Dan Guerrero’s Incompetent Leadership: UCLA Men Headed Towards Another Title-Less Season
by Achilles on Apr 21, 2011 7:06 AM PDT
in UCLA Athletics
Email
PrintThe UCLA men's athletics program has won only 1 national championship for 5 years. Think about that for a minute. Our most recent national championship from men's side came courtesy of the golf program in 2008. The volleyball team won in 2006. Other than Dan Guerrero has nothing to show for on the men's side.
To cover up the disappointing and often times unacceptable performances of our two major revenue programs in this past decade, Morgan Center repeatedly trots out the "First to 100" line. We appreciate the achievements of all of our programs. I don't think there is another site on the internet (besides the official site) that spends so much time talking about UCLA's non-revenue sports than this one. This community gets behind our softball team, the soccer programs (both men and women), water polo and anything else that features UCLA on their uniforms. So we think we have some ground to stand on when bringing up the disturbing fact that under Dan Guerrero's "leadership" UCLA's men's program has only produced 1 national championship in last 5 years.
Things do not look all that hot this year. The baseball team is picking up steam but the odds are against it that it will finally win a championship. May be there is an outside shot to another CWS run but I personally don't have my hopes up. Tennis and volleyball programs are OKAY. May be they could get "hot" and make a run, but odds are against them.
I realize that just measuring a program by number of national championships is bit unfair because it does take a luck, circumstances such as favorable matchups for NCAA teams to get to the top. But it is Morgan Center that always hides behinds "We are UCLA" mantra and pushes out the propaganda of "First to 100" to cover up the underachievements of both of it's major revenue program and numerous boondoggles that have become the norm under Dan Guerrero's weak leadership at the dysfunctional UCLA athletics department.
Even if you were to compare him against his widely panned predecessor - Pete Dalis - there has been a marked drop off from where the program was 10 years ago. Back in January KSBruin ran some numbers on Dan Guerrero vs. Peter Dalis:
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
The totals for men's championships are:
Dalis (in his last 7 years): 14
Guerrero (since he arrived): 56
This doesn't take into account under Dalis UCLA football went to Rose Bowl twice, Cotton Bowl once during that time period while under Guerrero UCLA has yet to play a football game on or after January 1. Ben Howland did take us 3 Final-4s but in the world of college athletics, like it or not, college football is king.
If we were to distill the state of our men's program here is how they stack up:
- Football- Crap
- Basketball- Slightly above average in Pac-10, kind of a question mark heading into next season
- Baseball- Great last year, this year a question mark
- Golf- National title contender good
- Soccer- Not elite up to previous "UCLA standards", but very good
- Tennis- Not elite, but very good
- Track and Field- Respectable, but not near national title good, a question mark
- Volleyball- No title since 2006, unclear if they are "very good," also a question mark
- Water Polo- Still top five, but no longer the consensus one or two each year
- Cross Country- Has never been very good, still isn't
So UCLA men's program feature just one real national title contending program with a handful of other very good ones who are capable IF they get hot. Meanwhile, four don't have a prayer of competing for a national title any time soon. One program that also comes into mind is our soccer program which hasn't been a contender for a while. They are a mystery for sure. Salcedo hasn't been able to build the program to an "elite" status. Most of the elite programs are in the ACC nowadays and all those programs have facilities far better than us. Hell, with the exception of water polo/swim/dive, everyone has better facilities than us.
A little drop off was may be expected because other schools are committing more and more resources to non-revenue sports but that is UCLA's problem. Other schools are being able to commit more revenue to their non-revenue programs because of the dividends they are reaping from the success of major revenue programs such as football. At UCLA on the other hand, the administration is too focused on tuning out its current and future donor base (that would be alums and students), while ramming through ill advised, dishonest, and poorly planned boondoogle.
Something is not right with this picture. The way it appears our athletic programs under Dan Guerrero's leadership keep falling and currently are in serious danger of being banished into obscurity. We appreciate the fact that our women's team could make a title run in softball (and we will get behind them if members of this community keep playing them up). But that doesn't make up for the fact UCLA is no longer contender in so many programs it used to dominate and build up a storied tradition.
It increasingly appears that Dan Guerrero is not who we thought he was - a visionary athletic director, who would bring UCLA up to par in a new sports landscape - get the Bruins out of the morass under Peter Dalis. Instead, he has done what no one imagined almost a decade ago - Guerrero has made Dalis look competent.
79 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Before we write off Guerrero as another example of unerring truth of the Peter Principle, we have to ask the tough question.
How does UCLA stack up to the rest of the nation in intramurals?
Maybe not sarcastic.
What’s guerrero’s job description? Maybe it is to make sure our gym classes run smoothly and there are enough volunteer refs for intramural football. That can’t be so. If it were so, that would mean that guerrero’s job description calls for him to put the students first, and we know for a fact that he doesn’t care one iota about students as long as they don’t bother him. He’s the sergeant from “No Time For Sergeants.” He’s Ensign Pulver hiding from the Captain in “Mr. Roberts.” He’s a drone, except he stays in the hive and refuses to fly away.
I really think we need to reach higher. Who does our alleged athletic director report to? That person is ovviously content to have us descend in to total mediocrity. I’m sure whoever it is would be untouchable like guerrero.
It seems to me that the only way to have anyone in the upper bureaucracy of ivory-towerdom notice this is to have the revenue disappear, and that’s why I call for a complete boycott of any activity or event that would put a dime in UCLA’s coffers. It’s time for tough love.
The AD reports to Block.
Who wants him to keep everything in the black, who gives a flying eff if we succeed?
Thus, our problem. This snake’s head is further up than Guerrero
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
Having benefitted from UCLA ingtramurals..
..playing on an all-U FB champ back in ’67 or ’68, I can attest to the extensiveness of UCLA IMs. But, while a nice thing to have, incidental fees (now tuition proceeds) do not match the butts in the seats at the RB or Pauley I or Pauley II.
By the way, the IM FB rules were the weirdest (and most effective) I can remember: no clock; fifty plays per game; three 20-year first down lines, and two-foot long flags.
I think your boycott will be assisted by marketplace forces. Many will no longer be interested in wasting their Saturday afternoons in Pasadena until there’s something more to cheer about.
Those must have been some long games
You need a lot of endurance for 20-year first downs.
:)
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
A very good analysis..
..of a very sorry situation.
My question is this: if Neuheisel has another snorer this season and loses to USC yet again, will Guerrero burn him to the ground and run him out of town for a “marquee coach”?
Tangentially, it always amazed me how Chicago Cubs fans tolerated abject mediocrity for essentially one century. I mean, in that time, you’d think that some exec would put together a five year plan — hell, a decade plan — to bring them up to a competitive level.
As ably pointed out here in this article, we are closing in on a decade of this stinkerama with no relief in sight.
Basically, we’re talking about one of the premier schools on the West Coast academically in a location blessed with a great environment, attractions, and wonderful weather. The school across town — essentially playing in an inner-city sh*thole runs a successful program (with criminal assistance, granted) repeatedly puts up respectable numbers.
For all the mewling about passion buckets and the post-practice and post-game blathering, we re-load each year and fire blanks.
..I dunno Unca Bob, how’s come?
To answer your question: no.
A “marquee coach” requires something in the neighborhood of marquee pay. That won’t happen.
Roses are red, violets are blue...f*** $C.
There is no pressure on Dan Guerrero
Hate to say it, but nobody above him cares that we are irrelevent in all major men’s sports save golf and baseball.
by silverlakebruin on Apr 21, 2011 8:48 AM PDT reply actions
One quibble
We’re not “slightly above average” in the Pac-10 in basketball. We’re not the elite team we should be, but I wouldn’t go that far.
Is it a coincidence that our downward slide in men’s championships began at the same time as football’s downward slide? One wonders…
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Does Guerrero "get" importance of college football?
Does he follow the sport closely?
Is he passionate about it?
No he doesn't
even though he claims “I get it”.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
No. He doesn't.
He would like us to succeed, the same way I would like the US to win Olympic gold. But if it doesn’t happen? I’ll live.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
Yes, O, but there's a difference ...
you don’t get paid to care if the US wins Olympic Gold (at least I assume you don’t).
People who are directors of things are paid to care about it. If Guerrero doesn’t care deeply about UCLA’s athletic accomplishments then he should resign. Otherwise he is stealing and not just money. He is stealing opportunity from athletes who come to UCLA expecting to have the school provide honest opportunity for them to achieve.
by KnudsenRockne on Apr 21, 2011 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Clarification ...
It may sound like I’m arguing with O-Bruin. I’m not. Apologies if it sounds like it – I am building on his point. DG acts like an indifference fan – but in his position that indifference is immoral.
by KnudsenRockne on Apr 21, 2011 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh I'm in total agreement.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
by OswegoBruin on Apr 21, 2011 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions
He does care
but more about the status quo than about winning…
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
We are way above average in the Pac 10 in basketball
the past five years. 2 first place finishes, 2 second place finishes, and 1 6th place finish. We are still at the top of conference
by silverlakebruin on Apr 21, 2011 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions
From a dictionary definition
yes, you’re correct we’re above average. We need to break through, however.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
by OswegoBruin on Apr 21, 2011 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm not satisfied
Do you think Kentucky or Kansas is satisfied being the best team in their conference?
UCLA is not about the Pac 10 in basketball. It should be nationally relevent every year. We haven’t been nationally relevent in 3 going on 4 seasons.
by silverlakebruin on Apr 21, 2011 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions
I'll leave out the "going on" till I see this season,
but we should be, yes.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
by OswegoBruin on Apr 21, 2011 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions
DG came from a smallish UC Irvine campus sports program to then
run UCLA athletics…why was he chosen?…he wasn’t big time when he was hired and he has now led UCLA into seemingly small time athletics in his 5 years…
It's not where you've been
it’s where you’re going.
And with DG, it seems we’re going nowhere but down.
It wouldn’t really matter where he came from if he had the right vision, but he has the vision of a bureaucrat.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
The usual reasons
A) he’s an alum B) he was hired on the cheap
At the time of his hiring, his base salary was $320k, then in May 2008 it was increased to $465k. Not so crazy timing, as we’d just played in a 3rd straight final four. The contract change also featured some minor bonus reductions, but kept his very large retention bonus if he completed 5 full years as AD. Either way, we hired him at $320k, while Florida and Ohio St. pay nearly $1mil, Oregon pays $650k, even WSU’s new athletics director was hired at $455k. I’m pretty sure $455k in Pullman is effectively double $320k in Los Angeles, granted those salary #’s are not from identical years.
Oops
what I found was a proposal dated May 2008, can’t confirm the actual change took place based on this:
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/compensation/Interim%20item%2005%2008%20—%20Guerrero.pdf
Years of inhiring have done this
UCLA has had a policy of promoting assistants who went to school here to head coaching positions when a vacancy opens up because the coaches come cheaper. Most recently, when Coach Krikorian retired, the programs were handed over to Brandon Brooks and Adam Wright, and when Coach Ellis retired, it was handed over to BJ Snow. They are all young coaches with potential, but it is impossible to sustain elite programs across the board when you take a chance on a young, unproven coach with potential every time a position opens up.
And by the way, Women’s Water Polo, the program that has single-handedly carried Guerrero’s national championship record during his tenure, got absolutely crushed by Stanford in recruiting this past season. Not only have we lost elite status in a number of sports, but more sports are trending downwards than are trending up right now.
We're havin' too much fun today. We ain't thinkin' 'bout tomorrow.
Well...
Inhiring from the most successful water polo program of the last decade should be ok. Krikorian was such a hire, so that’s contradictory to what you say. It is inevitable that with the departure of the best coach in the land, our recruiting would suffer.
However, you last sentence isn’t strong enough. Not just more sports, but nearly EVERY sport is trending downwards right now.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
I'm not saying we should never inhire
as clearly Krikorian was a great hire, and I actually think BJ Snow will do great things with the Women’s Soccer program. I’m saying that you can’t do it every time and expect your programs to be elite. You have to take each situation individually, and hire the best candidate available. Obviously going out and getting Howland was a great, non-inhire. My concern is that anytime a non-revenue position opens up, it seems to go to a young, inexperienced assistant coach already in the program, who will do the job at below market rate. You won’t get a Krikorian doing that every time.
We're havin' too much fun today. We ain't thinkin' 'bout tomorrow.
by Steve Bruin on Apr 21, 2011 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions
And what I'm saying is
if your non-revenue programs are elite, it’s not necessarily a bad place to look for coaches. Every situation is different and there will be cases where there are established coaches that UCLA would be better off hiring, but as you know, they do things on the cheap and it’s worked out for them, which sets a bad precedent…
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Yes and no.
Guerrero’s had some serious issues as the A.D. – but I don’t really think performance in non-revenue sports is one of them. I think there are clearly problems with how he handles revenue sports, but he’s more a victim of worse timing by his two best coaches for the non-revenue sports.
The problem with the table above is that ALL of the difference between the last 7 years of Dalis and the first 7 years of Guerrerro is accounted for by weaker performances by men’s volleyball and men’s water polo.
UCLA’s mens teams won 14 national titles in Peter’s last 7 years. 6 in volleyball, 4 in water polo, 4 in other sports.
UCLA’s mens teams won 6 national titles in Dan’s first 7 years (there’s an error in the post). 1 in volleyball, 1 in water polo, 4 in other sports.
The decline is entirely attributed to volleyball and water polo. But what should Dan be tasked with doing for those sports? Fire Al Scates, who is basically the volleyball version of John Wooden, with 19 national titles? Fire Adam Krikorian, who coaches both the men and women, and has won 11 titles between the two teams (8 women, 3 men) in 12 years?
I think you have to let Scates choose when to retire. We wouldn’t fire Wooden, we won’t fire Scates. And Krikorian is still very young, and one of the best coaches in the country. I mean, take just his mens teams in a vacuum – 3 national titles since 1999 still sounds pretty good if you ask me. Then add in the fact that he’s also probably the best coach for the women in history, and I think his job is also pretty safe.
More from UB at 'Bruin Analysis'
by Underbruin on Apr 21, 2011 9:42 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Edit...
Sorry, that should be UCLA’s mens teams won 15 national titles in Peter’s last 7 years: 6 in volleyball, 5 in water polo, still 4 in other sports.
More from UB at 'Bruin Analysis'
I think there is merit to what you're saying
The performance in the revenue sports overshadows these things.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Fair enough
I just think some context is important when looking at those two sports. There’s plenty else to discuss, as you say.
More from UB at 'Bruin Analysis'
I would also like to see
how the 6 national titles by our men’s teams in the 7 years stacks up against other schools…
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Guerrero doesn't know football...
IMO Guerrero’s lack of experience from a school that played football (let alone FBS/D1 football) is his biggest downside. I don’t belive he knows what it takes to have a championship caliber fb team. And not to take anything away from any athlete or other sport, but football is the crown jewel; it’s is the highest revenue sport, the most popular sport in the U.S., and the most attended; yet as a world class institution we hire this dude who has never had any experience as an AD running a fb program? It’s like he’s learning on the job, and not very well. We need somebody with experience in football that will push for the program; and with the revenue and publicity generated by a top-notch football program, the rest of the sports will be taken care of (meaning the athletic department would have the funds to hire and retain top coaches, e.g. N. Caldwell).
by Bruin_jim on Apr 21, 2011 10:55 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
you can tell someone when its time to go
without firing them. Scates needs to know that next season is his last. he can announce it, he can decide it, but he needs to go.
by silverlakebruin on Apr 21, 2011 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions
Uh, Krikorian left the program two years ago
to coach the Women’s National Team. He stayed on as an assistant with the women for a season, but has now left that position, too. His former assistants Adam Wright and Brandon Brooks are now running the Men’s and Women’s programs respectively.
We're havin' too much fun today. We ain't thinkin' 'bout tomorrow.
by Steve Bruin on Apr 21, 2011 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions
My understanding...
Is that Krikorian is on a ‘leave of absence’ with the national team, but will return – similar to what other coaches have done in the past.
I may be mistaken, certainly.
More from UB at 'Bruin Analysis'
I don't believe that's the case
I could certainly see him coming back, because he is still constantly around UCLA, and really loves UCLA, but I believe that he resigned, and is not on a leave of absence.
If that is the case, however, then I obviously would withdraw my criticism of hiring assistants to take over the programs.
We're havin' too much fun today. We ain't thinkin' 'bout tomorrow.
Hmm...
Based on this article: http://www.dailybruin.com/index.php/article/2009/06/coach-leaves-storied-legacy
… it certainly sounds like he’s “gone,” not just on leave. Don’t know where I heard that. I guess I must have just assumed because I think he’s still actually on staff at UCLA, at least according to the NY Times: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D02E5DA173EF93BA15750C0A96F9C8B63 – “[Krikorian] will remain an assistant for the Bruins’ men’s team.”
That’s probably just an advisory post at most.
More from UB at 'Bruin Analysis'
He left that position after the season
Stayed for two years as an assistant. I don’t remember seeing a press announcement, but he will not be back in that role next season.
We're havin' too much fun today. We ain't thinkin' 'bout tomorrow.
Maybe we should just reset..
..and head back to the halcyon 90s.
Dalis, Toledo, Harrick, please come back. All is forgiven.
What happens when you broaden the parameters?
I don’t want this to come off as quibbling, but I find it slightly unfair to overlook that baseball played for a national championship last season – next to winning it, that’s the best thing we could hope for in that sport. You mention that actually winning championship titles can be kind of a crapshoot, so it makes me wonder: what happens if you broaden the criteria a bit?
Rather than looking only at championships in a binary sense (we won or we didn’t), have our teams been close at least? Say, Final 4 appearance in bball, BCS bowl for football, etc.
I don’t think the numbers will change much (which is a problem in and of itself), and I’m almost positive it wouldn’t change the ultimate conclusion. But I feel it would be a bit more accurate of a data set.
That's a good question.
Can you look up some numbers and post it? Maybe look at final rankings for sports over the same time periods?
I agree with you that I don’t think the numbers will change but it would be good to see it.
greg in denver, UCLA guy for life - BruinsNation.com
That would be an interesting analysis
And I think it would have value here, although I believe the original post stands on its own merits regarding championships won, because as the post says, they’ve been living off of “First to 100”. The second they use that to deflect criticism of their handling of their revenue sports, they acknowledge the standard for them is championships in non revenue sports, and so they better be ready to be held accountable if they do not win it all in those sports on a regular basis.
That rebuttal holds even less water
considering there is now a "second’ to 100. Stanford is breathing down our necks, and I feel no urgency from the Morgan Center.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
by OswegoBruin on Apr 21, 2011 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions
I can't wait
Until we’re “Third to 150!” Maybe we’ll put a gold “CL” on our uniforms. At least by then DG will no longer be in charge (unfortunately to be likely replaced by someone of equal or lesser competence).
If you click to my original post
Achilles linked above, I included both championship and runner-up finishes – not quite what you’re looking for, but already done requiring no further effort.
Roses are red, violets are blue...f*** $C.
Careful to fall into a vacuum
I think its important we don’t fall into looking at everything in a vacuum. We have to also look at increased competition in those mens sports as well. Keep in mind that in the last decade alone, college sports have grown exponentially in revenue and exposure – and the importance of college sports (all of em) have grown across the country. So its important to ask if our performance has decreased, or if competition across the country simply makes it harder to win it all at a lot of those sports.
Its like in baseball, when people talk about how the Yankees won only one championship the last decade, which pales in comparison to winning 27 in ~105 years of history – but it was also a decade of immense parity in baseball, where even having the amount of success they did was far from the norm.
College sports has grown in revenue and exposurs
has UCLA under DGs leadership?
Not from a revenue side. We went from Second in pac 10 revenue in Californiat to 4th. We are 5th in the Pac 10, even thought we have the second largest media market, and a larger alumni base than the 4 schools above us.
The problem with Dan is that our competive advantages have eroded significantly because he doesn’t have a vision. He has no real world experience on how to maximize revenue or competitive advantage. he is a bueracrat in a job that needs exactly the opposite.
by silverlakebruin on Apr 21, 2011 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions
The revenue sports really deserve their own category
No offense to the non-revenue sports, but it is essentially mens basketball and football that carries everything else on its back. And our poor performance during Guerrero’s tenure in the revenue sports, save one 3 year period with basketball, cannot be understated.
Football: No Rose Bowls. Multiple losing/.500 seasons. 2 lower tier bowl victories. 1 win against southern cal.
Basketball: No national titles. No Pac 10 titles in 3 years. A 11-20 and a 14-18 season of historically bad proportions. No Sweet 16 appearances in 3 years. Multiple embarrassing blowouts. 5 game losing streak to southern cal.
I would challenge anyone to find a worse period, in the modern era, in the history of each of our revenue sports than the period in which Guerrero has been AD. That is enough it of itself to call into question his “leadership”
It's important to look at the whole picture
Keep in mind that these are the sports that the higher ups use to justify their weak performance in the places you mention. If they no longer have this to hide behind, then what’s left?
We have plenty of posts and comments bemoaning the state of the two places you mention, so basically the “category” you want is virtually everywhere else, so let’s stay on topic here and not hijack this thread please.
I see your point
Not to distract from looking at the whole picture, the point I was trying to make was that the poor performance of the revenue sports could stand alone as an indictment on Guerrero. Even if we somehow pull out some unforeseen titles and turn things around in some of the non-revenue sports in the next couple of years, if we continue to perform the way we have been in mens basketbal and football, Guerrero’s seat should get no less warm, in my opinion.
We hope you can contribute and help
We can use your help. Fire up posts bringing the heat on DG. Be relentless. Don’t just put up comments. I am saying this not to chide you at all. I am saying this to get this going. I think we will need to bring the pressure from all angles.
I don't mean to come across as harsh here
We definitely agree with the point you put forth. His mishandling of our entire football program, and the Pauley fiasco should be enough to put him in the crosshairs. I feel we need to make sure that he and Moron Center aren’t able to propagate the notion that non-revenue sports titles are good enough especially when the evidence shows that those titles are also slower in coming than they used to be.
Does a "good job for the Donald" even exist? He's pretty bad at most jobs.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
by OswegoBruin on Apr 21, 2011 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions
According to him
he’d be a great President of the United States.
Khadafi? He’s dealt with him. Rented him a vacation home and screwed him on the price. He’s a shoe-in.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
I'd say
that takes care of his foreign policy experience!
I respect Mr. Trump a lot
Not everybody can go from nothing to hundreds of millions of dollars. It certainly takes high intelligence, exceptional risk-evaluation capabilities, people-skills, etc.
Of course, the same can’t be said for Mr. Trump’s son, Donald.
Gene Block doesn't seem to put things together either
Chancellor Gene Block is obviously (and appropriately) concerned with the radical budget cuts to the University of California System. However, he doesn’t seem to realize that successful REVENUE sports will generate money for UCLA. Sigh, waiting for a time when we have successful and innovative leadership at UCLA.
Some Budget Perspective
UCLA’s Athletic Dept has a budget of $65M.
We have to cut $100M next year (and maybe even more)
by KnudsenRockne on Apr 21, 2011 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions
This is a decade long lack of leadership
to blame the lack of attention on this year’s budget issues isn’t accurate.
Another point: what are alumni going to rally around and identify with after they graduate if its not the football and to a lesser extent basketball teams? There is no doubt in my mind that a healthy and thriving athletic department opens up alumni wallets for much more than athletics.
by silverlakebruin on Apr 22, 2011 8:15 AM PDT up reply actions
Thank you...thank you...for clearly and concisely pointing the finger in the correct
direction…though I often feel the Administration points a different finger in the direction of alums…
Maybe Bud Selig
could name him the trustee of the Dodgers. The McCourts would be begging to sell, then.
Source of the Athletic Departments Under-Achievement is The Chancellor
This gentleman, our current chancellor, could care less about Ucla’s prowess in athletic endeavors and is soley interested in building the finest scholastic institution in the nation. His lack of perspective of balancing and building both exposes his lack of vision and failure to see the benefits of building championship major and minor sports teams will result in diminishing any sports fan’s desire to support Ucla athletic teams now and in the future.
CRN and CBH are doing the best possible job anyone could do given this environment and lack of support from the top. Remember, the fish stinks from the head down.
I suggest replacing the Chancellor with someone who sees the big picture and building the brand name of Ucla by supporting the greatest educational institution by also supporting Ucla’s athletic department and by re-emphasing the major sports first. This will generate the cash flow required to support the minor sports.
In the long run we will continue to suffer indignation after indignation and all our expectations will continue to be huge until we get to the root of the problem.
First get rid of the chancellor, hire a chancellor who understands the big picture, then hire a new athletic director if he fails to perform noticeably under the new chancellor and then last but not least evaluate the performance of the two major sport head coaches if they have not thrived with support from the top.
I have a sneaky suspicion, Coach Red Sanders would have told this chancellor either to support the football and basketball programs or go pound sand.
P.S. I am no supporter of DG and his apparent desire to move on to the NCAA but I suggest starting at the source of problem first. Remember life is a process and is not always a bed of roses.
'CaptainJack65'
Jack Metcalf
Who exactly does Guerrero Answer to?
No one but the President. The President is pretty much the only person who can fire an AD at any University. And I get the feeling the President doesn’t believe in UCLA athletic tradition excellence, and neither does Dan Guerrero. That means we have excellent leaders who really care about winning. haha.
If the school were losing more $$, then the President might look more seriously @ Dan’s job. From a logistical sense, Dan Guerrero is doing a great job running a mid-major school (Because that’s what we’re considered to the college sports world now). We’re average. And apparently being average is good enough for some people. NOT ME. That’s why I live by these words:
“FIRE DAN GUERRERO!!! NO MERCY!!!”
FIRE DAN GUERRERO!!! NO MERCY!!!
So it's tough love time
Time to boycott everything. Make the revenue drop and see if any action is taken.
No Excuse for dominant, traditional powers to be so down...
Men’s Track & Field
Men’s Volleyball
Men’s Soccer
All have won multiple national championships or finished in the top 5 of the nation dozens of times, yet we pretty much stink in all those at the moment and have for the past several years.
There really is no good reason for those 3 programs to have fallen so far. Maybe Scates has lost a step. T&F had some Dorrellian years under Venegas, and Maynard might be putting it back together for a solid squad in a few years. Soccer just seems to radically underachieve when we consider the top recruits they get.
Those 3 programs should be an easy sell to bring in top-tier coaches and recruits. It’s as simple as that — bring in the best (most of whom [coaches and HS stars] would love to come) and we will be the best.
I'll give Men's Volleyball a pass
Scates wants to coach for 50 years, then he’s going to retire. He probably should have left a couple of years ago, but really, who’s gonna fire Al Scates.
Venegas was absolutely Dorrellian. I really like Coach Maynard: he’s an old school coach and will do great with the talent that comes to UCLA, unfortunately, this past recruiting season wasn’t exactly encouraging.
We're havin' too much fun today. We ain't thinkin' 'bout tomorrow.
Two points
First of all, we only won 10, not 14, men’s national championships during Dalis’s last years.
Secondly, in Guerrero’s period, the other top teams in the non-revenue sports have been doing pretty much the same thing as us. We’ve won 6. Stanford, USC and Oklahoma State have won 7. A couple have won 4.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
