Selling Sports to UCLA

Bumped. While not all of us agree with the argument running a "smarter" athletic department "does not mean more money." KR's other underlying arguments are point point. - BN Eds.

Note: I was referring to operating cost; I clarified this in the text (in boldface).  Sorry for the ambiguity. KR

As  community of UCLA sports fans, we are more focused on the athletic accomplishments of UCLA than on the teaching awards and the research accomplishments but  we appreciate the value of education and research.  Gene Block, and the administration, appear not to value athletics.  Their lip service to athletics with their claim of a successful season shows that they do not 'get it'.  UCLA will not excel in sports until they do.   

If we want to convince Block to increase support for UCLA athletics we need to make a strong case for it.  In times of austerity bragging rights have little traction -  especially when athletic programs are getting the reputation of sucking up resources which could be used to help students and faculty.   But I feel, that we can make a very strong case that raising the performance of UCLA athletics to the same level as its undergrad & post grad education, professional schools and medical center will improve UCLA's reputation and - if managed intelligently - could improve public support of California's Colleges (and let's face it: solving the UC budget woes is more important than a Fiesta Bowl appearance)

First, we should be clear that running the athletic department smarter does not mean you must spend more money.  Throwing more money at a problem will not solve it - even if we had the money to throw.  Better management gives us more 'bang for our buck' so the leadership of UCLA athletics should be committed to the dream and they should be tireless in fighting for it. Institutional support can mean as much as money.  E.g Nikki Caldwell who will make three times as much money at LSU as she had at UCLA also experienced a stunning lack of support from DG during the playoffs - you know UCLA matched LSU's offer but DG didn't back Nikki.  Backing your talent and letting them succeed is not an advanced concept in management.   Most executives know that if you're paying premium dollars for prized talent you make sure your investments are not wasted.  If you won't help them succeed why hire them?  Duh.

Second, UCLA already has a great reputation for academic and athletic success and maintaining a positive reputation is much easier than rebuilding one once it has gone away.  Sports make it into the news more often than teaching and research do.  Every UCLA FB & BB game is reported on the news but how many research breakthroughs are touted?  Sports give us exposure which we could leverage to boost our school's image - both athletically and academically.  The athletic department should be actively working with local and national media to present UCLA in the best possible light (athletics should be one branch of an active public relations effort to guard UCLA's reputation).  We're still a big enough name that it shouldn't cost us anything to keep the PR wheels greased: people still care what happens at UCLA.

Third, athletics should not be seen as a detractor of or competitor to academics, but as a compliment to it.  As has been pointed out UCLA is not Harvard - the implication is "We're not as stuffy".   It is a sad truth that the 'Ivory Tower" of academia is becoming isolated from the workaday Americans.  Many taxi drivers and hair dressers are becoming resentful over the fluff and sophistry of academic life (which they support with their tax dollars - for both public and private schools).  Having a proud tradition in athletics gives a school a link to 'everyman' (and, well, everywoman, too - but when you have to say that sort of thing it kinda defeats the purpose of connecting to regular folk ;).  By really supporting athletic excellence we're showing our commitment to not only the 'head in the clouds' part of humanity but the 'feet on the ground'.  [I think it ironic that the intelligentsia which rules academia and tries to justify it to the regular folk, is so blind to this huge point of commonality.  I find it tragic that a school like UCLA, which is proud of its fine and performing arts doesn't parade this link.  UCLA should be obnoxiously arrogant in bragging of its accomplishment in "human excellence in mind, heart and body".  Argh]

Fourth, although 'sports schools' may have to subsidize their athletic programs with state and student dollars, a well balanced school like UCLA (with intelligent administration) could promote the athletics appropriately so it is self-sustaining.  The only thing standing in our way is ourselves.  Clever allocation of resources can maximize the leverage of the athletic outreach (I tried to fit a couple of more buzz words in but glazed over).  If we're smart it doesn't have to cost us much to build and promote a world class athletic department.   We already have a fan base which 'gets it' - they aren't just football or basketball fans,  Bruins love to see athletic excellence in all of its forms.   We don't need to take out full page ads in the paper to bring in the Bruins - UCLA just has to give them what they want: excellence.  Bruin fans are a patient lot, we'll support improving teams before they become nationally prominent. We support non-revenue teams.  As ticket and merchandise sale grow so will our athletic budget.  If the resources are used carefully, UCLA should be able to run our athletic program with a surplus.  If UCLA had a smart athletic director non-revenue sports could generate revenue!

Fifth,  UCLA has a unique opportunity to turn athletic success into a bully pulpit for UCLA's enviable success across so many fields: Film, Performing Arts, Science, Medicine, Humanities...  We could go well beyond those Pac-10 ads they show at FB & BB games.  UCLA athletics should promote UCLA academics in every athletic event.  The Rose Bowl and Pauley Pavilion could advertise UCLA academic achievements.  Our band could do a 'UCLA first' at each home game.  Anyone who watches UCLA sports should be able to name at least one unique academic or cultural accomplishment of UCLA.   If done right, UCLA's marketing could help counter the growing antipathy to Academia among certain segments of America.  Let's face it, many Americans see college professors as class A douchebags (and they're right in many cases) - embracing athletics could be an antidote to that.  How about something crazy like having a Noble Laureate on the sidelines at a bowl game?  if UCLA could build a bridge between physical and mental excellence it could engender more appreciation and more public support for higher education in California.  It could show that College is good for more than getting a job (See point three.)

Ultimately, UCLA is not Harvard, nor is it Stanford, Cal, U$C, or any other school.  UCLA is unique.  We have a unique chance to become a sports, academics, and culture school.  We could brand UCLA as a 'truly Universal University' if only we try.