John Cohen runs Auburn athletics. That means the university’s basketball problems do not stop at the coach’s office.
They reach the athletic director’s desk, too.
Auburn basketball is days away from a new season, and the program has already lost its general manager amid a reported eligibility dispute involving a player expected to contribute.
Brian Kloman was hired in March. By Oct. 26, reports said Auburn had fired him after the handling of Mantas Rubstavicius’ eligibility situation became a problem for the program.
Rubstavicius, a Lithuanian forward, had pursued a lawsuit against the NCAA in an effort to play for Auburn. Reports said previously undisclosed college coursework in Europe complicated his eligibility case. He subsequently withdrew the lawsuit and planned to return to Europe to play professionally.
The reported explanation for Kloman’s firing is that he knew about the coursework but failed to tell other Auburn officials.
If that account is accurate, the decision to dismiss him is understandable. Programs must be able to trust the people responsible for roster construction and eligibility matters.
But firing one employee does not make the larger questions disappear.
How did Auburn get into this position in the first place, and who is accountable for the decisions surrounding its basketball program?
This is bigger than one general manager
Kloman’s departure is a significant setback because of the timing.
He joined Auburn in March to help build the roster for Steven Pearl’s second season. Now, with the season approaching, the program must adjust after losing both a staff member and a player it expected to have available.
The situation also raises questions about Auburn’s internal checks and communication.
Eligibility can be complicated, especially when international players have attended institutions or taken coursework overseas. That is precisely why a major program needs a reliable process for collecting academic records, communicating concerns and confirming that a player can compete.
If one employee possessed information that other decision-makers did not have, Auburn needs to establish how that breakdown occurred.
Was the information requested and documented properly? Were there safeguards to ensure multiple people reviewed the player’s eligibility? Did the coaching staff and athletic administration receive the information they needed?
Those questions matter regardless of whether Kloman was solely responsible for the failure.
Auburn is a major SEC athletic department. Its basketball program cannot afford to treat critical roster information as an informal conversation between a few people.
The program needs systems that work even when an individual makes a mistake.
The Steven Pearl succession plan remains the elephant in the room
Cohen also has to answer for the broader leadership structure he oversees.
When Bruce Pearl retired in September 2025, Auburn immediately elevated his son, Steven, to head coach. The decision was made with the season already approaching, leaving little time for a traditional search.
Steven had spent years on Auburn’s staff, but he had never served as a head coach elsewhere.
The appointment came with a five-year contract.
Then Bruce Pearl made the situation even more difficult to defend publicly. In March 2026, he acknowledged that nepotism played a role in helping his son land the position.
That admission did not establish that Steven Pearl is incapable of succeeding. It did make Auburn’s hiring process a legitimate subject of scrutiny.
Cohen is the athletic director. His job is not to protect the reputation of a coaching family. His job is to protect Auburn’s interests.
That means ensuring the program has the strongest possible leadership, appropriate oversight and a clear process for evaluating performance.
It also means acknowledging when a decision deserves another look.
Steven Pearl’s first season finished 22-16. Auburn missed the NCAA Tournament but won the NIT championship, giving the coach a meaningful postseason accomplishment while leaving questions about the program’s place among the SEC’s top teams.
The record was mixed, not catastrophic.
But the second season has already brought new administrative questions before the regular-season games begin.
Cohen cannot control every personnel decision, and he should not be blamed automatically for every mistake by an employee. He can, however, be held accountable for the structure and oversight of the department.
That is what the job requires.
Two exhibition losses are not the crisis — the pattern is
Auburn lost 82-71 to Florida State on Oct. 14 and 87-85 to Alabama on Oct. 22.
Neither result counts against the official regular-season record. The Alabama game was competitive, and Auburn showed it could challenge a ranked rival.
It would be foolish to declare a season lost because of exhibition basketball.
The concern is the accumulation of questions around the program.
A coaching succession built around a family connection. A first season that ended outside the NCAA Tournament, despite an NIT championship. Two exhibition defeats. Then a general manager’s reported firing involving an eligibility dispute and a player who will not be available.
Any one of those issues can be managed.
Together, they create an uncomfortable picture of a program that needs to demonstrate it has its house in order.
Auburn has too much investment, too much fan support and too much recent basketball success to accept preventable administrative confusion as the cost of doing business.
The university should demand better.
Cohen cannot let the family name become a shield
There is an obvious temptation for Auburn supporters to rally around the Pearls and dismiss criticism as hostility toward the program.
That instinct is understandable. Bruce Pearl delivered extraordinary success, and Steven Pearl deserves the opportunity to establish himself.
But loyalty to Auburn should not mean unquestioning loyalty to every person associated with its basketball program.
The athletic director’s responsibility is to the university, its players and its future.
Cohen should be asking whether the current leadership structure is working, whether roster decisions are being handled properly and whether the program has the right personnel in place to compete at the highest level.
He should also ensure that the Kloman situation is reviewed thoroughly enough to prevent a repeat. That does not require a public blame game. It requires a clear understanding of what happened and what changes will follow.
If the reported account is correct, Auburn has a problem with internal communication and oversight. If additional facts change that picture, the university should make them clear.
Either way, silence and blind faith are not a strategy.
Auburn needs answers before it needs excuses
Steven Pearl still has time to prove himself as a head coach. Auburn still has time to put together a strong season. The roster still has an opportunity to make the exhibition losses irrelevant.
But the program cannot afford to stumble through another season while basic questions about its leadership remain unanswered.
Cohen does not need to fire the coach because of a difficult October. He does need to ensure that the department is functioning at the level Auburn expects.
The questions are straightforward.
Why did the eligibility situation reach this point? What safeguards failed? How will Auburn replace its general manager? And how will the athletic department evaluate the basketball program’s leadership going forward?
Those are reasonable questions for any major college program.
John Cohen did not create every problem surrounding Auburn basketball, but he is responsible for making sure the program has the leadership and systems to solve them.
Auburn fans deserve more than assurances that everything will work out.
They deserve evidence that the people running their basketball program understand what went wrong — and have a plan to make sure it does not happen again.