Recognizing Dan Guerrero’s Efficient Fiscal Management Of UCLA Athletics
John Wilner from the San Jose Mercury News perhaps has been doing the best work among tradmed reporters on covering all the nuts and bolts on Pac-10's expansion related matters. He was reporter who first threw up the infamous "zipper" concept on his College Hotline blog, which became one of the models for discussion among the Pac-10 brass on how to align the conference.
Wilner recently put up a post "connecting the expansion dots, adding up the TV dollars," which provided some interesting insights on what has been the sudden urge for number of Pac-10 administrators to go after TV dollars. While on surface lot of it seems to aimed towards driving up the visibility of the conference's football profile (and revenues generated from it), Wilner noted one of the key reasons behind it has been to save Olympic programs at number of Pac-10 schools struggling with their budgets:
League officials are hopeful that the new TV deal and other initiatives, including a football championship game, will generate an additional $40 million-$50 million in annual revenue beginning with the 2012-13 fiscal year.
That windfall, while generated by the football programs, won't be used specifically for the football programs. Rather, it will bolster ailing athletic department budgets and preserve that which the conference holds near and dear to its heart: the so-called Olympic sports.
Wilner then identifies some of the athletic departments that are in dire need of cash:
An extra $5 million could have saved Washington's swimming programs, which were cut because of budget woes. It could have saved Arizona State's men's tennis team. It could have saved jobs at Stanford and Washington.
And an extra $5 million would do wonders for Cal, where jobs and sports are in jeopardy because of the athletic department's $7 million-$10 million annual deficit.
Pretty interesting info. It should make us appreciate the kind of job Dan Guerrero has done in managing our athletic program. More on that after the jump.
Check out our athletic department's "2008-09 Financial Summary" (PDF), which shows UCLA balancing its budget amounting to a total of $64,896,000. As you can see, we get just under $2.7 million in support from the University (student registration fees). The rest of our almost $65 million budget is generated through ticket sales, donations, TV/media rights, endowments and corporate sponsorships.
That number is pretty impressive considering the struggles experienced by our football program during this past decade. Despite the fact that football program was mismanaged by the previous coaching regimes resulting in a long rebuilding project under the current one, the Athletic Department has been able to operate in black. I think it's pretty remarkable that UCLA was in the top-25 in terms of revenue generated among FBS programs two years ago (2007-08), despite struggling through Dorrell's last season. Per Brett McMurphy, the Senior NCAA Writer of AOL's Fanhouse UCLA's Athletic Department was ranked number 30 in total revenue for 2008-09, when CRN was leading a wreckage with a third string QB and no offensive line.
As far as we know the UCLA athletic department has managed to operate in black through these difficult years. It appears that DG has done a pretty admirable job of managing the athletic department's annual budget so that it makes a profit or breaks even and is not a burden to the University. This will be harder to do as tuition and fees continue to go up (the department has to pay the university for each of our scholarships and dorm spots). Around Spring of 2009, Guerrero, Coach Rick Neuheisel, and Ben Howland led the way in Morgan Center by agreeing to take paycuts (forgoing as much as 10% of their salaries that year), that was part of $1 million cut from the 09-10 budget without affecting the performance and well-being of our student-athletes.
Obviously, we think there is lot of room for improvement when it comes to UCLA athletics. We are going to withhold judgment on the job CRN is doing for another two years. We will have to see how Ben Howland rebounds from last year's unacceptable season (although he seems to be heading in the right track). While DG should get credit for the hiring of John Savage, Kelly Inouye Perez in softball, the jury is still out on men's soccer coach. Plus there are also the matters of Pauley renovation and needed upgrade for baseball facilities. We also strongly believe the department needs to continue to build on its communication and fundraising efforts, taking advantage of the tools available in today's world of New Media.
Still, despite all the challenges, successes and mixed-results, I think Guerrero deserves a lot of credit for the fiscal management of our program. It certainly appears that despite rough financial times, he has managed to provide our coaches and athletes with the resources to compete at the championship level, both on and off the field, while keeping the budget in mind and not imposing unnecessary burden on the University. He deserves a lot of credit for this as he has certainly made sure that UCLA is not in desperate situation like other schools in the Pac-10.
Now if the hoops team rebounds and the football team keeps making progress year after year, taking us where we belong, this department will only get stronger in the coming years.
GO BRUINS.
18 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
thanks for highlighting this, N
We often hear complaints about the way the Athletic Department isn’t willing to pay enough for good coaches, etc, coming at it from a fan perspective hungry for success at (almost) any cost. It is one thing for us to criticize the personnel that DG has brought in if we think there are other alternatives at the same price, but as proud alumni of UCLA we have to balance our desire for sporting success with the university’s bigger picture. DG is working under constraints, leading by example with his personal austerity, and doing something no POTUS has done for years – balance the budget.
Jury may be out on some of his choices – and, there is also the consideration in basketball and football that increased investment → increased success → increased revenue – but it is good to assess DG based on the job he is doing under the constraints he faces. This kind of post sheds some light on things that we don’t always have at the top of our mind as UCLA sports fans.
One of those topics
It could make someone’s eyes glaze. Yet I thought it was pretty interesting to look into.
It definately is interesting (if you are into that sort of thing)
Cal’s current deficit is even more severs than your post illustrates; $13 million for the past academic year, with another $13 million projected next year. Their normal structural deficit is in the $6-10 million/year range. I have an Pac-12 expansion/division-related post on tap that includes Cal’s funding problem re. how dividing up the conference can affect revenue for the California schools. Cal athletics needs every penny that it can get.
formerly bruinhoo
Not sure, but their finances are a mess and a growing controversy
According to this article from the SF Chronicle, Cal’s athletic department budget is about $70 million, which is $5 million higher than the budget for UCLA indicated in your post. In the most recent fiscal year, the Cal athletic department received a $13 million subsidy from the administration and still ran a deficit.
Without doing any in depth analysis on Cal’s athletic finances, it looks like Cal generates far less revenue than UCLA from ticket sales, TV, donations, etc. and only maintains a large budget because of subsidies and deficit spending. From what I’ve seen, the current regime at Cal wants to compete in the worst way (especially with perennial Director’s Cup winner Stanford right across the bay), and it seems that they’re doing so by plunging deep into the red and gambling that more successful teams will attract higher revenues.
To me, this subsidy is surprising considering that historically, there was always a tension between the Cal athletic department and administration. That was a big reason why Cal’s athletic teams were not very competitive for the longest time. Add to that, a revolving door of athletic directors and chancellors that didn’t always see eye to eye, and it’s easy to see how Cal fell into a malaise across the board. The academic senate at Cal has taken a very dim view of the athletic department’s recent spending, and seems prepared to put the clamps down on future subsidies for sports.
If you look at UCLA, the administration and the athletic department have mostly been in sync, and it helps that we’ve had continuity over many years. Since the 1960s when SI proclaimed UCLA the “Athens” of college athletics, we’ve had four chancellors (Franklin Murphy, Charles Young, Albert Carnesale, and Gene Block), and three athletic directors (JD Morgan, Pete Dalis, and Dan Guerrero).
It also helps that UCLA’s athletic department has been largely self-sufficient. The subsidy from student fees exists only because students voted for it via referendum. I’m not aware of any other revenues that the UCLA athletic department gets directly from the administration. Say what you will about Pete Dalis, but the campaign to endow UCLA’s athletic scholarships began under his watch. And that has probably contributed greatly to the relative fiscal stability that you see right now.
Cal fields 27 teams. Even with 27 teams, Cal is still not competitive in the Director’s Cup competition.
By comparison, we field 23 teams, while Stanford fields 36 teams.
BTW, we have had 4 Athletic Directors since the 60’s. You left out Bob Fischer, who was AD for about a year between JD Morgan and Pete Dalis.
The deficits have gone further back than that
Possible that the extent of the current deficit is related to it, or maybe it is simply the effect of the current economy on fundraising.
formerly bruinhoo
Quite impressive
I didn’t know other Pac-10 schools have been forced to cut certain sports recently. I already respected DG for the great work he’s done for UCLA but now I’m even more impressed that he’s managed to adjust his budget and collaborate with our coaches in order to make it happen. No student-athlete gets the short end of the stick. I’m filled with UCLA pride.
by UCLA11 on Aug 4, 2010 10:07 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
An extra $5 million for USC...
…will help pay for expected court costs.
Ross Bjork
A lot of the credit for the financial “success” of the Athletic Department has to go to former Senior Associate Athletic Director, Ross Bjork. Bjork was in charge of all the income functions (donors, sponsorship, marketing, etc.) in the department. In the 5 years that Bjork was at UCLA, the income more than doubled.
Hopefully, his replacement, Mark Harlan, will be able to do as good a job.
Nikki Caldwell
Guerrero also deserves a lot of credit for bringing Caldwell in. In just two years she has already brought more success to our women’s b-ball team than we have seen in a very long time (if ever)
Also
Three Final Four runs in a row probably doesn’t hurt our TV revenues!
Regardless, DG is doing an admirable job…and hopefully CRN will make it even easier for him!
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
DG has done a superb job
My unofficial count shows that since 2002, the year Dan Guerrero took over the Athletic Department, UCLA has won 21 of its 106 National Championships.
We, the Bruins, are indeed the modern Athens of our time. Our brain and brawn are second to none.
Numbers never lie
I wish more people showed up at the basketball games and believe DG’s people have not gotten the job done in this narrow respect.
But your numbers (1/5 of all championships were on his watch) overwhelm my opinion—to say the least.
by peggysue69 on Aug 4, 2010 10:32 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Agreed on bball...
It was disappointing to see all of the empty seats, while I watched games on TV from afar. If that is the case this last season – while we’re playing at Pauley – I can only hope that things won’t be as bad, or worse, while we’re playing elsewhere, during the construction.
I've given DG a lot of crap for the substandard baseball facility
but it must also be noted that under his watch a new swim facility was built, the Acosta Center was remodeled, the softball stadium got a renovation and Pauley is getting a renovation (even if I think the plan is horrible and the execution has been poor).
Recently, I’ve heard very promising things on a possible baseball stadium renovation so hopefully we see that soon too. What I’ve heard is far from something that will break ground soon because there are some roadblocks (the lease is HUGE one) and it’s not as extensive as I think needs to be done, but it will be the biggest renovation the stadium has ever seen. We’ll see if it happens, but there’s more movement on it now than there ever has been.
For everything UCLA baseball, visit my UCLA baseball twitter.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Aug 4, 2010 10:49 PM PDT reply actions
Wow.
DG is really able to do more with less.
UCLA’s racked up 21 NC’s in 8 years and
our sports budget is only in the top 30! Wow.
$C shows that you can buy a NC but UCLA shows if
you’re smart and talented you don’t need to buy it!

by 





















