We clearly all want Doughnut to vacate the premises. He will clearly have small shoes to fill. However, the job of Athletic Director at UCLA, if done right, should be a "big shoes" job.
Can we trust Recessive Gene to make the hire, if Doughnut were removed? Recessive has not demonstrated any interest in athletics at UCLA. He would presumably make the decision in as easy a manner as possible for himself. This could mean delegating to a search committee (which would be fine), or it could mean finding the easiest hire, qualified or not, by himself or with a trusted confidante (which would not be fine). I think the re-hire of Doughnut showed Recessive's desire to take the easiest road possible, which would presumably apply to any new hire process also.
We faced a similar situation with Guerrero, and whether Howland should stay on (as poorly as he was running the basketball team) until Guerrero was gone, because Guerrero could not be trusted with the next hire. So far, those fears seem to have played out, given Alford's missteps to date.
So the question is would we be better off with a replacement hired by Recessive, or would we be better off waiting for a real chancellor to hire the next real athletic director?