QUESTION & ANSWER: UCLA AND PETER DALIS BIDDING A.D.IEU.

Byline: Billy Witz

The end of an era arrives later this week when Peter Dalis, who came to UCLA as a student manager for the football team in the late 1950s and never left, retires after 19 years as athletic director.

Dalis, who will be replaced Monday by Dan Guerrero, has presided over an athletic department that has won 39 NCAA championships, pulled itself out of debt and into compliance with Title IX since he took over in 1983. Dalis has also earned kudos from his colleagues for spearheading negotiations for a TV contract with Fox Sports in the late 1980s and getting a more lucrative deal for the Rose Bowl when it broke a 37-year alliance with NBC.

Yet in recent years, the football and basketball programs have slid from the Pac-10's elite, and a series of scandals - from the softball team forfeiting an NCAA title to the firing of Jim Harrick to the handicapped-parking busts to NCAA suspensions of basketball and football stars JaRon Rush and DeShaun Foster - have left the department black-eyed.

In November, Dalis announced he would retire when his contract expired. He plans to play golf, travel with his wife Margaret and perhaps keep a hand in the business of sports. He has had talks about a prospective job since February but declined to give any details - only that it wouldn't be full time.

Asked what he plans to do with his free time, Dalis said: ``Anything I want.''

In his Spartan corner office in the Morgan Center, adorned with a pair of football game balls and a portrait of his wife, Dalis spent time Monday afternoon discussing his successes, failures, hopes and regrets with Daily News reporter Billy Witz.

Q: You said during the search for your successor that the way of doing business at UCLA, for better or worse, is unlike any other institution - that there are more hoops to jump through, so to speak, in getting things done. If an outsider were hired it would probably take a year for that person to adjust. Can you elaborate on that?

A: I don't think that's going to be the case with Dan coming out of the UC system. I think I was referring to the fact that one of the things that I kind of regret, at least on my watch, was that I was never given the permission to create the kind of compensation packages that were attractive in hiring head coaches. I always felt that that was a detriment to our ability to increase the pool of applicants. UCLA, as you know, in terms of market standards, has been below that by and large with its head football and basketball coaches, for sure. That was always a constraint I wish I didn't have.

Q: Would you have ended up with more successful teams?

A: I don't know. I just wish I had been given the opportunity to really effectively negotiate with someone who I was interested in bringing here. I'm going way back. This isn't a new phenomenon. It was made clear and has been clear by the chancellors that there were limits to what they would do in a compensation package.

Q: Do you anticipate that changing?

A: Yeah, I do. It may have to.

Q: Why?

A: If you want to compete, you have to be able to design something that's attractive to somebody who you want to be here. I mean, other people have done it. Berkeley's done it, University of Washington has done it. A lot of people have done it. USC's done it and we have not.

Q: What are the biggest challenges facing Dan Guerrero and what advice, if any, have you given him?

A: First, let me say I'm really impressed with Dan. We've been having a lot of transition meetings over the past three or four weeks and he's quick on the pickup. Coming out of the UC system, he's much farther ahead of the game as far as how the UC system does its business, whether it's contracts or purchasing things, whatever it might be. I think the challenges are to continue to sustain the economic growth of the department. ...

I think there's some serious negotiations coming up: Our Rose Bowl agreement will coming up in a couple of years, our agreement with Fox television will be coming up in a couple of years, a couple years after that our shoe and apparel contract is coming up. All those are extraordinarily vital to the athletic department's operation. We're not as advantaged as others by not having our on-campus stadium. We're probably expensing more of that operation than we would have if we had our own (stadium). In some cases, that's a seven-figure amount that we end up paying the city of Pasadena. All those things are challenges.

The area where we still have some growth is in our private-development fund-raising. I think we've maxed out to some degree ticket prices. We already know how much television revenue we're going to get out of the Pac-10. Those agreements are in place for a while. In order to stay ahead of the curve, you're going to have develop some new sources. I think we're going to have to get more aggressive in that area.

Q: In talking to people during the search for your successor, I'd hear UCLA described - including privately by two people who applied for the job - as ``a sleeping giant.''

A: I have never quite understood that. It's interesting if you juxtapose that with what we've accomplished in terms of bowl victories, basketball, the number of championships - there's probably only a handful of schools in the United States that can equate with that. I know when I go to conferences with other athletic directors, they view UCLA as one of the top schools athletically in the country. I would say that's not the case within the city itself. I think the city of Los Angeles does not perceive that to be the case.

If you look objectively by all the things that have been accomplished by our coaches and student-athletes, I don't think there's too many people who can say that. I've never understood what sleeping giant meant. Now, does it mean we're in the top five in football and basketball every year - I'd understand that.

Q: The feeling is that given the inherent advantages of the school - the location, the talent base, the academic reputation and the history - you can almost win by osmosis?

A: I think that's a myth. There's a lot of myths about intercollegiate athletics - like if you don't go to a bowl game, it's going to impact your future. I can look back and point out several institutions that didn't go to bowl games and suddenly popped up and were very good. If you look in terms of the type of people you're trying to recruit to meet the expectations you're talking about (academically). ... only a handful are going to be admitted to UCLA. So, that's a myth that you have this large pool of people that will come here because it's such a nice place to be, when the key - star athletes - that's not always true. ... The schools that are typically at the top have admission standards that are less strict. I know they are - I see the academic profiles. ... I'm always amused by that perception. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to figure that out. In reality, one could make the same argument for USC, too - that they're a sleeping giant.

Q: One trend in college athletics is to tie coaches' salaries, particularly in revenue sports, to incentives - be it winning, attendance, academics, etc. Bill Moos, the athletic director at Oregon, says this enables him to keep from cutting the cross country budget if the football team has a bad season. Would a system like this be good at UCLA?

A: I don't know. Someone else is going to make that assessment. You know what my feelings are: If you're paid to do something, you do it. My expectations are for you to win. My expectations are for you to graduate student-athletes. My expectations are for you win a conference championship. I think that's part of the job. If you incentive-ize all those things above what you're already paying someone - and a lot of people do - I've never been fond of doing it. But it wouldn't surprise me if it didn't become a reality at UCLA.

Q: It's been more than six years since you've fired Jim Harrick, and he doesn't seem to miss any opportunity to take shots at you. Also, you've come under some heavy criticism after the handicapped-parking scandal and your talks with Rick Pitino. Yet, with the exception of calling Dick Vitale ``a bootlicker,'' you've generally bit your tongue in public. Why? And does it hurt?

A: The Jim Harrick comments certainly do not hurt. If you knew the history of the relationship and why Jim is no longer here, I think Jim knows that. The thing that's always fascinated me and continues to be perpetuated is that the reason Jim Harrick isn't here is because he falsified some (expense) account. That had nothing to do with it. It was the fact that he asked an assistant coach to lie. And that is the sole reason that Jim Harrick is no longer the coach. ... He really put another human being, another coach, in harm's way when he asked him to do that. ...

In terms of the disabled parking, I made my comment. I was not pleased about it. I don't know what more I can say about. It's probably one of the more disappointing things of my tenure. ...

As far as Rick Pitino goes, and I said this publicly, somebody asked me to call him. What amuses me is that people think A.D.'s don't talk to coaches. We do it all the time. What some people may perceive as a casual conversation may be sizing someone up, though it wasn't the case here. The reason I made it public is someone had leaked it ... and told ESPN.

Q: Is there one thing that you've accomplished at UCLA that you're most proud of?

A: I think there are a couple of things - the capital programs that will have a long-term effect and rising to the top in NCAA championships. As I said yesterday at my event, it wasn't so much me as the people who are here - the coaches and the student-athletes. . ... It's pretty important, because nationally that's what my colleagues see and that's what they're fascinated by, the fact that we've been able to win all these championships.

Q: What's the most difficult decision you've had to make?

A: Firing coaches. No question about it. ... You bring them on board, then ultimately, for one reason or another, you decide that it's good for the program to make changes and it's a very difficult thing to do. It's an emotional strain on a relationship with somebody you've shared experiences with. You get to know their families. It's very hard.

Q: If you were made president of the NCAA tomorrow, what would you change?

A: You know, I'm not sure it's changeable. I've often used the analogy that the NCAA is like an oil tanker - it takes a long time to turn around. It's because they're so many conflicting interests in the institutions that make up the NCAA. It's probably the only organization I know that truly believes in a level playing field. I don't think it exists for a variety of reasons - cultural, environmental, geographic, whatever.

If you happen to be in a big market, people are going to give you more to be on TV. There are places where academically it's a lot easier to get people in. But in the NCAA, the members want to level it all out so they have a chance to compete. I think what happens is everything comes down to the lowest common denominator and I don't think that's healthy. I think you've got to let it go. Clearly ought to change the rules about amateurism.

Q: Has you viewpoint been affected by (the NCAA suspensions) of JaRon Rush and DeShaun Foster (for accepting extra benefits)?

A: No. I've had this opinion before I ever came into athletics. I'd like to free up the environment more. I think amateurism is artificial. It's a four- or five-year window that doesn't exist anywhere else. If a Little League team wants to get Domino's pizza and put it on their back, they can. After you leave here, you can do what you want. I think it's used as a straw man.

Q: Any deep dark secrets you've kept over the last 20 years that you want to get off your chest?

A: Nope. Some things I'm just going to go to my grave with.

CAPTION(S):

4 photos

Photo:

(1 -- 4 -- color) no caption (UCLA athletic director Peter Dalis)

Photos by Gus Ruelas