These days, the Pac 12 Conference is making the rest of college football look buttoned up. The conference's television network is a fail on multiple levels. The number of late kickoffs is absurd. A growing number of conference athletic directors have privately expressed frustration with the conference's leadership. And then along came Dan Guerrero, UCLA athletic director, who was sent to represent the Pac 12 at last week's NCAA Division I Council meeting.

Among the issues: A potential vote on whether satellite football camps should be banned.

Most of the Pac 12 members opposed a ban of the satellite camps. The opportunity and ability to reach beyond their regional recruiting base is attractive. In fact, in a conference vote, 11 of the 12 members voted to oppose a ban (UCLA abstained). Guerrero, however, the Pac 12 rep, went to the meeting and cast the conference's vote in favor of the ban. On Wednesday in Dallas, Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott offered to reporters at a College Football Playoff meeting that Guerrero, "did not vote the way he was supposed to vote."

Scott was asked which school did not, he said, "I'm not gonna say. Form your own conclusion." When a reporter replied, "You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes on that one," Scott fired back, "I can't blow anything by you."

Guerrero has since explained his actions in a letter to his colleagues. Essentially, he said he arrived at the meeting expecting the vote would be tabled, only to find that it was moving forward. Once Guerrero realized that a ban was going to pass, he had to choose between a proposal favored by the ACC (2015-59) vs. one proposed by the SEC (2015-60).

"When my read of the situation was that 2015-59 was going to pass, regardless of a Pac-12 vote against," Guerrero wrote, "I voted in favor of this proposition as it was the more consistent of the two with current Pac-12 legislation."

Guerrero said he feared that if 2015-60 passed, "other conferences would have had a more lenient camp rule than the Pac-12," as the conference has its own rule that bans coaches from hosting -- but not from working -- camps off their own campuses.

Basically, Guerrero was attempting to channel his inner-Frank Underwood. Except, commissioner Scott blew down the house of cards on Wednesday. Scott publicly called out Guerrero in a way that now looks silly and ill-informed. I have to wonder how throwing Guerrero under the bus will play with a group of athletic directors who have sat quiet publicly while muttering and venting privately about Scott's leadership, the lack distribution and revenue shortcomings of the Pac 12 Network.

I have to wonder if the athletic directors who have complained about the direction of the conference in recent months, particularly Scott's move to protect his own image over the conference's, are nearing a tipping point.

Former Oregon State athletic director Bob De Carolis, now working at Michigan, told me earlier this month, "The sitting ADs can't say anything because they're not going to get the public support of their presidents yet. But people are frustrated."

Those watching Scott closely have noted that he's worked in recent months to distance himself from the conference television networks he created. During the Pac-12 Conference Men's Basketball Tournament in March, I was buried like every other conference media member in inquiries from frustrated fans. I asked Scott's public relations officer for a quote from the commissioner on why the regional networks weren't broadcasting live games.

The response from Scott's office came: "Makes sense for Lydia Murphy-Stephans to provide a quote or talk to you."

Sure, Murphy-Stephans is the network president. But it was a bad look. What fans -- and athletic directors -- wanted most was evidence that conference leadership was in this with them. But Scott just isn't.

All this brings us back to Guerrero, of course. Because Scott misplayed his hand here in a way that goes beyond the betrayal of television viewers or the disenfranchisement of season-ticket holders. It's one thing to alienate a family that can't make a 7:30 p.m. kickoff because it has young children or to ignore the frustration of an elderly viewer who tuned into the conference basketball tournament and instead found re-runs of old games. But it was shocking to see Scott call out Guerrero in such a cavalier and non-beneficial way while hiding out on the other important issues.

This was a shocking departure for Scott. One that feels miscalculated and self serving. Either Scott hadn't even bothered to speak with Guerrero after the vote or he was just more interested in quickly shaping Guerrero into the patsy. Either way, that's foolish.

This is a conference commissioner who has typically played things so safe that when he was once asked what he thought about a potential ban of athletics transfers with conduct issues, Scott replied, "We don't have a conference position on it... every major policy we have is set by the presidents. I don't set our policies in terms of the issues like the ones we're talking about."

I couldn't have been alone in hoping Scott would have stood strong there, and assumed an inspiring and strong leadership position. And I couldn't have been more amused when Scott followed March's vote of the Pac 12 presidents to ban such transfer students with this statement: "I applaud our university leadership for giving this important issue such thoughtful consideration. The safety of all students is a high priority for our universities."

Feels as if Scott would have applauded either way.

College football is busy sorting itself out. The NCAA is in transition. The conferences are all jockeying for position and revenue. Rules are being changed and the landscape is shifting. Never before has it been more important for strong leadership in the Pac 12. As much as I liked some of the ideas and vision that Scott brought in, I'm now wondering how much longer he'll last.

The TV deal should have already been unwound and rectified. There should have been a commitment to protect ticket holders from so many unreasonable kickoffs. And the Pac 12 should never have assumed a passive position while the ACC and SEC were so active. I like Scott on a personal level. He's seems like a nice guy. But what he's providing to the Pac 12 right now isn't even the illusion of leadership.

Not siding with Guerrero here, but I don't know how he was supposed to vote given that his only choice was between the ACC and the SEC's proposals. Guerrero's been diplomatic, reasonable, and thoughtful in the way he's handled himself afterward. Feels like he found himself in a difficult spot and decided the best course was to do what was best for the conference.

In fact, maybe he ought to be the next Pac-12 commissioner.

-- @JohnCanzanoBFT