Dan Guerrero vs. Pete Dalis: By The Numbers
by KSBruin on Jan 17, 2011 2:26 PM PST
Email
PrintBumped. Great research to advance an important discussion. -BN
Prompted by an excellent suggestion from Meriones, I dug into the numbers to compare the reign of Dan Guerrero to that of his predecessor, Pete Dalis. I think it's fair to say many Bruin fans were less than thrilled with Dalis by the end of his 19 years as AD. I was curious to see how they'd stack up. In order to attempt a valid comparison, I will present numbers for a like number of seasons: DG's eight full school years as AD compared to Dalis' final eight school years, and the nine football seasons thus far under DG compared to the last nine football seasons under Dalis. (To refresh your memory, DG began working as AD on July 1, 2002.)
I have for the most part tried to simply present the numbers and let others analyze them. My only sources were the NCAA and the official UCLA Athletics web site. Formatting is always a challenge when creating FanPosts with data; I've done my best to make it presentable.
And away we go...
National Championships
Listed by year. Second-place finishes and individual championships in italics.
Under Dalis
1994-95: men's basketball, men's volleyball, women's softball - won on field but vacated due to scholarship issues, women's volleyball
1995-96: men's volleyball, men's water polo, men's tennis, women's gymnastics
1996-97: men's water polo, women's gymnastics, men's volleyball, women's softball
1997-98: men's soccer, men's volleyball
1998-99: women's softball, men's tennis
1999-2000: men's volleyball, men's water polo, women's indoor track and field, women's softball
2000-01: men's water polo, women's gymnastics, women's indoor track and field, women's water polo, men's volleyball, women's soccer, women's softball, women's individual gymnastic all-around champion
2001-02: women's gymnastics, men's water polo, women's water polo, women's individual gymnastics all-around champion
Under Guerrero
2002-03: men's soccer, women's gymnastics, women's softball, women's water polo
2003-04: women's golf, women's gymnastics, women's softball, women's outdoor track and field, men's tennis, women's tennis
2004-05: men's tennis, men's water polo, women's water polo, men's volleyball, women's soccer, women's softball, women's individual gymnastics all-around champion
2005-06: men's volleyball, women's water polo, men's soccer, women's soccer
2006-07: women's water polo, women's tennis
2007-08: men's golf, women's tennis, women's water polo, men's individual golf champion, women's individual gymnastics all-around champion
2008-09: women's water polo
2009-10: women's gymnastics, women's softball, men's baseball, men's water polo
Comparison
Championships: Dalis 17, Guerrero 20
1st or 2nd place team finishes: Dalis 28, Guerrero 30
1st or 2nd place team finishes plus individual champions: Dalis 30, Guerrero 33
Over their last four years, numbers for championships, 2nd place finishes, and individual champions: Dalis 9, 7, 2; Guerrero 7, 3, 2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Director's Cup
The Director's Cup is given each year by the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics to the program with the most success that year. Final standings for each sport are weighted in the same manner as the AP and USA Today top 25 polls are created, and a school's top ten athletic team finishes get included. You can read the NACDA explanation here or read about it on wikipedia. It's been given for the last 17 years; Stanford somehow finished in second in the inaugural year, and has won it every year since. They're also in first place in the current standings (pdf).
Under Dalis
Finishes his last eight years, 1994-95 through 2001-02: 3, 2, 3, 4, 5, 2, 2, 5 average: 3.25
Under Guerrero
Finishes in his eight full years: 6, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 16, 4 average 4.75
Currently we're in 24th. Still to come are a number of sports we're typically competitive in, including tennis, golf, baseball/softball, track and field, men's volleyball, and (this year!) women's basketball, but not having gone to a bowl game definitely hurt our standing, as it obviously did two years ago. We were in 20th at this point in 2008-09 and only rose four places, though that was also our weakest year of the last 16 in terms of national championships/2nd place finishes.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Football
We have had nine seasons of football with Guerrero as AD, so I'm comparing those to the last nine years of football with Dalis as AD: 1993-94 to 2001-02. That included the last three years of Terry Donahue and the first six years of Bob Toledo. Guerrero's tenure has included the last year of Toledo, five years of CTS (see the Lexicon if you're not sure who that is), and three years of Rick Neuheisel. For ease of phrasing, I'll just use 'Dalis' and 'Guerrero' rather than 'coaches under Dalis' etc.
In the interest of easier comparisons, I'm presenting data about Dalis and Guerrero together.
Overall record: Dalis as AD 62-42, for .596. Guerrero as AD 57-55, for .509.
Pac-10 record: Dalis 41-31, .569. Guerrero 36-41, .468.
Pac-10 finishes in rank, not chronological, order: Dalis 1, 1, T-1, 4, T-5, T-5, T-5, 6, 9; average 4.1. Guerrero 3, 4, T-4, T-4, T-5, T-5, 8, 8, 9; average 5.6.
Bowl record: Dalis 1-4, Guerrero 3-4.
Next-best record after two 10-2 seasons under Dalis: 8-4. Next-best record after one 10-2 season under Guerrero: 7-5.
Average home attendance, rounded to nearest thousand, in chronological order:
Dalis 50K, 51K, 49K, 58K, 55K (10-2 season), 74K (10-2 season), 50K, 67K, 67K
Guerrero 66K, 67K, 61K, 64K (10-2 season), 65K, 76K, 73K, 65K, 60K
Average of above nine attendance averages (and yes, I know that's not truly statistically accurate, but it's close enough): Dalis 57.9K, Guerrero 65.2K.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Men's Basketball
We have had eight full seasons of basketball with Guerrero as AD, so I'm comparing those to the last eight years of basketball with Dalis as AD: 1994-95 to 2001-02. That included the last two years of Jim Harrick and the first six years of CHP (see the Lexicon if you're not sure who that is). Guerrero's tenure has included the last year of CHP and seven full years of Ben Howland. I have not included any of this basketball season in anything other than attendance. For ease of phrasing, I'll again just use 'Dalis' and 'Guerrero' rather than 'coaches under Dalis' etc.
Overall record, Dalis as AD: 181-68, for .727. Guerrero as AD: 176-91, for .659.
Pac-10 record, Dalis: 107-38, .738. Guerrero: 97-58, .626.
Pac-10 finishes in rank order, Dalis: 1, 1, 1, 3, 3, 3, 4, 6; average 2.75. Guerrero: 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7; average 3.25.
NCAA Tournament finishes, worst to best:
Dalis: two first round losses (one later vacated - JaRon Rush issues), four Sweet Sixteen, one Elite Eight, Banner #11
Guerrero: 3 times watching on TV, one first round, one second round, three Final Fours (one to championship game)
What about attendance, you ask? Pauley's official capacity is 12,819, though the record is 13,478 for a game with Duke on February 23, 1997. Here is the average attendance from each year, straight from the official site. For the first few years of the time frame in consideration, I can't find much more than the year's average. Starting with 1998-99 I've followed that with the number of games with over 10,000 fans, and after 1999-2000 also the least-attended game of the year.
1994-95: 11,400
1995-96: 11,872
1996-97: 10,240
1997-98: 10,739
1998-99: 10,130 / 9 over 10K
1999-2000: 9,440 / 6 / 6,531 vs. Morgan State
2000-01: 8,765 / 5 / 6,448 vs. CSUN
2001-02: 10,021 / 7 / 6,704 vs. UC Riverside
(Guerrero takes over July 2002)
2002-03: 8,348 / 3 / 5,376 vs. NAU
2003-04: 9,332 / 5 / 7,240 vs. Loyola Marymount
2004-05: 9,213 / 7 / 5,033 vs. Western Illinois (scheduled at 7:30 the day before Thanksgiving - brilliant!)
2005-06: 8,895 / 7 / 6,044 vs. Coppin State
2006-07: 10,428 / 10 / 7,458 vs. Sam Houston State
2007-08: 10,580 / 11 / 7,293 vs. Cal State San Bernardino
2008-09: 9,843 / 10 / 6,852 vs. Loyola Marymount
2009-10: 8,081 / 3 / 5,933 vs. New Mexico State
2010-11 through the home game Dec. 31 vs. Washington: 6,723 / 0 (most in past usually in league play) / 5,390 vs. Montana State
Interestingly, only one more person showed up to watch the "game" against Montana than the win 11 days later against Montana State. There were a total of three games with attendance under 6K in the eleven seasons from 1999-2000 through 2009-10; there have already been four this year.
(Random NCAA fact: the team with the highest average attendance last year was Kentucky, with 24,111. The lowest? Nicholls State, with a whopping 328 fans per game. Guess there's a lot else to do in Thibodaux, Louisiana!)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OK, I've thrown a lot of data out there for your consideration. Talk amongst yourselves...
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.
46 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Nice work
Neither has been particularly good with the big sports .Dalis inheritted donahue and didn’t replace him early enough, and when he did, did so poorly. Dalis won a bball title but also hired a lot of bad coaches (Harrick being his only good hire)
While doing a good job firing Lavin and hiring Howland, the Pauley renovation execution has been extremely poor, and the football program has had its worst decades since the great depression under DGs leadership.
The olympic sports I give Dalis the edge. He had a good balance with the men’s and women’s programs. The men’s programs have been in decline under Guerrero.
So, based on what he inheritted and what he has done with it, I don’t give Guerrero high marks. I think we would be well served with better leadership.
by silverlakebruin on Jan 17, 2011 11:45 AM PST reply actions
RE: Harrick hire background
I have said this before on this board, but for the record, soon after Harrick was hired, i was invited up to visit with him through a friend of his. We jogged through Bel-Air, showered and had lunch, four of us.
His comment on his hiring was that UCLA had gone through several coaching misses and the administration was floundering (surprise, surprise), and at the time he was at Pepperdine, as we know. He told us that he actually showed up one day, announced that he was coming to coach the mens basketball team, and away they went. The AD agreed to pay him some salary amount until they could work out a contract. That was it!!! Keep in mind that Harrick had been at UCLA for 9 years as an assistant (I believe 9 years is correct), after being the HC at Morningside HIgh School.
This may have something to do with Dalis being a bit irritated that Harrick was at UCLA and may have never accepted him as “one of us”. Interesting here that silverlakebruin opines that Dalis’s only good hire was Harrick, someone who literally came to him and setup shop.
Bill
Mensgym
Thanks for posting this!
I actually looked at this a few months ago but never got around to posting. You did a much more thorough job than I did in any event. My observations are that women’s sports have continued to prosper under Guerrero but men’s not so much. And the big revenue sports have done worse under Guerrero, at least on the field and the court (men’s basketball is a bit of a tough call given the 3 straight final fours). He deserves credit for the hiring of Savage and Caldwell and maybe Howland (I’m not so sure about this based on the last 2 1/2 years). Football has declined under Guerrero – one of the coaches hired was a failure (perhaps not his doing, as has been written here) and the other looks to be one. So it is something of a mixed bag.
I’m an old timer in terms of following UCLA sports, and for me it all pales by comparison to the JD Morgan years. When Murphy Hall took over in the early 80’s, things started to go downhill. Dalis was a bureaucratic functionary and Guerrero doesn’t seem to be much better, if at all. But really it all starts at the top with the chancellor’s office. Is the university committed to having top flight athletics or not? Is it committed to doing what it takes to have big time revenue sports or not? I think at UCLA there may be more of a commitment to having good non-revenue sports because it costs less money, but I’m afraid the answer to the second question is “no”.
I would be happy if they would just be committed
to leaving the athletic department alone. Put in the hands of someone who knows how to handle football and bball and stay out of their way.
by silverlakebruin on Jan 17, 2011 1:33 PM PST up reply actions
in my opinion, dan guerro came from a small school athletic program...
before he got to UCLA, and i feel he still thinks “small school”…
a very interesting post needless to say…
One thing that everyone needs to keep in mind
is the difference in eras between Dallis and Guerrero, especially with regards to non-revenue sports. When Dallis was AD, UCLA was racking up national titles in a lot of sports that there wasn’t a ton of competition in. In the last 10 years or so, a lot of schools around the country have begun to invest in non-revenue sports like they never did before, whether it be with paying more for coaches, recruiting or facilities. It is a big reason why programs like Penn St. women’s volleyball, Georgia women’s gymnastics and much of the ACC in men’s soccer, among others. When Dallis was AD, UCLA was putting effort into sports that a lot of schools were ignoring, but they’re not ignoring them anymore and the competition is much stiffer.
Two roads diverged in a wood and I – I tweeted my followers to ask which I should take
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Jan 17, 2011 3:27 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Correction
It is a big reason why programs like Penn St. women’s volleyball, Georgia women’s gymnastics and much of the ACC in men’s soccer, among others have become national powers in sports that were an afterthought to many schools in the past.
Two roads diverged in a wood and I – I tweeted my followers to ask which I should take
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Jan 17, 2011 3:31 PM PST up reply actions
Didn't We....
drop a lot of non revenue sports n part due to budgets
I agree
which shows you why
a) having a successful football team that can generate revenue
and
b) having an AD adept at raising money, making merchandise deals, media deals, etc
is so important. You can’t retain your competitive advantage without retaining an advantage in money.
by silverlakebruin on Jan 18, 2011 2:55 PM PST up reply actions
I am happy to at least see some focus on DG, finally.
It’s about time he faced some scrutiny for a lackluster record the past eight years.
I think the main reason he has skated close analysis until now is the three FF appearances by CBH. That helped to mask his complete failure in football, but no longer.
Add in the gross incompetence of the handling of the football coaching situation since Dec. 4, which is ultimately DG’s responsibility, and it is clear the chickens are coming home to roost.
CRN is not the only one on the hot seat anymore. UCLA deserves better, much better, especially in the revenue sports.
My take. . .
If football gets fixed, this discussion becomes moot. Mainly because I think Howland will get things turned around by the end of this year and while we love to bitch about the basketball program, it is actually on solid ground and Howland will have us consistently competitive nationally (and top of the Pac-10) again by next year. Football, however, has been a mess for 12 years and counting.
Just curious
What is it that makes you confident that we will be nationally competitive next season? We haven’t even turned this season around yet, and we’re talking about next year? I could see if we had swept @ Washington or @ Arizona, but the Oregon road trip is the weakest road trip of the schedule, so while it’s great that we got a pair of wins out of it, it doesn’t put us much closer to a successful season.
Or as I heard someone say
If my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle.
Why would anyone think that football is going to get fixed based on what’s happened the past umpteen years? Right now, Terry Donahue is looking more and more like a genius.
Rankings using the Sagarin Predictor and Pomeroy (respectively)
2000 – 131 (Sagarin Ratings only for Pitt)
2001 – 83
2002 – 19
2003 – 4
-————————-
2004 – 132, 125
2005 – 64, 66
2006 – 10, 3
-—————————
2010 – 115, 109
2011 – 66, 63
2012 – ??, ??
If there’s one thing Howland has done best in his coaching career, it’s turning programs that are bad into programs that are good in 3 years. This team obviously still has a lot to improve on, but it’s on the right track.
However
his coaching career until being here hadn’t including taking a team that was 10th/3rd in those rankings and being at the helm while it plummeted to 115th/109th. That’s an important consideration. Guiding us through his first three seasons was impressive. If he were to take this team from crap in 2010 to acceptable and in the tournament this year to the Final Four in 2012, it would be great…but that still doesn’t excuse the miserable failure that was last year.
Roses are red, violets are blue...f*** $C.
What exactly does that mean
Let’s say UCLA goes to the Final Four next year, in what sense is last year not excused? What are the consequences for what happened last year?
by SuperBruinMan on Jan 17, 2011 6:25 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not saying should he go to the FF
next year then he should get fired for last year regardless. I’m trying to say though his record of turning around programs when he first arrives has been outstanding, we’re now past 2006, and he needs to show he can maintain a program at a high level. For the past season and a half, that hasn’t happened. This season may still turn out to meet the expectations many of us have, and next season may well be better. Guiding three-year turnarounds every five years doesn’t meet the standards of a men’s basketball coach at UCLA.
As far as consequences, I’m not the AD nor will I be. If CBH or any successor alternates three years of Final Fours with two years of no tournament and possible losing records, I don’t think the fan base (those who donate or those who can’t) will be content with such a record.
Roses are red, violets are blue...f*** $C.
Circumstances...
One needs to look beyond the record and analyze the cause of the failure. In our case, it was a loss of players to the NBA. Duke went through it, MSU is going through it. These things happen, unfortunately. Fact is CBH develops his players and runs a clean, successful program. He shouldn’t be judged on just last season.
NYC Bruin Alum
Final Four should not be only yardstick
This year 68 teams qualify for the tourney. There are over 340 D1 schools Statistically, it is quite an accomplishment, Pairiity makes many more schools think they can be there and we have seen the rise of Butler, Gonzaga and others. No school-even Duke goes every year to the FF but that must be the Bruin Goal and not just a dream.
Budget?
While I have no dog in this fight, a lot of people have mentioned ‘handling of the budget’ as a major factor in judging DG’s performance (usually used in his defense).
I start from the premise that the Regents are DG’s boss, that university funding for sports is an external factor, but that other sources of revenue (e.g. Ticket revenue, sponsorship, donations) are partially external but also influenced by negotiation from the AD or by performance of the AD’s coaches in putting a good product on the field.
From Ryan’s comments above, it seems like the UCLA budget may have decreased in relative terms (ie failed to keep up with spending by other schools at the elite level). Does anyone have any thoughts on the budgets both guys presided over?
by britishbruin on Jan 18, 2011 12:58 AM PST via mobile reply actions
The budget is almost entirely self funded by the athletic department
I believe student fees contribute something under $1M of a budget of roughly $60M. The rest is all tickets, broadcast fees, merchandising, licensing, NCAA and Pac 10 distributions and contributions.
I can go into the various shortcomings I see in the financial arena (low department contributions, adidas deal, pauley fundraising confusion), but I don’t think that gets to the crux of it.
I think Dan has a lot of strengths. I am sure he is good with watching the til and not wasting money. I think he is good operating in the framework of large organizations like UCLA or the NCAA. I think he is a competent manager.
However, an AD needs to be more than that. He also needs to be a salesman and visionary. He needs to be a marketing guy that can generate excitement, publicity, and financial support. He needs to have a vision he can sell. You need someone with, for lack of a better word, big balls, who can deal with the big boys. And Dan just isn’t that type of guy.
Dan has some good strengths, but he isn’t the right guy for a major program.
by silverlakebruin on Jan 18, 2011 9:48 AM PST up reply actions
To me, the data exonerate DG
I am not defending the performance of UCLA athletics under DG’s reign but the problems began before 2002.
Football – as has been discussed previously, UCLA Football started to decline under Terry Donahue (with a few spurts under Toledo & his Successor). This decline began about the time PD became AD.
Basketball – as been discussed ad nauseam, it has been decades since UCLA Bball looked anything like glory years.
So … DG may not be fixing the problem but he didn’t cause the problem either – so the conversation should be framed in terms of “Given the state of UCLA athletics today, is DG the right man to get things where they should be?”
(The same applies to CRN, btw)
two sides of the same coin
Dan’s supporters point to the Olympic Sports and the balanced budget as his accomplishments. The Olympic Sports were doing great when he got here. The budget was balanced when he got here.
I give him a C. Which in my view isn’t good enough to hold this type of job.
by silverlakebruin on Jan 18, 2011 8:58 AM PST up reply actions
Hmmm...
I think if you’re going to go that route, you need to at least give DG credit for baseball, women’s basketball and even men’s basketball…he got rid of the lavinoma and suddenly in CBH’s 3rd year we get 3 FFs in a row.
It seems many of you still refuse to acknowledge exactly who UCLA is and set up your expectations in a vacuum.
The C grade does not go to DG, it goes to the administration, and it would be a generous grade at that. Considering the shackles and the limitations, I think DG gets a minimum of a B. You can’t expect him to be a one man wrecking crew that will suddenly change a stodgy and stubborn culture.
DG’s grade is very fluid and a lot will depend on:
- the status of the Pauley renovation
- what he does if CRN does not have a good year
- what he does if CBH does not make the tourney this year
Those are the big anvils over his head…
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
See my post above where I compare him to Dalis
and my post in response to Britishbruin.
I do give him credit for the things you mentioned. That’s why he gets a C even though the football program has had its worse run since the great depression under him. even though athletic department contributions are 9th out or 10 in conference. even though excitement for UCLA athletics is at an all time for my 40 years of being on this earth.
Sorry, there are way too many things wrong to give him a B. He has his strengths. But his strengths are not the ones we need to lead us into the future.
by silverlakebruin on Jan 18, 2011 9:54 AM PST up reply actions
Interesting Comment Tasser
give DG credit for baseball, women’s basketball and even men’s basketball
DG was AD at UC Irvine before coming to UCLA. During his tenure Irvine had no baseball program (it was cut for budget reasons his 1st year as AD…he makes up for that having played 2nd base for UCLA) and they were competitive in Basketball (Men and Womens) and Water Polo…At Cal State Dominguez Hills their two biggest mens sports was Baseball and Basketball…during his tenure they won one championship in Womens Soccer (in 1991)…so it sorta lines up with your observations.
DG has no direct experience working the requirements of either a Div I or Div II Football program. Had no contacts, no coaches he worked directly with, etc. He did succeed in building up the facilities and stadiums at UC Irvine and improved the revenue flow. Something he continues to show adeptness at with UCLA.
It’s that Football thing which hopefully is keeping him up at night. What we are seeing may be a product of that lack of experience…?
by GemCityBruin on Jan 18, 2011 10:26 AM PST up reply actions
You may be right
I think we will be hard pressed to find an AD in the country who can handle both the revenue sports and all the other ones successfully at the same time. Not many schools out there that are doing that.
I just don’t want micro issues in football and basketball to be reflected on DG, I don’t think that’s very fair.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
True
Whoever is running the show at Texas is doing something right. Yeah, football had a down year, but otherwise, both their revenue sports are doing well, are nationally competitive, and they are killing it on the TV deals/merchandising/etc.
by Bellerophon on Jan 23, 2011 12:41 PM PST up reply actions
On the revenue side
per the NCAA athletic department revenues increase the past five years (only goes back 5 years) is tied for 3rd amount 8 public pac 10 schools. Private Schools not available.
School 04/05 rev 08/09 rev annual change
Cal $43m $71M 13.0%
Oregon $40m $59M 9.5%
UCLA $46m $66M 8.7%
OSU $37M $53M 8.6%
WSU $28M $38M 7.2%
Zona $40m $53m 6.4%
ASU $41m $52m 5.4%
UW $43M $54M 5.1%
Given the inherent advantage of name recognition and the largest media market of the public schools, an average performance. Dan is 7th out of 8th in fundraising.
If you compare us to other public school with good academics, they have surpassed us in revenue, and have increased their revenue at a much faster clip than us.
In regards to stadiums/facilities in Dan’s 9 year tenure?
New water polo/swimming/diving facility,
new weight equipment/rooms at Acosta Center.
baseball still plays in a substandard D1 facility
Football rents a facility
Pauley is still questionable, but the process has been a mess.
Spaulding is still substandard.
Nothing else done with any other sports I can think of.
Not sure where you are getting the idea he has excelled in these things. I see average to below average for being on the job for almost a decade.
by silverlakebruin on Jan 18, 2011 12:26 PM PST up reply actions
Interesting
So, in 08/09 UCLA was still 2nd in revenues in the public school. I’m not sure how Cal got to $71M, maybe it’s because of Monty. In percentage, UCLA had the 3rd largest increase, after leading these schools in revenue in 04/05. I’m not sure how you consider this an average performance when UCLA is the only school on this list that shares a city with another one in the Pac-10, a city with a notoriously fickle fan base. And no, I don’t count Berkeley and Palo Alto as the same city.
Oregon also has a distinct advantage in terms of fund raising…
I would be curious to see these numbers combined, i.e. where UCLA would place if you added up revenue and fundraising.
Finally, as far as the stadiums…well, DG inherited those. The Pauley process is clearly on him, as is the baseball facility (though if you read Ryan’s accounts, he is severely restricted by the administration there). Football…not sure what we can do other than the Rose Bowl. We will not get an on-campus stadium, so what are our options?
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Fundraising is part of revenue. It is a subset.
I’m just asking in what way is the Athletic Department improved in his decade on the job? if our job is to be in the upper half of pac 10 athletic departments, he’s done well. We are probably 3rd behind Stanford and SUC. Sports that people pay attention to? We are bottom half in football, and probably number 1 or 2 in basketball. Lower in the past 3 years, but I say 1or 2 because of name recognition and the 3 final fours 3 to 5 years ago.
When you swing it out nationally, in sports people care about, we are in the bottom part of the second quartile. Olympic sports we are still top 3, but look at the directors cup. We are slipping. If you compare our revenue to other name public schools: Michigan, Ohio State, North Carolina, etc we are far, far behind. and we are far behind SC and Stanford I would imagine. You can’t compete with the big boys without raising and spending money.
The status quo isn’t good enough in a competitive marketplace.
revenues? no
facilities? no
fan experience? no
publicity/public interest? no
Those and winning football and basketball programs are what fund the other sports. And we are doing very poorly. The other sports will eventually drop off.
by silverlakebruin on Jan 18, 2011 1:19 PM PST up reply actions
Let me change my last sentence
without a change, things will eventually drop off.
by silverlakebruin on Jan 18, 2011 2:27 PM PST up reply actions
There is no better change
than winning in football and basketball…those things have the most impact on the four issues you highlight, much more so than anything the AD does…other than hiring/firing the coaches, which is huge.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
I agree
But without a committment to pay for top notch staff and top notch facilities, winning in football and basketball becomes much less likely. They go hand in hand
by silverlakebruin on Jan 18, 2011 8:14 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Money does not guarantee success
but it sure helps. As far as that goes, it’s an area in which I still blame the administration more than the AD…
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
the administration
and the state of the UC system in general has a lot of issues way beyond the scope of the AD too, though it all to unfortunately interferes
hasn't stopped cal from investing in its football program
it might be a ucla issue, but it certainly isn’t a UC issue.
by silverlakebruin on Jan 21, 2011 10:43 AM PST up reply actions
Possibly
I’m from the Bay Area and, from my POV, it seems like Berkeley alums are more willing to donate to their football team. Maybe I’m wrong about that, but that’s the perception I have. A big difference I see is that folks in the East Bay buy into Cal football and basketball. I’m talking about folks who did not go to Cal, have no family that went to Cal, don’t know anyone who went to Cal. But they’re Cal fans, who buy Cal gear, go to Cal games, and support Cal because it’s the local college football/basketball team.
It makes me wonder if Los Angeles is doing as good of a job supporting UCLA from that segment of people as the Bay Area is doing.
by Bellerophon on Jan 23, 2011 12:40 PM PST up reply actions
I think that's a pretty easy answer
No, we don’t support UCLA very well.
Knowing this is the situation, do you believe the athletic department has done a good job in building support? Have they done a good job with the media? advertising? events? game day experience? outreach?
I don’t know if its a UCLA fans/alumni/LA problem or a problem with the selling of the UCLA athletics brand. My guess is a combination, but the salesmanship has to get better.
by silverlakebruin on Jan 24, 2011 8:44 AM PST up reply actions
I agree with Silver
I get contacted just about every day by some guy trying to put together another high school reunion picnic. I get weekly emails from my law school with subtle and not so subtle invitations to donate some of my excess assets.
I get bupkes from UCLA. I was a season ticket holder (many years ago), so the Athletic Department has my name. I have written to the school and to the Athletic Department about various issues over the years, so they are aware of my current interest. But I have heard exactly nothing.
Maybe I’ll ask the guy who wants me to come to my high school reunion picnic to go offer his services to the UCLA Athletic Department. They could use a shot of his professionalism and dedication.
I am a wooden club member
football season ticket holder and donate to the athletic department, history and art departments.
I’m not a huge donor, but certainly have the ability to do more. I now live in santa monica, less than 5 miles from Pauley.
I haven’t received anything about the Pauley remodel. Nothing on the plans, nothing on asking me to join, no events for potential new donors or new season ticket holders.
Its just an epic fail.
by silverlakebruin on Jan 25, 2011 8:20 AM PST up reply actions
1995 Women's Softball Championship
The 1995 Women’s Softball championship was NOT vacated due to “Tanya Harding eligibility issues”. It was vacated because they had too many players on scholarship, including an attempt to hide some on Soccer scholarships.
Thanks - updated.
I didn’t recall the specifics, and it was hard to find much detail on the reasoning.
Roses are red, violets are blue...f*** $C.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
