I know Martin Jarmond is popular with some here, but I'm not a fan. He showed up here as a self promoting publicity hound. There he was helping students move into the dorms. Here he is celebrating with the Women's volleyball team after a win. Etc., etc. He tried to pass himself off as a Division I basketball player who "led his team to the program’s first-ever NCAA tournament appearance". The truth is that he was a seldom used walkon who made three baskets in his entire career (out of 20 shots) and got in the last minute of a blowout NCAA loss. Anyone with a modicum of modesty would downplay that description, but he never does.
Jarmond has taken credit for for "accomplishments" like the move to the Big-10 (slid in on USC's coattails), three NCAA championships under his watch (two were in sports maybe a dozen schools played seriously), the deal with Jordan Brand/Nike (Nike swept in to pick up one of the most iconic brands in college sports history for pennies on the dollar — knowing full and well that UCLA is banking on offsetting costs through legal recourse with Under Armour), being "at the forefront of a rapidly-changing collegiate athletics landscape in the burgeoning area of Name, Image and Likeness (NIL)" (more like the back seat).
He also ruined UCLA's record of being one of the few schools never playing an FCS team, which the SEC schools feast on by scheduling an HBCU school. It may have made his family feel good, but it was a source of pride that we didn't pad our record with those sure wins (even though we sure could have used them). He also botched our appearance in the Holiday Bowl by being seemingly totally unprepared for a COVID cancellation.
But when he had a chance to make a bold move that only he could take real credit for, he took the easy way out and extended Chip Kelly after going 18-25 in four seasons. The department's revenue is directly and indirectly based on the success of the football program. An athletic director's job is to run that business and make it profitable or at least minimize losses. Staying in the background and making good business decisions, not leading cheers is what we need.
Now with the latest hire, he took the easy way out again. Get a coach who he didn't have to convince to take the job, one who would work cheap (compared to an experienced coach) and who would be popular with at least one element of the program (the players). What we really needed at this point was a bold resourceful manager with the right connections and foresight to rescue UCLA football from eternal (at best) mediocrity.