I read a great post today that really got me thinking about the inhibiting practices in UCLA's athletic department.
1. Why don't we make it easy for student athletes to succeed with a wider variety of majors?
2. Why can't donations help pay coaches' salaries?
3. Why is UCLA so afraid to accept an athlete that does not meet the ridiculous standards of our University? Everyone else does it, even Stanford (they are private so they can really do whatever they want).
These three issues really struck me. It got me asking: When was the last time the University of Chicago was in the Rose Bowl or the College of the South or Tulane were in the Sugar Bowl? Can't remember? Did you even know that Chicago was a founding Big Ten member and The College of the South and Tulane were founding SEC members? The way other athletic programs are adapting to the changing dynamics worries me (it really doesn't but I'm trying to hammer a point home) that UCLA may be mentioned in a similar trivia question.
Also, according to the ever-veracious, never manipulated, Wikipedia (and my recent memories) UCLA has finished 2nd place more times than it has finished 1st under Dan Guerrero. Do we have an inability to finish a race or what? We're UCLA! Those numbers should be skewed in the other direction.
In DG's first 5 years at UCLA we won UCLA won 12 national championships. In his most recent 5 years, UCLA has won 6.
The writing is on the wall. Our trophies are in someone else's Morgan Center.