Brian Thompson In the coming weeks,
Thompson will further explore the complexities surrounding the
hiring of a new athletic director. He can be reached at bthompson@media.ucla.edu.
Click
Here for more articles by Brian Thompson
This spring, a monumental decision will be made that will
forever impact the future of UCLA athletics.
It’s one that may make or break UCLA’s reputation
within the realm of collegiate athletics. Given the importance of
athletics (whether justified or not), it has the potential to
affect the entire university’s reputation as a whole.
No, this decision does not involve Steve Lavin drawing up a play
with the Bruins down by a point in an NCAA Tournament game, or Bob
Toledo selecting a new starting quarterback during spring
practice.
This decision will be that of a new athletic director to replace
the retiring Peter Dalis.
You may think that the role of the athletic director may not be
entirely vital to the success of an athletic program. After all, it
is the student-athletes and coaches who have the most direct role
in a university’s athletic fortunes.
But the athletic director is like the CEO of a large
corporation. He is in charge of hiring and firing coaches, or the
upper management, if you will. The quality and character of each
individual team is reflected in the quality and character of the
person coaching it.
The athletic director is also ultimately responsible for his
program to stay within the guidelines of the rules and principles
set forth by the NCAA. He must juggle the often-delicate balance of
being a winning program versus being a clean program.
And perhaps most noteworthy, the athletic director is in control
of the purse strings of the department. He must be an expert
fund-raiser, getting contributions from corporate sponsors, alumni
and other individual donors. At the same time, he is responsible
for how the department allocates and spends every dollar, and is
vital for getting the university to build world-class facilities
for its athletic teams. It is important to recognize that besides
winning, the goal of an athletic department is to generate
revenue.
UCLA is at a crossroads of sorts in terms of its future in
collegiate athletics. For the past half century, this university
has been the home to one of, if not the most successful athletic
program in the nation.
UCLA has won 86 NCAA titles in all sports ““ more than any
other school. It is in the running year in and year out for the
Sears Cup, which goes to the country’s top athletic
department each year. It was just five years ago that Sports
Illustrated ranked UCLA as the No. 1 “Jock School.”
For the past decade or so, UCLA has continued to rack up
national championships. But there have been a few warning signs
that the program is beginning to slip.
While some of the Olympic sports have enjoyed success, the
men’s basketball and football teams ““ the money sports
““ have not been consistent national title contenders. In
collegiate athletics, the success of those two programs alone can
often make or break an athletic department financially.
UCLA has also suffered from more than its share of embarrassing
incidents involving the Athletic Department and student-athletes in
the last decade.
Just to name a few, we’ve had the softball team stripped
of a national title for rules violations, former men’s
basketball coach Jim Harrick’s fudged expense reports,
football players busted for illegally using handicapped parking
placards, and athletes using illegal drugs and improperly accepting
gifts and money.
This list only scratches the surface of a few of the things that
have gone wrong with UCLA athletics in recent years.
A committee, headed by Vice Chancellor Peter Blackman, will be
responsible for choosing the new athletic director.
In the past, Blackman and Chancellor Albert Carnesale have
placed a premium on running a clean program, even at the expense of
winning. Certainly, we all want UCLA to have a clean program with
coaches and athletes of high moral character. But it is extremely
difficult to balance the running of a clean program versus the
“winning at all costs” mentality most fans have when
there are millions of dollars at stake.
While a good athletic director must wear the policeman’s
hat at times, he is also responsible for drawing in millions of
dollars from donors. This can create a conflict of interest when
winning and making money trumps following the rules.
Blackman and the committee must focus its search on finding an
athletic director of outstanding moral character along with an
insatiable appetite for winning and success. UCLA fans will not
settle for mediocrity, and neither should the athletic
department.
The athletic department needs someone who is willing to hold
coaches accountable for their actions. Coaches who break the rules
in their recruiting practices or management of teams have no place
at UCLA. But at the same time, coaches who grow complacent and do
not take the next step each year toward winning national titles do
not belong here either.
The decision facing the higher-ups won’t be easy. But it
is necessary that they take these factors under consideration as
they review the various candidates. UCLA demands a winner, and a
winning attitude starts at the top.