The first winter sports update for the Directors' Cup was released yesterday. This update started with the fall totals, and added skiing, rifle, and indoor track. It is probably not a surprise that we are not at the top of the charts in skiing or rifle. But we are also abysmal in track, which can be attributed at least in part to Doughnut's policy of malign neglect.
At the end of the fall season, we were in 16th place. This would not be sufficient to get Doughnut his full incentive payment (we would need to be in the top 10 for that), but he would get a partial bonus for the Bruins finishing in the top 10% (16th out of 195 teams).
After the first 3 winter sports are added into the mix, we have dropped to a tie for 25th. There are now 214 teams in the rankings. So if the bonus checks were being cut right now, Doughnut would get -0- for the only objective standard he has to meet in his contract (top 10% in the Director's Cup).
He would still be able to stand in line for his subjective bonus payments, all decided in the sole discretion of Gene Block. These include meeting some nebulous standards like aligning the goals of the athletic department with those of the university, for academic performance (after negotiating a contract with TIARA which provides a bonus for TIARA for meeting an academic standard which would subject UCLA to penalties), for financial performance (don't worry about needing to be subsidized by student fees). But the athletic performance measure is objective- and is based solely on the Directors' Cup.
We actually did pick up some points from these 3 sports- 43.5 points for a 29th place finish in women's indoor track, and 6 points for a 64th place finish in men's indoor track.
As has been discussed previously in posts on the Directors' Cup, the scoring system rewards breadth, not depth. Finishing 10th in women's track, as Mississippi State did, is worth 66.75 points. UCLA only lost 23.25 points for falling all the way to 29th place. But even with this favorable scoring system, which weights participation more heavily than championships, UCLA still fell.
In terms of the Pac-12, Stanford is still #1 in the rankings (and will no doubt win this again, as they have every year since Leland Stanford Junior was in britches), Oregon is #3 (thanks in part to winning the men's and women's indoor track), Colorado is #5 (only finished 4th in skiing), and $C is tied for #16. Arizona and Washington are right behind us at #26 and #27 respectively.
So, despite the natural advantages which UCLA possesses in terms of location, weather, and the fact that we are the best university in the 2nd largest city in the country, we are in the middle of the Pac in terms of Directors' Cup rankings.
The fact that this substandard state of affairs could actually hit Doughnut in the pocket book is a welcome sign. Maybe he might stir like Jabba and take some action.
Or he might remember that he can clip coupons the rest of the year when UCLA's gymnastics, women's golf and tennis teams finish well in the NCAA's, and take credit for the performance of teams led by coaches he did not hire.
Let's see- take action and hope the overall performance improves? Or, clip coupons with the holdover coaches who were there before I arrived, and ignore the results from coaches who he hired who have not worked out?
What would a bureaucrat do in this situation?