Dan Guerrero is an Absentee Director: Latest Example
by tasser10 on Apr 22, 2011 8:37 AM PDT
Email
PrintAchilles has already pointed out the overarching argument for Dan Guerrero's shortcomings, namely the decrease in men's championships, the Pauley denovation fiasco and the alienation of students and alumni.
Those are sweeping issues that permeate his tenure.
Let's now dive in to three specific instances that make you doubt not only his effectiveness but the level of his involvement.
The example with which most of us are familiar is the con job performed on the women's basketball team by the NCAA, when our #3 seed team had to play #11 Gonzaga on their home court in the tournament. We heard nary a peep from our AD (and now you know what those initials stand for), who was busy sucking up to his future employers at the NCAA, instead of standing up for the brightest young star in his coaching staff.
The result: a predictable loss of the game, and the ensuing loss of a coach who probably did not feel like she had the backing of her AD (at least spiritually).
For the second example, I would like to take us back, reluctantly, to the 2010 football season. For some unknown reason, our team had two away games on Thursday night, one at the juggernaut Oregon in their impossible stadium, the other at Washington, in another extremely difficult environment. I do know that one of the games was agreed in order to "accommodate" someone else's scheduling, which to me really means that the money smelled really good to Dan who is always eager to please others. Yes, CRN and Marc Dellins probably had a hand in this, but it is up to our AD to look after the well-being of our team and not put it in impossible situations.
The result: one blowout loss, one demoralizing loss, both on national TV
The last and most recent example is somewhat troubling.
CRN was interviewed on radio a couple of days ago and expressed concern about scheduling in the Pac-12, essentially hinting that the conference was misled (it would be interesting to know by whom...) and that playing nine conference games was nonsensical. I happen to agree with that whole-heartedly, as with the addition of the two teams to the conference there is no longer a round robin. The question is...where is Dan Guerrero? Why are his coaches out there speaking out on these issues while he remains silent? The face of our athletic program, the best program in the country, is...Joe Bruin?
When it comes to football, plenty of athletic directors come forward to defend their program, be it against the BCS, for the BCS, to refute allegations. Our AD, on the other hand, only seems to come forward for public statements to thank coaches who are on their way out...
What exactly does our AD do every day?
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.
40 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
"What exactly does our AD do every day?"
Cmon. The top responsibility on his contract is to films UPS commercials. Everyone knows that!
Dan is nothing but a bureaucrat....
Exactly what the administration wants. Dan will be at UCLA as long as he wants. End of story!
What I want to know...
Where is Dan Guerrero on the issue of banishing the students to the baseline?
Where is the explanation to donors for the deceptive marketing related to the “enhanced” seating configuration?
Guerrero owns these issues and therefore owes students and alums some answers.
Thanx for spelling these out.
I note that 2 of 3 examples are non-support for our football team. But DG
doesn’t seem to play ‘favorites’ – his fubar with the WBB is unforgivable.
His work with Pauley (and by extension bother W&M BB) is a fiasco, too.
I betcha there are many more examples of DG not backing Bruin Sports when
we really needed it. My gut tells me that he was involved in some of the discord
in our FB coaching staff. I mean look at their records, CRN won 3 bowl games
as HC; CNC has won awards for his coaching (in 1999, 2002) … what has DG
done? A very bad manager can sow seeds of conflict in his teams – DG may be
that manager.
BTW: I have looked to see if either Neu or Chow had reputations for being difficult
to work with but found nothing really. I wonder if there are any rumors about DG
meddling with UCLA FB. I wonder what DG’s reputation was for meddling. Time
for google
Well...
We haven’t really found anything to back this up, but there were rumors that CRN was essentially forced to retain Walker and to hire Chow, and it is not clear whether they were ever his first choices. So yes, that would be meddling. It can’t be the most comfortable situation to work with two of the guys who were gunning for your spot…
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Yes. I have heard that, too
[Wild Speculation=ON]
If DG forced Chow on Neu (when both are strong Offensive Minds), it is also possible that he dictated their job duties. If Chow was in the running for the HC job, he’d probably want a lot of control over the Offense but so would Neu. Maybe DG played ‘King Solomon’ with the offense. We all know how badly it turns out when you have two QB’s share the starting position – imagine having two coaches share running the offense. The type of dysfunction we saw would be exactly what you’d expect.
Since I’m on a roll with speculation, I’ll go farther out: maybe the fact that Norm was old school was a motivation for Neu to switch to the Pistol. Neu would learn it faster and would be able to take over more control. But it didn’t turn out that way did it? Last season I could feel that our coaches as well as players didn’t have a good feel for this type of offense.
[Wild Speculation=OFF]
I guess we won’t know for sure until someone retires are writes a book…
by KnudsenRockne on Apr 22, 2011 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions
Question
What should the Morgan Center be doing to raise interest in FB & BB from non-alumni/student fans? Just seems like there is such a huge un-tapped demographic out there that UCLA isn’t reaching. I’ve grown up in the mid-city and south L.A. area and it’s just rare to see anybody wearing UCLA gear or to see UCLA flags in front of houses. There are ads all over for $C football and hoops tix. Don’t see any UCLA marketing going on. We’ve got kids in our FB program from the area around Dorsey and Crenshaw yet you don’t see UCLA using this to their advantage. Why not pay for some billboards with Moore and Franklin on them advertising FB games?
IMO, this is another area where the Morgan Center and DG are not doint enough.
Brothers and sisters, the time for rhetorical questions is long past
We have been making noise about our AD (I like absentee director) for a long time, and he has ignored it. Everyone should know by the time graduation comes that a firmly ensconsed (first time I’ve ever typed that word, and I have no idea if it’s spelled correctly) bureaucrat is constitutionally unable to give a direct answer to a question perceived to get at an unpleasant truth. No one in the system is going to say anything that might adversely impact the system, because of the fear that any tweak of the bureaucracy could have adverse job consequences. The closest thing we had to that was Coach Howland sticking up for the students, but if I recall correctly, that was much nearer to his run of final fours than it is now.
In my opinion, the only way to get any action taken is to exert power. Way back in MBA school (yep, I got one of those, too), one of our profs defined “power” as the ability to cause someone to do something that you want done but which the other person does not want to do. Power in this context comes from many sources. Parents have power (at least theoretically) over their children because of their status as patents. Judges have power over people in the courtroom because of the authority each has to issue orders. You get the picture. None of us as individuals have power over anyone in the bureaucracy at UCLA, least of all over our AD. So how do we achieve power? And that’s not a rhetorical question.
In my opinion, the only thing that will give us (us defined as the BN and kindred spirits) over the decision-makers at UCLA is to create a situation in which those people find it in their best interests to make the decision we want made. It seems to me that revenue and adverse publicity is the answer. First and probably easiest is publicity. The fishwrap has an insitutional hatred for UCLA going back well before my time. There are douchebags over there who would love to be able to write something negative about us. It doesn’t have to be the ’wrap. There are enough citizens of the Bruins Nation that someone has got to have a line of communication available to a reporter. I tried to interest one of the Yahoo reporters, but without success. I think there is a story out there about money, and reporters always to write about mis-management of money. That could be the lead, and then a follow-up could be the banishment of the students based on blatant lies. Such adverse publicity might not have any impact, but at least it would serve to publicize what I think is the best way to achieve power.
I think we must organize a complete boycott. No attendance at games. (Sorry, Ryebread, that means baseball, too.) That means the hard core will need to picket. That means making sure the players understand that we love them and we love the four letters they wear, but that we see the boycott as being the only way to keep UCLA from slipping into total medoicrity while the AD keeps making roughtly TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS AN HOUR for doing nothing. We need to have no purchases from the student store of anything that can be obtained elsewhere. No partiaking of any on-campus food. Buy used books from someplace off campus. Tell the advertisers who pay to put UCLA athletics on TV that we will not buy their products. No more donations. A ton of letters to the endowment folks saying the will is being changed and UCLA is out. Whatever will put financial pressure on UCLA has to be done.
This isn’t easy stuff, but it’s necessary. Somehow, we have allowed our alma mater to be infiltrated by people who don’t care and just don’t get it.
(Delivered physically from Florida but spiritually from the podium in Meyerhoff park (or whatever it’s called, outside Kerckhoff).)
Not sure if a "boycott" will ever work
But we have heard strong rumors football season ticket sales are at a 15 year low.
It's not called a 'boycott' when people decide it isn't worth buying anymore
The sad thing about this situation is, UCLA fans will act rationally in response to these changes and attendance will drop. I guess the sad part is not the rationality of UCLA fans, but the changes which motivate us to spend our money elsewhere.
by KnudsenRockne on Apr 22, 2011 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Not surprising in this economy
and especially when you throw in the job Dan (the Nowhere man) has done.
"Success is never final, Failure is never fatal. It's Courage that counts" - John Wooden.
Re: Our Alma Mater Infiltrated By People ..........
Lordie, Lordie………..It’s outrageous, infuriating, mind boggling to say the least.
After Charles Young, whom I met and chattered with outside a restaurant in Westwood following the Arizona game, his successors never envisioned, let alone steered UCLA in the same academic -athletic mode as Young did. Both Carnesale & Block never considered collegiate sports and competitions on the same plateau as academic researches and scholarly pursuits.
UCLA’s recruiting of stellar professors from other institutions in their respective fields, its bidding wars to retain those already on its faculty on the last decade or so tellingly revealed the directions Westwood moves towards and the priorities guiding it. At all costs, the Westwood campus must avoid being viewed as a jock school, even if the image never sticks from the beginning.
To us graduates, it painfully roils our minds, sorely tests our allegiance to think that UCLA cannot excel both academically and in collegiate sports.
When I arrived at Madison, Wisconsin for graduate school in the late 70’s, Wisconsin badgers served as perennial doormats to Ohio State & Michigan in both football & basketball with the Big Ten Conference. Ice hockey was all that badgers did well. Then everything changed. Donna Shalala, a close associate of Bill & Hillary became the chancellor. She hired Barry Alvarez from Notre Dame, and Wisconsin’s once moribund football program took off. Their Rose Bowl victories provided coattails for basketball too.
They never looked back.
Seeing Wisconsin’s success, sometimes I asked myself in plain anguish. Why CAN’T UCLA DO THAT TOO ?
I don't view them the same plateau either
Academics and research are much more important goals for a university. Caltech > Kentucky any day. But that not the argument (I know you weren’t making that argument; am just expanding on your point).
The two sides are: 1. do both academics and sports well, or 2. do only academics well. I can’t imagine that hiring a competent AD makes recruiting professors more difficult. I can see that having higher academic standards makes recruiting some shadier athletes more difficult, but nobody (at least nobody here) has asked to lower standards.
Somebody already mentioned your point somewhere on BN
Gene Block does not seem inclined to steer UCLA towards excellence in both categories.
With UCLA being an internationally known research oriented institution of higher learning, academics and its faculty staff’s researches and contributions in science, technologies, even notable publications in humanities always get the nod.
As far as I am concerned, the more emphasis in it the better because academic standards benefited me and countless other alumni here. Nobody wanted UCLA on the same par as Memphis State, for instance. God forbids, in all honesty.
But then Duke, Stanford befuddled me with their sports competitiveness even when their academic standings perennially eclipsed Westwood. Last time I checked, Wisconsin ranks about even with UCLA in the category of American public universities. Their fierce efforts to recruit scholars in their respective fields, even from overseas just to maintain its edge among Big ten institutions, especially Northwestern, scarcely slackened since I finished my PHD studies there.
Its two pronged surge must have worked in its own way at Madison because when I visited last summer, its imposing medical center and research complex north of campus rivals UCLA’s. What it offers easily bested Keck School of Medicine in OUR opinion. By that, I am including every Bruin fan because of our common allegiance against some program in south central.
I fervently hope that day is near when we can find out what those programs knew and succeeded.
I wouldn't say that Wisconsin really rivals UCLA
(P.S. I know this isn’t at all relevant to your actual point, but I would say Wisconsin is definitely a level below UCLA = Duke = Mich, which are a level below Stanford.)
University (year x: rank / year y: rank)
ARWU:
1. Stanford (2003: 2 / 2010: 3)
2. UCLA (2003: 15 / 2010: 13)
3. Michigan (2003: 21 / 2010: 22)
4. Wisconsin (2003: 27 / 2010: 17)
5. Duke (2003: 33 / 2010: 35)
Times Higher Education
1. Stanford (2010: 4)
2. UCLA (2010: 11)
3. Michigan (2010: 16)
Wisconsin (2010: not in top 20)
Duke (2010: not in top 20)
QS World University Rankings
1. Stanford (2004: 7 / 2009: 16)
2. Duke (2004: 52 / 2009: 14) (note: the 52 is very strange; the next years were 11, 13, 13, 13, 14)
3. Michigan (2004: 31 / 2009: 19)
4. UCLA (2004: 26 / 2009: 32)
5. Wisconsin (2004: 66 / 2009: 61)
Medical Schools (US News & World Report):
Duke: 5
Stanford: 5
Michigan: 10
UCLA: 13
Wisconsin: 26
Obviously your actual point, that a school can excel in both academics and athletics, stands solidly.
Note
After reading my post and realizing I sound like an asshole—
Wisconsin is certainly one of the top 5 public U.S. Universities (in no particular order: Cal, UCLA, Mich, Wisconsin, Virginia). There’s no question that they’re a premiere program.
Asshole ? No, my friend, why would I look at it that way......
I enrolled at Wisconsin that time because UCLA accepted me late. So I went to Wisconsin knowing the university then wasn’t exactly on the same par in many ways as UCLA, but true, you verified my point.
Badger athletics surged ahead by leaps and bounds the last two decades while maintaining its edge in academics within the Big Ten Conference. UCLA athletics does not need to trail behind its academic counterparts. It really begins at the top.
That's a bit strong
There are several group of schools that could complain to be the 5th best public school in the country. I’m not sure how Wisconsin is that much different from UCSD, Washington, Texas or UNC. Here are the same rankings you listed:
Med Schools
UCSD – 15
Wash – 9
UNC – 20
Texas N/A
Wisconsin – 26
ARWU
UCSD – 14
Wash – 16
UNC – 41
Texas – 38
Wisconsin – 17
THE
UCSD – 32
Wash – 23
UNC – 30
Texas – not in the top 200
Wisconsin – 28
QS (2010)
UCSD – 65
Wash – 55
UNC – 57
Texas – 67
Wisconsin – 48
As for the larger point, obviously 3 of those 4 schools are successful D-1 schools
Taking the averages ...
(used 201 for Texas THE; ignored medical school rankings)
Cal: 16, UCLA: 19, UMich: 19
Wisconsin: 31, Wash: 31, UCSD: 37, Illinois: 40, UNC: 42
UCSB: 56, Minnesota: 62, UC Davis: 69, Georgia Tech: 71, Pittsburgh: 77, Ohio State: 85, Penn State: 91, Virginia: 98, Texas: 102, Arizona: 113 (I’m sure I’ve missed some schools outside the top 8).
Certainly you make an excellent case for UNC, UCSD, Illinois, and UW being in the top 5. I was probably wrong to rank Virginia, and Texas probably doesn’t belong either (if we discount THE, it’s at 53).
The other issue is that ‘5’ is an arbitrary number. I think it’s:
Group 1 public schools (high 10s): Cal, UCLA, UMich
Group 2 public schools (low 30s to low 40s): Wisconsin, UW, UNC, UCSD, Illinois
Group 3 public schools (low 50s to low 70s?): UCSB … Pittsburgh?
It’s almost entirely arbitrary past group 3, but IMO we see a gap between Group 1/2 and between Group 2/3, so top 3 and top 8 are a good choices for grouping.
The other issue is that the rankings themselves are fairly arbitrary (exhibited in the large discrepancy between the rankings). IMO you can’t go wrong with any of the above 8 schools. I actually know excellent people from each one of those schools, although that’s probably more coincidental.
And 7/8 have D-1 programs, and 5/7 have had very successful programs at some point in their history. Fully proving that you can (and should) do both athletics and academics.
As a side note, USC is 77, so as much as they lie to themselves they really can’t hang with Group 1 or 2 public universities.
Re: As much as they lie to themselves .....
With its inflated sense of self importance, USC probably does. However, I must also grudgingly accept that its community outreach program, hailed by US News & World Report as the best among all D1 schools, was true and perhaps still is.
Knowing what I know, USC serves the underprivileged LAUSD students in its neighborhoods well. The medical & dental students provided checkups, exams and in some severely needy cases, medical care or even surgeries at Children’s Hospital with significant discounts based on USC referrals.
School of Education & Social works’ interns provided counseling and tutoring. Law School did its share too.
Students from an optometry Institute affiliated with USC collects discarded eyeglasses, then recycles the frames, refits with lenses for students too.
USC runs a deplorable sports program. The jury is in each time. But its community outreach efforts earned people their nods.
Your numbers & stats ( Dokein & classof13 ) amazed me. In my mind, I will always be partial to the bruins & the badgers. Sorry.
Imagine bruins’ talents & athleticism coupled with badgers’ hard nosed defense & powerful running game in football. The latter beat us twice in Rose Bowl not for nothing. Besides, you won’t find among its coaching staff someone with a gilded resume but fluffy, timidly incoherent offensive schemes.
Bo Ryan does not have Howland’s profile & recognition. He came up the ranks by way of DII programs within the university systems even. Yet his players, predominantly white, rural kids within state and neighboring Minnesota, with some occasionally from Chicago areas, gave what they had day in day out.
Recently, I watched them beat #1 Ohio State on a snowy, frigid winter evening when I flew in after attending a professional conference in upstate NY. The whole time I envisioned watching Tyler Honeycutt making those crucial plays, Anderson directing offense and Nelson scored on offensive rebounds again and again.
Nothing is impossible for UCLA Bruins too. But it must start from the top. Guerrero & his bureaucrat’s shenanigans cannot be excused.
OK. Check out his 'official' bio
<http://www.uclabruins.com/genrel/guerrero_danielg00.html>
Obviously, UCLA wouldn’t put up something critical of him – especially when they’re paying him ~$450K/yr. However, if you read between the lines what is your take?
It requires some detailed analysis to determine how much credit he deserves for the various national titles UCLA won while he was in office. (They say for the POTUS, he inherits his economy and military from the previous administration). How many of the NC-winning coaches were his hires? How many programs winning titles in the past 8 years weren’t already elite programs before he arrived?
How good are his ‘resource development’ activities e.g. his contract with Adidas, negotiations with the Pac-12, etc?
[Also, note his outside-of-UCLA committees and activities. Wouldn’t you think that he should be more focused on the institution which is paying him so much while being in decline?]
The women's basketball fiasco is what finally
did it for me! Take a look at the program under his watch and its clear he should be fired!
"Success is never final, Failure is never fatal. It's Courage that counts" - John Wooden.
Gonzaga Home Court Advantage
Stanford, who was the #1 seed in the region and the #3 team overall, also had to play Gonzaga in Spokane. Is this just how the Women’s tournament is constructed?
Just out of curiosity
How many times has an athletic director publicly made a big deal about getting screwed over in NCAA tournament seeding/scheduling? Does the selection committee consult with each school’s athletic director before publishing their decision to make sure each school is ok with the decision? Has the selection committee ever changed the seeding/schedule after the fact due to the complaints of an athletic director?
LOL!
13, I will notch it up to naivete and innocence that you made that comment. The point about DG speaking out is not to make the committee change its mind but to make a public statement and stand behind his coach.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
by tasser10 on Apr 22, 2011 8:27 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Sorry
I didn’t mean to come across so condescending. Just wanted to clarify what our expectation of a leader is.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
by tasser10 on Apr 22, 2011 8:33 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I think 13 makes a valid point
We should probably define what we mean by a “good” athletic director.
We know what a good athletic director does not look like, and that’s guerrero, but what does a good one look like. What are some examples of actions taken by a good athletic director? I’m not talking about an athletic director who hires the perfect head coach necessarily, although that would have to count as much as hiring the wrong coach counts in the other direction.
I don’t have a ready definition, nor do I have a paragon to point at. Also, I hadn’t even thought about this side of the coin until I saw the exchange between tasser and class of 13.
OK, but
Who has ever done that before? If it’s such a reasonable demand, surely there are tons of examples of athletic directors publicly complaining about seeding in the women’s tournament. What happened to UCLA isn’t particularly rare.
by Classof13 on Apr 22, 2011 10:17 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
It's called being a leader
and that means sometimes you go against the grain, especially when the coach you recently hired is a hot commodity and you’re trying to put together a package to retain her. The way the women’s tournament is set up is completely absurd and someone should speak out against it.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Love 13's logic
It essentially boils down to:
“If it’s wrong and no one else is complaining, you shouldn’t complain either, even though it’s obviously stupid/wrong/illogical”
If you’re the future of our country, we’re screwed.
To pile on...
…it’s obvious that the woman’s NCAA tournament seeding and configuration is out of whack. Every other major sport that has a playoff system gives the higher seed the home-court/field/arena advantage. That’s the whole point of doing better in the regular season: the better you do, the more likely you get home-court/field/arena advantage throughout the playoffs/tournament.
To put a higher seeded team in an intentionally-lower seeded team’s home floor in a one-off playoff system is absolutely f**king stupid.
To insinuate that because no one else is calling this bullshit system out, then DG shouldn’t, is the most pathetic lame excuse I’ve ever seen.
You obviously seem more interested in making excuses for DG and his lazy hack chumps at Morgan Center and keeping things in the same mediocre status quo rather than striving for excellence.
Real Bruins strive to be champions at everything we do, not settle for complacency and mediocrity, which is exactly what you seem to be promoting.
I'm not convinced
that 13 is a student…but hey, I also thought Ryan was DG.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
by tasser10 on Apr 23, 2011 2:55 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I think we can throw that one out.
But isn’t he still N?
greg in denver, UCLA guy for life - BruinsNation.com
here's an example
AD complains, NCAA holds firm
by Parrish Alford/NEMS Daily Journal 24 months ago | 428 views | 0 | 5 | |
OXFORD – Ole Miss athletics director Pete Boone blew off steam at the NCAA Wednesday, but nothing will change with the school’s seeding for the NCAA tennis tournament.
On Tuesday it was announced that Ole Miss, the No. 2 seed in the tournament, will not host the first two rounds as it has done for the last eight seasons but will travel to LSU.
The selection committee emphasized a policy of “regionalization” which is aimed at reducing travel. Therefore, Rice, of Houston, Texas, will join Ole Miss, LSU and Alcorn State in Baton Rouge and not have to travel further to Oxford. Ole Miss will face Alcorn State in the first round.
Boone, tennis coach Billy Chadwick and associate athletics director Lynette Johnson were part of a conference call with NCAA representatives.
Competing in what many regard as the nation’s strongest tennis conference, the Rebels completed the SEC regular season and tournament without a loss.
They also lead the nation in attendance.
The university administration and the NCAA basically agreed to disagree.
“I told them I have been on NCAA committees, and there’s always flexibility written into policy to take care of situations like this,” Boone said. “What I feel happened is they never stepped back, took a deep breath and said, ‘Is this right?’ because in fact it is not right. Don’t tell me they couldn’t have re-seeded or changed things to do what was right in the long run.”
Read more: NEMS360.com – AD complains NCAA holds firm
by silverlakebruin on Apr 24, 2011 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions
There's a difference, Silver
Our Absentee Director has no intellectual connection with the concept “Is this right?”
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
Related FanShots on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
