martin jarmond

Two years ago, reaching the first major crossroads of his UCLA athletic director career, Martin Jarmond drove the Bruins into a ditch.

He should have fired the unhappy and unsuccessful Chip Kelly at the end of the 2023 regular season. He did not. He instead praised Kelly for building a “strong and phenomenal culture.”

Three months later Kelly fired himself with an escape that seemingly everyone but Jarmond saw coming.

Soon thereafter, upon reaching the second major crossroads of his athletic director career, Jarmond drove the program into an even deeper ditch.

Requiring less than 72 hours to replace Kelly, Jarmond did so by hiring a head coach who was preeminently unqualified to be a head coach, a former running back who had never led a team at any level, a reticent former Bruin who had never even called a play.

It took barely a season for that mistake to be formally acknowledged, and now that DeShaun Foster was fired Sunday after winning just five of 15 games, the real issue becomes obvious.

Martin Jarmond has steered this football program into a steaming wreckage, failing to properly manage the most important asset of any modern-day athletic director, turning the Bruins’ largest and most lucrative national presence into a sputtering embarrassment, and you have to wonder.

Now that he has buried them, is Martin Jarmond the right person to dig them out?

It’s difficult to imagine the budget conscious UCLA administrators would spend about $8 million to fire a guy who just last winter was given a five-year contract extension. Then again, they just spent $6.43 million to can Foster less than two years after they hired him.

But something has to happen. Hire a football general manager and let them pick the new coach while Jarmond moves to the background. Or simply pay Jarmond, let him walk, and start from scratch like you should have done two years ago at the end of the Chip Kelly era.

Whatever happens, considering the huge stakes involved, how can Bruins chancellor Julio Frenk allow Jarmond to hire the next football coach?

Jarmond has whiffed on situations involving the last two coaches and you’re going to let him come to the plate again? Risking a third consecutive strikeout? It’s an outcome so humiliating that baseball even has a name for it, terming three strikeouts in one game as earning that player a “silver sombrero.”

Can UCLA really afford to let their athletic director wear that?

Certainly, Jarmond has done some great things with other sports since arriving at UCLA as a relatively untested and unknown administrator five years ago. Last season, when including the Mountain Pacific Sports Federation, Bruin teams won more conference championships than any other Big Ten school.

UCLA athletic director Martin Jarmond has done well in many areas, but football is not one of them.

(Wally Skalij / Los Angeles Times)

A men’s water polo national title. The only school with both baseball and softball teams in the College World Series. Women’s basketball in the Final Four. The list goes on.

Jarmond has done well in many areas. But in today’s collegiate sports environment, a Power Five athletic director basically has one job and one job only.

Don’t fumble football.

Football is the cash cow. Football is the monthly rent. Football drives campus revenue. Football creates national reputation. So many people are ridiculing UCLA football this fall that many have forgotten the Bruins greatness in other sports, and in the name of John Wooden, that’s unacceptable.

Football is just too important to be led by someone who would get embarrassed by consecutive coaches, someone who would allow Chip Kelly to leave before firing him, someone who would then hire DeShaun Foster without qualifications, someone who just doesn’t seem to be in touch with the most vital part of his job.

Jarmond had a chance to take full responsibility for both coaching misfires during a Sunday afternoon conference call with reporters.

He did not.

He basically said that the decision to keep Kelly involved higher authorities and the choice of Foster was due to unusual circumstances.

Regrettably, nowhere in the two explanations were the words, “I just blew it.”

About keeping Kelly when he should have been dumped: “What I’ll remind you is these decisions aren’t made in a vacuum. There are many stakeholders and factors that go into where and when and how to make a coaching change. That said, ultimately, I’m the athletic director. I’m the steward of this program, and the buck stops with me. But I want to reiterate: These kinds of decisions at this level are not made by one person, they’re made by the stakeholders and factors and circumstances that surround that.”

Disagree. When it comes to handling a football coach, no stakeholder’s voice should be stronger than that of the athletic director, or you need a new athletic director.

About hurriedly hiring Foster, he said: “I made the best decision with the circumstances and resources that I had to work with… I’m very confident in my ability to hire coaches that win championships … this search is going to be very different than the last one … when it was after football signing day, and we had to make a change and get that done quickly.”

Absolutely, the hiring of Foster was conducted in a tight timeline. But to make such a giant decision and not even take a week? That bordered on athletic director malpractice. And eventually, we all saw the result.

Actually, few saw the result. One of the reasons Foster was fired so quickly was that the Rose Bowl had become an empty shell of more broken Bruin dreams.

OK, so the good news is that UCLA now has an entire season to find a bright young coach — where is the Sean McVay of college football? He has to be out there! — and they will have the first shot at many good candidates.

The bad news is that Jarmond was talking Sunday about assembling a search committee full of a bunch of so-called experts and former Bruins. That never works. Too many voices drown each other out and you end up with a compromise candidate.

The hire needs to be made by a strong athletic director willing to make a bold hire for which they accept full responsibility and hold themselves completely accountable.

More bad news. Until further notice, that athletic director is Martin Jarmond.

They’re bad.

They’re really bad.

They’re, like, 0-12 bad.

The Bad News Bruins are a quarter of their way to completing a winless season, and who’s to say they won’t do what no UCLA team has done in more than a century and lose every game they play?

New Mexico tight end Simon Mapa (85) scores in front of UCLA linebacker Isaiah Chisom (32) on fourth down during the first half at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena on Friday night.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

They lack discipline, they can’t tackle, they can’t score and their coach sounds as if he has no idea how to extract them from what he acknowledged was the lowest point in his decades associated with their program.

DeShaun Foster once again looked completely out of his depth on Friday night when UCLA was humiliated in a 35-10 defeat to 15 1/2 -point underdog New Mexico, and now the question isn’t if the second-year coach will be fired but when.

Foster said he “most definitely” still felt he was the right coach to lead the program but he failed to make a persuasive case as to why that was the case.

“Because I can get these boys to play,” Foster said.

Did Foster feel as overmatched?

“Nope,” he replied. “Not at all.”

Except Foster looks overmatched. He sounds overmatched.

He has preached discipline to his players, but he either doesn’t know how to effectively deliver the message or teach them to exercise greater self-control. The Bruins committed 13 penalties during their loss to New Mexico, which cost them 116 yards. A week earlier in a defeat to UNLV, the Bruins were flagged for 14 penalties.

Foster didn’t sound as if he had any solutions.

UCLA coach Deshaun Foster leans over with his hands on his thighs while standing on the sidelines during the final moments of the Bruins’ loss to New Mexico at the Rose Bowl on Friday.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

“It blows my mind,” he said.

UCLA’s run defense, or lack thereof, was equally mind blowing. New Mexico rushed for 298 yards, and that was with starting running back Scottre Humphrey playing only the first quarter because of an injury.

Foster pointed to how the Bruins won four of their last six games last year as a reason he believed they would turn around their season.

However, racking up personal fouls and allowing opponents to run all over you aren’t trademarks of winning football, and considering the magnitude of the problems this year, it’d be naive to think they could be remedied any time soon.

Of course, ultimately responsible for this entire mess is Martin Jarmond, UCLA’s bumbling athletic director.

Jarmond was the one who refused to fire the Bruins’ previous coach, Chip Kelly, after several mediocre seasons. Jarmond was the one who set a self-imposed 96-hour deadline to find a new coach when Kelly suddenly departed the program to become Ohio State’s offensive coordinator. Jarmond was the one who hired the inexperienced Foster, who could end up being to UCLA what Gerry Faust was to Notre Dame.

Jarmond hasn’t just failed to revive UCLA football. He’s bludgeoned the program to the brink of death.

Jarmond didn’t attend the postgame news conference on Friday, leaving it to Foster to tell fans why they should return to the Rose Bowl for future games.

UCLA offensive lineman Garrett DiGiorgio (72) walks toward the sideline as New Mexico defensive end Darren Agu (10) celebrates stopping the Bruins on a fourth down play in the fourth quarter at the Rose Bowl on Friday.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

“If you’re a real Bruin,” Foster said, “you’ll still be a fan.”

UCLA can buy out the remaining three-plus years of Foster’s contract for upwards of $5 million, and Jarmond might as well be swept out with him whenever that happens, whether it’s during this season or after. With his track record, who could count on Jarmond to find the coach who will elevate the Bruins from college football purgatory?

By now, it’s clear Foster won’t be that coach.

The Bruins have not led at any point of any game this season. They were never ahead of Utah, which blew them out in their season opener. They were never ahead of the two Mountain West Conference teams they played in their two most recent games.

UCLA remains the only Big Ten team without a win, and the Bruins very well could have an 0-fer season.

Foster’s team has a couple of extremely beatable opponents on its schedule in Northwestern and Maryland. Then again, as these early-season games have proven, UCLA is also extremely beatable — maybe even historically beatable.

Like a quarterback who completed offseason workouts, spring practices and fall training camp, Martin Jarmond had been preparing for this moment for nearly a year.

On Saturday came the big unveiling.

The UCLA athletic director discussed with The Times the plans for his department’s operations in the new college sports world created by the House settlement agreement with the NCAA that will allow schools to pay athletes directly for the first time starting July 1.

The big takeaways: UCLA will distribute $20.5 million in revenue sharing — the maximum allowed under the settlement — while keeping its Olympic sports programs and athletic department staff intact. The school will also preserve scholarship limits at their current levels for at least one year in order to distribute more revenue sharing money to each player.

“This is a pivotal moment in collegiate athletics, and we have to continue to invest in our athletics program to compete at the highest level,” Jarmond said. “That’s why student-athletes come to UCLA, to get the best education and compete at the highest level, and we must invest in our student-athletes to provide that championship-level experience.”

While Jarmond would not divulge the specifics of his revenue-sharing arrangement, it’s expected that UCLA will follow other Power Four conference schools in using U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken’s back-payment formula as a model for current athletes. Under this formula, which will distribute $2.8 billion to athletes who competed from 2016 to 2024 to compensate them for lost name, image and likeness opportunities, roughly 75% of the money will be shared with football players, 15% with men’s basketball players, 5% with women’s basketball players and 5% with all remaining athletes.

“We’ve worked really hard to look at the House settlement, along with other factors,” Jarmond said, “to determine how we were going to split up the revenue share.”

Jarmond told The Times last year that he anticipated a bigger share of revenue going to football and men’s basketball players because they were “responsible for more of the revenue based on the House settlement and the back pay for NIL and all those things.” Payments will rise each year as part of the 10-year settlement agreement.

Even though roster limits could eventually rise to 105 for football and 15 for men’s basketball as part of the settlement, keeping scholarship limits at their current levels — 85 for football, 13 for men’s basketball — will allow UCLA to provide each player on scholarship a bigger share of revenue. As part of the settlement agreement, any money used for scholarships (which have an estimated value of $65,000 per athlete at UCLA) comes out of the revenue sharing pot. Jarmond said his department would reevaluate this arrangement in a year to ensure it was best serving the school’s athletes.

UCLA is also committed to preserving its Olympic sports that have provided the lion’s share of NCAA championships in an athletic department widely regarded as one of the best in the nation. Jarmond said there would be no staffing cuts, but some personnel might be reassigned to better serve the athletic department.

“We are looking at reallocating staff,” Jarmond said, “to positions that better meet our needs in a changing landscape.”

The ability to pay players directly could help UCLA in ways that go beyond compensating its athletes. Revenue sharing arrangements could help narrow the resource gap between the Bruins and other Big Ten Conference schools that had more deep-pocketed NIL collectives engaging in pay-for-play practices.

Now, all new NIL deals exceeding $600 must be approved by NIL Go, a clearinghouse created by the College Sports Commission to analyze deals to ensure they serve a valid business purpose and provide fair market value.

It’s expected that all existing college NIL collectives — including UCLA’s Men of Westwood (which serves men’s basketball), Bruins for Life (football) and Champion of Westwood (women’s basketball, Olympic sports) — will essentially become marketing agencies that try to find endorsement deals for athletes.

Jarmond said UCLA was seeking a third-party partner to help secure so-called true NIL opportunities. Being based in Los Angeles should provide Bruins athletes with a clear advantage in securing marketing deals, Jarmond said.

Other challenges remain. Having traveled to Washington, D.C., to lobby for federal NIL legislation, Jarmond said he believed it was necessary to eliminate the imbalance that exists with more than 30 states having their own NIL laws.

While distributing $20.5 million in revenue will be another financial blow to an athletic department that has run $219.5 million in the red over the last six fiscal years — though the entire debt has been covered by the university, bringing the balance to zero — Jarmond said he has long championed athletes being paid and believes the move is long overdue. As part of the settlement involving back pay to athletes, UCLA’s share of NCAA revenue will be reduced by more than $1 million annually for the next 10 years.

UCLA’s finances could soon improve under a College Football Playoff revenue sharing agreement that is expected to provide Big Ten schools an additional $8 million to $12 million annually beginning in 2026. That’s on top of media rights deals tilted heavily in favor of Big Ten and Southeastern Conference schools, giving the Bruins another infusion of much-needed cash.

The athletic department has a new ally in Chancellor Julio Frenk, who signaled his intention to be closely involved with the school’s sports programs during a recent interview with The Times.

“Chancellor Frenk has been extremely supportive of athletics and the impact that it has on our community,” Jarmond said. “He has been supportive of our efforts every step of the way. He hit the ground running during a pivotal time not just for athletics but the university, and he has demonstrated support at a high level and I’m grateful for his leadership at such a pivotal time for athletics.”

While acknowledging that UCLA athletics needed to be more creative with revenue generation as part of what he called “a huge moment” that would forever change the trajectory of college sports, Jarmond said the school’s commitment to sports was unwavering.

“We have to be bold and innovative in this new world,” Jarmond said. “UCLA has always been on the forefront and been a leader and that’s not going to change. We will embrace this new era and we will continue to support our student-athletes at a championship level.”