Thinking about this a little more...

I was never comfortable with UCLA's deal with Under Armour. I never could get my arms around the fact that UCLA signed the most lucrative deal in college sports with a company operating marginally above breakeven. We're talking about a company whose success was largely buoyed by the immense popularity of one basketball player, but after that they had nothing. Steph Curry signature shoes certainly was not going to pay for the UCLA deal, let alone all the other universities who inked deals with UA.

Did Doughnut Dan ever bother to look at UA's financial statements or was it as it appears to be, nothing more than a straight money grab? Seriously, how do sign a deal with a company whose EPS was -0.11 in the previous year? WTF.

Perhaps Jarmond has to think outside the box and do something different with the athletic wear and equipment contracts. Maybe call up Kanye, Lillemon, Oakley, Puma, Asics, etc. instead of doing the same ole, same ole. You think maybe the kids will flock to some Yeezy UCLA wear?