminding me, also put in there that I've decided to suspend those two bruins players another three games."
 


On Wednesday, Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott said Guerrero, "did not vote the way he was supposed to vote." That's led many to blast Guerrero for looking out for the best interests of UCLA, and not the Pac-12.

George, who was with Guerrero and other ADs at a meeting Wednesday in Los Angeles, said the heat thrown on Guerrero is unfair.

"From my perspective as an AD in the conference, I wanted to come out and say that we respect Dan and Dan is a team player and he voted what he felt was best for the conference, not what was best for UCLA," George said.

"What (Pac-12 ADs) can do is support Dan, because Dan is unfairly taking a lot of heat," George said. "We can support him and that's what I intend to do."

George said he doesn't have a problem with Guerrero's vote, but he was disappointed in Scott's comments.

"I thought it was unfortunate, because Dan is a really strong character guy," George said. "I don't think Larry meant anything malicious, but you have those conversations internally, not externally. I think if you have some issues within your family, you talk about them within your family."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top