Brian Thompson The soon-to-be graduating
and jobless Thompson wants to know why he wasn’t considered for the
AD job. He can be reached at bthompson@media.ucla.edu.
Click Here for more articles by Brian Thompson
It’s the bottom of the ninth inning, so to speak, in the
selection process for the new UCLA athletic director.
And after the new athletic director is selected, he will be
analyzed and scrutinized, compared and contrasted. But rather than
overly-dissecting the new athletic director’s biography, the
more important issues surrounding his hiring relate to the future
of the athletic department.
Without a doubt, there will be immense pressure on the new
athletic director to elevate the athletic program, and in
particular the big-money sports of football and men’s
basketball, to the next level. While UCLA has enjoyed success in
athletics during the reign of outgoing athletic director Peter
Dalis, most Bruin fans have grown wary of the numerous scandals and
problems, and believe that, for a variety of reasons, Bruin
athletic teams have performed far under potential.
Bruin fans demand success from UCLA teams. With the apparent
resources at the university’s disposal, they should expect
nothing less. After all, many of the best student-athletes in the
nation are in UCLA’s own backyard in Southern California.
But unfortunately, the new athletic director might not have as
much to work with as we may all have hoped. In fact, there are many
serious obstacles standing in his or her way that potentially
threaten UCLA’s chances of ever being the athletic powerhouse
Bruins fans believe it could and should be.
Athletic directors can make their mark on a university in two
big ways: building new world-class facilities, and hiring the right
coaches. Those are the two factors that draw a top student-athlete
to a school, and if you get enough top student-athletes, it is
hoped that it will lead to winning. And winning, of course, leads
to the desirable byproduct of revenue for the program. The more
revenue a program makes, the more new facilities and top coaches it
can hire.
It’s all a big cycle, and looks simple enough on paper.
The end result is that we’re hanging banners in Pauley
Pavilion ever year and everyone is happy. And it all starts with an
athletic director’s ability to build facilities and hire top
coaches.
Previous UCLA athletic directors have worked wonders building
beautiful fields, pools and gyms for Bruin teams to enjoy.
They’ve done all of this in an incredibly limited amount of
space. But the problem now is that there is little to no space left
to build. And while the Olympic sports mostly have great facilities
in which to play, the two big money-makers, football and
men’s basketball, face a facilities crisis that cannot be
easily solved.
The simple fact is that UCLA would benefit by leaps and bounds
from having an on-campus football stadium. Pasadena is just too far
away to create any atmosphere or any real excitement that comes
with having an on-campus stadium. Because of the space issue, along
with the fact that UCLA’s neighbors would go to great lengths
to prevent 80,000 people from coming to the area on Saturdays in
the fall, means that the on-campus stadium that would push UCLA
football into elite status will never happen.
Likewise, Pauley, the shining beacon of college basketball that
is it, is in desperate need of renovation or replacement. Pauley
was grand in its day. But it’s 2002 now, and the era of
luxury boxes, club seats, and heck, even seats that are within
shouting distance to the court, is upon us.
A new Pauley is an attainable goal, but generating the tens of
millions of dollars needed won’t be easy. And as the new
athletic director will find out, getting a capital project under
way at a bureaucratic, public university is like pulling teeth.
Pauley needs to be renovated, and can be renovated, but can the
athletic director ever cut through the red tape to get it done?
Perhaps a more pressing issue for the new athletic director is
the lack of power now held by the position. The position of
athletic director currently lacks the authority to make personnel
decisions, particularly as pertains to head football and
men’s basketball coaches.
When “Pitinogate” struck the program in early 2001,
one thing became very apparent: Chancellor Albert Carnesale calls
the shots in regards to men’s basketball, and likely does the
same in regards to football.
Steve Lavin and Bob Toledo, by nature of their positions, make
so much money and have such secure contracts that it would take an
act of the chancellor to remove either one. This severely limits
the athletic director’s ability to make decisions and
structure his or her own program.
And in regards to other coaches at UCLA, many have been here for
so long that it would be extremely difficult for a fresh faced new
athletic director to replace them. An athletic director six months
on the job understandably may find it harder than he thinks to
replace a coach with 15 or more years of service to the school.
In many regards, the new athletic director will have an
unenviable task. He or she will be extremely limited in making an
impact with the two major components in which a lasting mark can be
made.
For too long, the athletic department has believed that UCLA
recruits for itself. In this era, student-athletes and fans alike
demand to see a commitment to winning by a university.
Unfortunately, even a dedicated, ambitious athletic director may
have his hands tied.