Dan Has to Go - Guerrero's Attitude Keeps UCLA Settling For Less
by lvnryt on Apr 25, 2011 1:50 PM PDT
Email
PrintBumped. A powerful blog post from Jaime L. Brown - a former member of UCLA women's basketball program. Jaime blasts Dan Guerrero for his poor handling of UCLA athletics and demands new leadership at Morgan Center. - BN Eds.
What has happened to UCLA Athletics? UCLA Athletics used to be a powerhouse in nearly every sport, every year! And when I say powerhouse- I mean WIN! The student athlete was the best of the best, and the Athletic Department was a place of prestige and honor to just walk into. I say again, what has happened to UCLA Athletics? Nowadays the best student athletes, right here in our own back yard, are going back East, to Stanford, or to other PAC 12 schools. Why, because they are seeking top notch coaches and Athletic departments that have grown with the change in times. I know there is more parity now in college athletics and more schools have advantages that UCLA does not have. But this is UCLA! There is no reason to lose these quality student athletes and coaches to other Universities. The rules have changed, but the REAL problem with UCLA Athletics is the Athletic Director, Dan Guerrero!
Dan Guerrero is more content with mediocre performance from coaches and athletes than I have ever witnessed in a top 25 Athletic and Academic University. Guerrero is more interested in making a name for himself within NCAA Committees and Associations than doing what is necessary to keep winning coaches around and, just as important, getting rid of the ones who don’t! The best student athletes go to programs with successful coaches and teams that win. Winning teams mean more money to the school. Winning programs, successful coaches, and the best of student athletes mean that Dan Guerrero would have to work harder than he is willing to keep the Athletic Department in good standing with the NCAA. Guerrero will imply it is about the money, I say nonsense!
Football has the biggest fan base and brings in the most money but they do not win. UCLA Softball brings in no money and they win! Not for anything Dan Guerrero has done but entirely because they are from the mold of the prior athletic department mentality. For Dan Guerrero it is not about an elite athletic department that is consistently ahead of the curve, it is about making a name for himself. UCLA is not the place for him to learn on the job. He is completely content with not being a front runner and competitive in every sport, every year. Unfortunately, his attitude keeps UCLA settling for less.
It is time for Dan Guerrero to GO. He was given an opportunity to show that he could lead a national powerhouse athletic department, and he has failed! Not meeting with an outstanding coach in Nikki Caldwell to keep her at UCLA is a slap in the face and completely disrespectful of her and the program she rebuilt. Not meeting with Rick Neuheisel to fire him is complete neglect on Guerrero’s part, when Neuheisel has proven for three seasons he can’t coach very good talent.
It is time to bring in an Athletic Director that takes the necessary risks to restore UCLA Athletics to the dominance it once was. Dan Guerrero is from UC Irvine where they never won, never competed at the highest level, nor ever cared about having the best coaches and athletes! Excellence starts at the top and when the Athletic Director settles for mediocrity, as well as the Chancellor’s office that keeps him around, the program reflects that. Bring back the UCLA of past with an Athletic Director that embodies excellence.
In the past, signing the “letter of intent” for coaches and players a like, actually meant you are about to work harder than any other University in the nation to be the best you can possibly be day in and day out! Signing the UCLA Letter of Intent meant that you have now committed to one of the top 5 institutions in the nation both academically and athletically. With that commitment there comes a huge price in working harder on and off the field than your competitor. Wearing those four letters filled the athletes with an exceptional pride because as an athlete you knew it meant that everyone else was gunning for you every day.
UCLA used to embody excellence in every aspect of college athletics. Today, UCLA Athletics embodies only a substandard and content mentality do entirely to the Athletic Director Dan Guerrero.
Jaime L Brown
UCLA Athletic Dept. 1980-1984
Women’s Basketball
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.
52 comments
|
11 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Great to see
a four-time letterwinner weigh in. It would be wonderful to see more former athletes chime in or get involved (if they’re not already), especially those that competed in Pauley. lvnryt, if you are Ms. Brown, do you think you can get others to join the cause?
Roses are red, violets are blue...f*** $C.
by KSBruin on Apr 24, 2011 11:53 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Something is off here, according to that link Jaime Brown lettered 1984-88, not 1980-84. Pretty bad if the athletic department screwed something like a student-athletes years of attendance up…
How about sending her a link to the petition?
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
Clearly I meant regarding the discrepancy between the dates she wrote in her post and the dates on the UCLA website which seems to match the dates in the LA Times articles KSBruin referenced.
Which four years did she confirm??
We need to see her UCLA records.
Call us, the “Letterers”
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
Thank you very much for weighing in
We have modified your title a bit and fixed formatting issues in your post before we bump it on the home page tomorrow am. As KSBruin mentioned above, do you think there are other former athletes who would also courageously speak up like you just did? We will do everything we can to amplify your voice.
Thanks, lvnryt
While it honestly hurts to read all the criticisms of our current admin in Morgan, these words have to be spoken until we convince all Bruins of the desperate need for change. Thanks for speaking out, and reminding us of when athletic competitiveness and excellence was the standard at U.C.L.A. I hope there are many of your peers from those days who will also have the courage to demand an improvement from the current situation.
greg in denver, UCLA guy for life - BruinsNation.com
Jamie, I applaud you for speaking out.
I think this is the first time we’ve had someone from within the actual Athletic family to speak out against the commitment to mediocrity that permeates the Morgan Center. This means so very much to me; it is something of a relief to know that we are not alone in this sentiment.
Do you think you can post this on Fire Dan Guerrero dot com?
I would love to hear what others who have worn the Four Letters in competition are thinking lately. I hope your stand encourages others to do the same.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
Guerrero didn't meet with Caldwell?
The person destined to be the greatest coach in women’s college basketball? Are you kidding me?
Hahah.
um… love the enthusiasm and LOVE Nikki, but Pat Summit is going to be pretty hard to beat. And there is that dude from UConn as well…
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
Well, just wait.
Nikki Caldwell is just getting started.
by Seth Chandler on Apr 26, 2011 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions
True.
I’m not saying it’s impossible. I hope it happens, frankly.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
Wow
I hope more people like you speak out. You are the people who made UCLA athletics great. Seeing the Beauracrat in th Brown Suit flounder while the athletic departments slouches toward irrelevence must be even harder for you.
by silverlakebruin on Apr 25, 2011 9:58 AM PDT reply actions
Glad to see former athletes speaking out
IMO, they have a whole lot more say than us feeble students, who the administration brushes aside.
Now if only we can get Troy Aikman to give a call…
Bring back the UCLA of past with an Athletic Director that embodies excellence.
Someone else said about football: “when did we become Northwestern?”
Time to get this train back on the tracks headed for consistent, high level success.
by Bruin Dad and Grad on Apr 25, 2011 2:33 PM PDT reply actions
Northwestern actually goes to bowl games
We are striving to get back up to the level of Northwestern.
agreed+100
’Dan Guerrero is from UC Irvine where they never won, never competed at the highest level, nor ever cared about having the best coaches and athletes!"
well said…
I finished my degree there
and believe me, nobody there cares about athletics. That place is sad when it comes to sports. When I was there, I found out that some years prior, the alumni voted down a football team because they felt (I have no idea why they felt this) it would hurt UCI’s status as a top academic university. The place is boring as hell, but I have to at least give them that. They are almost detrimentally serious about academics.
I always thought it would be awesome to use that El Toro Marine base, where they are putting a huge park, for an NFL/UCI football stadium. Orange County has no division 1 football. It would be nice to have.
Given that I love D1 football and that I’m a local UC graduate, I adopted Bruin football :) Also, my grandpa played for Wooden (in Wooden’s 1st year) so that had an impact as well!
Thanks Jaime
For standing up to be counted among the ever growing group wh want a reurn to excellence, a better image in other parts of the country, and a qualified and dedicated athletic director. Good old Dan should resign or made to do so by the alumni who control the purse strings. Do it now Dan if you have any integrity left. You have become a joke and noi one is laughing.
Jamie is God
FIRE DAN GUERRERO!!! NO MERCY!!!
FIRE DAN GUERRERO!!! NO MERCY!!!
Thank you for confirming
what we all knew—that we are not just some fringe who fabricate controversy, but rather are a group of loyal Bruins brought together by outrage over real wrongs. Rec’d.
Question for the board.
If we could get a new survey to see what the student body really thinks about this plan, how would you word it, if you have the restriction that it has to be a yes or no question? This is the best I could think of for now, but it’s not in the yes/no format. The question should also very briefly address what the different plans are.
Do you support keeping the student section on the sideline and upper level in the new Pauley Pavilion, or moving all of the students behind one of the baskets?
In the original plan they were also on one end line, they wrapped around.
So if there is a way to word it to include that, without getting too confusing, that would be good. Maybe something like….wrapping around one sideline and one end with the rest being in the upper level instead of putting all the students on the end.
Go Bruins!
If it is going to be an online survey
you could just show both seating charts and ask which one they prefer…
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
I would word it thusly:
Would you agree to a single student section behind one basket as opposed to a student section that stretches along one sideline and behind one basket including a 300-level section?
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
How about something like this
Do you support students having a red hot poker shoved up their collective rear ends when it comes to seating at the new Pauley?
by Fox 71 on Apr 25, 2011 9:37 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
In CRN's Defense
Thanks Jaime for making some great points re Dan Guerrero.
As to your conclusion re CRN that he should have been fired for his 3 year performance I disagree totally and find short-sighted and refutable given the facts of his hire and the conditions placed on him initially. Let alone the facts the cupboard was bare his first year, required to keep and hire key coaching co-ordinators as alluded to in a recent post, subsequent injuries to key players and attempting to compete with teams in the PAC10 most of whom had 4-5 years of recruits available to compete with our Frosh, Sophs and a handful at most of Jr’s and Sr’s.
In all fairness to Rick this is the first year the team has the talent level to compete although with just 3 years of personal recruits and Rick now has a staff that he is responsible for hiring albeit the first year in an attempt to meld a cohesive coaching staff with a young but talented group of football players.
I believe your article was also short-sighted in not aiming your disgust with the Ucla athletic environment by not aiming at the chancellor and then at DG. Their duplicitous complacent attitudes re Ucla Athletic Excellence is the true root of the problem and both should go or do a 180 and tackle the problem head-on.
In all fairness to Rick, I suggest we give him 2011 and 2012 before we sit in judgment. IMO I doubt given the circumstances anyone could have done a better job especially in bringing in the talent level he has.
Oh yes, for those who care, I am a former captain and player on one of Ucla’s football teams, Class’61.
'CaptainJack65'
Jack Metcalf
I can only speak for myself, but . . .
I think the Rick has both years to prove himself. We all want to see what Joe Tresey and Mike Johnson can bring to the table and if we see true improvement, it would be great to see what they can do in a second year.
Also, our disgust with Dan Guerrero is so deep, that nobody wants to see him hire another football coach. So, in that respect, Rick will hopefully outlive Dan at UCLA.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
Agree with both of you
No point in another wholesale change in the coaching staff, that would pretty much destroy the program.
My personal minimum expectation is a victory in a bowl game, which means 7-6.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Agree Captain Jack
I watched you play!
by Forever a Bruin on Apr 26, 2011 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions
Nothing new
that hasn’t been expressed previously here on this site. Seems to me, others have expressed similar sentiments re: DG and are usually castigated for them and threatened with censure…
Conjecture vs. facts
The trend is far more apparent now.
As I have said before, I was a fervent defender of DG prior to the seating fiasco and losing Coach Caldwell. The picture is very different now.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
So far
I’ve been disappointed with DG and GB as AD and chancellor for our athletic teams. DG first arrived and was cleaning house left and right. Then he acquiesced to having CTS as the new football coach, which was the first sign of trouble. Now he’s let his just rebuilt WBB coaching staff run off like a thief in the night and screwed the pooch on the entire Pauley renovation. Maybe if he weren’t so busy politicking his way to the top of the NCAA and focus on his job at hand, DG would have the support of the Bruins alum.
Other Sites As Critical?
I don’t read other Bruin sites.
Are we in the wilderness? Or, is there a larger group of Bruins dissatisfied with Guerrero?
sjh
I would venture to guess
donors like “mr havercamp” are satisfied, given their access to his highness and the attention they get.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
I never understood the concept
Why suck up to an irrelevant big shot in an irrelevant program? There’s an opera company in LA where you can sing any part you want provided that you sell enough tickets to pay for the orchestra. I can’t imagine wanting “access” to something so overwhelmingly dismal as the current state of UCLA athletics. It seems sort of like having access to the Captain of the Titanic.
There are a lot of Bruins here who will soon have basically nothing to do. I would be happy to post my favorite opera scenes (provided that someone can show me how.) Maybe you’ll get interested, and we’ll again have something to talk about. (I’m saying this as I’m listening to the long version of “Miss You” by the Stones. That’s what an old fashioned UCLA education will do.)
Not as much
Other sites had posts from BN linked (here and here) and there were a range of opinions, but outside of that there’s only the occasional post on the issues mentioned here.
Bruizone is a goofy message board
That board overwhelmingly supported Steve Lavin till his last days as the hoops head coach. The comments attacking this place is funny but notice there were no real counter to the arguments presented here.
It goes right to the top!
DG is only a product of the administration that hired him and the administration that has kept him in the job. Obviously, the higher ups think DG is doing a great job or he would have been fired. At least that’s what other universities would have done.
As has been stated so often here, our administration doesn’t care about the quality of our athletic department. They seem to be pre-occupied dealing with budget cuts. What they fail to realize is that vast sums of money are donated yearly to UCLA by the Alumni. Athletics plays a major part in the formula that goes into raising money. Teams do poorly, contributions go down. Fact of life at every other school in the country. Some how here at UCLA we have defied the rules of the universe. We ignore the fact and think that contributions will increase if we are mediocre at best and that losing somehow enhances alumni contributions.
The only way the administration is going to listen is if we hurt them in the pocket book. When the Alumni stop writing checks things change!
I agree, Dr. Phry, but I think it has to go past putting the wallet back in the pocket
When we still had the man in the empty suit as head coach, I advocated having the students and alumni fill the stadium for the pre-game stuff, and then when the teams lined up to start the game, I wanted everyone to leave. Maybe stay out until the end of the first quarter. That would have nade news.
A bureaucracy hates to have controversy, and especially hates to have public controversy, and especially hates it when anyone from the media looks at it. if the students and the alumni started boycotting athletic events, that would eventually catch someone’s attention.
Being right about something and keeping quiet about it might in some cases be the morally correct thing to do, but it’s unlikely to cause any change.
Students like causes. How about a bike-a-thon or an “Awareness Walk” or whatever, with people pledging a dollar a mile with the proceeds going towards a buy-out of Guerrero’s conrtract. That might giet the fishwrap’s attention.
$ arguments probably aren't persuasive
We make the argument sports brings $65M to UCLA and the Powers That Be ought to be concerned with it. Then I hear that UCLA must cut $100M from its budget next year. From a purely fiscal perspective, the chancellor shouldn’t focus on eking out a couple more million dollars for athletics when he has to cut $100M. Even if he could double our sports revenue without doubling the cost it wouldn’t compensate for 2/3 of the budget cuts. Sadly, right now athletics isn’t a high priority so firing that incompetent DG will have to wait.
(also, we looked at donations over the years and they didn’t really track athletics all that well)
The revenue argument should be persuasive. I'm not saying it will be, just that it should be.
I assume your numbers are correct, but I’m not sure the premise is correct. Isn’t it true that the athletic department revenue is independent of the overall school revenue? So that there are no school expenses for the athletic department which have to be cut? (Real question, not rhetorical.)
Whether that assumption is real or not, cutting $100 M is only half the story. The assumption built in to a $100M expense cut is that there is a certain anticipated revenue which is “only” $100M below the current expense projections. If donations are cut off with the promise that they weill be re-instituted once the Augean Stables at Morgan Center have been cleaned, then in my opinion that is something that should catch the chancellor’s attention. if he learns that his actual revenue is going to be $10M less than projected, then his $100M budget cuts turn into $110M. Or to put it another way, if the chancellor thinks that he’s still going to have a shortfall even if he cuts $100M because of Guerrero, wouldn’t the easiest cut of all to be to cut Guerrero?
In my business life, I had to be concerned with both revenue and expense, and our chancellor should have those same concerns.
the athletic department budget is seperate
and self sustaining, meaning that it doesn’t draw from the universities funds at all.
They are two seperate animals.
by silverlakebruin on Apr 27, 2011 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Even more reason
why such cost-cutting measures should not be tolerated.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
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.
