Doughnut's Reign of Error- Financial Mismanagement, Part II

Bumped. This is why we need transparency and total sunshine on how the athletics department is being managed by the most incompetent AD in the country. The more we see these numbers the more questions arise about Dan Guerrero. - BN Eds.

As part of our continuing look at financial matters under Doughnut, we looked more closely at the DOE filings by the athletic departments of UCLA and Cal for 2010 and 2011 (the most recent years available). We chose Cal not because of the astute management by Sandy Barbour- far from it. As noted by bruinclassof10, she is generally regarded as one of the bottom ranked athletic directors in the conference. We chose Cal because of overlapping ties in terms of conference, geography, and sources of financial support. So if UCLA outperformed Cal under Doughnut in terms of financial management, this would be a low bar. But if UCLA underperformed, wow.

The DOE reports show revenue and expense by sport, and also include catch-all "other" revenue and expense amounts, which all add up to total revenue and profit by school. The reports clearly show how easy it is to manipulate the data to get to a desired result. Either that, or what happens in one year has absolutely no bearing on what happens the following year (unlikely).

As an example, in 2010, UCLA reported that no sport had revenue and expense which matched to the penny, and all sports except football and men's basketball lost money. This makes perfect sense. There is no company which has revenue and expense which match to the penny, and there is no company with products which have matching revenue and expense to the penny.

But the 2011 UCLA report shows that 9 out of 11 women's sports had revenues and expenses which matched to the penny. The 2 women's sports which show reported losses in 2011 are volleyball and water polo. There are 2 possible explanations for this result. First, Doughnut might have found a sugar daddy to support women's sports, who said that he or she would cover any shortfall by sport. Except for whatever reason, this sugar daddy hates volleyball and water polo. This can't be due to success in terms of wins and losses. Women's volleyball went to the 2nd round of the NCAA tournament in 2011, while women's water polo finished 3rd in the NCAA tournament in 2011.

Second explanation- Doughnut had the data manipulated to get to a desired result. Is it coincidence that the money losing women's sports happened to be the last 2 alphabetically in the DOE report? Possibly. Or, as seems more likely to me, Doughnut had the accountants reclassify as much revenue as was necessary to bring women's sports up to break-even, starting with basketball (1st on the list alphabetically), then moving to cross-country/track, then to golf, then to gymnastics, and so on. And the revenue which could be shifted ran out with tennis. So women's volleyball and women's water polo were shown, arbitrarily, as losing money in 2011, while all other women's sports were shown as break even. I assume that this result was designed to show Doughnut's financial acumen, as he could say that 9 out of 11 teams broke even.

As noted above, there was no similar result in 2010. And, for what it is worth, Cal shows no break-even sports in 2010 and only 2 in 2011.

This is all an intro to the point that there appears to be serious manipulation of data in the reports to get to a desired conclusion. So when we compare results by school by sport by year, and the results look poor for UCLA, just think how much worse they might have been without the manipulation.

So on the comparison. Again this battle of titans is Doughnut vs. Sandy Barbour, not against stiff competition (the only stiff in this competition is Doughnut himself).

Based on the DOE reports, Cal's athletic department made money in 2010 and in 2011 (i.e. revenues were greater than expenses). Based on the DOE reports, UCLA's athletic department lost money in 2010 and 2011, in amounts which can't be determined, and which were covered by outside revenue sources which can't be determined.

It is not unusual for an athletic department to run at a loss. Looking at DOE results, there are a lot of schools which show exactly breakeven, as UCLA does, which is a convention to reflect the subsidization from sources outside the athletic department. What makes UCLA unique is not the loss. What makes UCLA unique is that Block has seen fit to extol Doughnut's financial management as a reason to keep him as the highest paid AD through 2019.

By sport, Cal made more money (or had smaller losses) than UCLA in 12 sports in 2010 and Cal made more money (or had smaller losses) than UCLA in 10 sports in 2011. UCLA made more money (or had smaller losses) than Cal in 2 sports in 2010 and UCLA made more money (or had smaller losses) than Cal in 3 sports in 2011. Remember, this is after all the arbitrary shuffling by Doughnut shown above.

Cal made more money than UCLA in football in 2010 and in 2011. And this was with Cal teams that went to the Poinsettia Bowl in 2010, and did not go to a bowl game in 2011. In those same years, UCLA went to the EagleBank Bowl (ah, the glory days) in 2010, and did not go to a bowl game in 2011. So both teams sucked on the field. But Sandy Barbour was able to out-earn Doughnut in this scenario of collective mediocrity.

UCLA made more money than Cal in men's basketball in 2010. UCLA is supposed to make more money than Cal in basketball every year. Our home court has a larger capacity, and despite the fiasco in recent years, we are still regarded (at least by our Kentucky correspondent) as one of the 6 top programs in the country. But here is the kicker for Doughnut- Cal made more money than UCLA in men's basketball in 2011. This was a Cal team which was not good enough to make the NCAA's and went to the NIT. UCLA went to the 2nd round of the NCAA's in the same year. And again, Sandy Barbour had a better financial result than Doughnut.

It is really hard to draw conclusions about the health of a particular sport or a particular athletic program by taking a snapshot of a single season. But there is an inescapable conclusion when you look at the totality of the results for Cal and for UCLA, despite the apparent manipulation in the DOE reports-

Doughnut is not a financial wizard. The emperor has no clothes.

<em>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.</em>

Log In Sign Up

Log In Sign Up

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

By becoming a registered user, you are also agreeing to our Terms and confirming that you have read our Privacy Policy.

Join Bruins Nation

You must be a member of Bruins Nation to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Bruins Nation. You should read them.

Join Bruins Nation

You must be a member of Bruins Nation to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Bruins Nation. You should read them.




Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.