If you have not had a chance to read through it, we strongly recommend checking out tasser10's post on "the Lucky Bruins." tasser put together a pretty cool chart of all UCLA graduating classes since 1943 and list the Bruin senior classes who were fortunate to enough to experience watching the Bruin football program play in the Rose Bowl and the basketball team bring home a national championship.
The classes of 64 to 69, 76 to 78, and 95 to 97 were the "lucky" ones. Bonus points for those lucky ones who graduated between 95 and 97, as they never lost a football game to Southern Cal. That's the good stuff. I went to school during the mid-80s when we were winning Rose Bowls regularly. The dispiriting portion of tasser's chart underscores the points we have been making in recent months on BN about one of the worst athletic director (but the highest paid one in the Pac-12) in the country.
While we sympathize with the members of UCLA senior classes who never experienced watching the Bruins playing in the Rose Bowl or bringing home a hoops championship not the common denominator for those "unlucky" ones:
From 1943 to 2002, only 12 graduating classes went without seeing a Rose Bowl berth or a basketball championship. That's 12 classes out of 60.
From 2003 to 2012...there will be 10. Out of 10.
Dan Guerrero arrived in the 2002/2003 school year. It is NOT a coincidence.
As tasser pointed out later in the thread, if he had added a column for wins over Southern Cal in football, the unluckiest Bruins would be those who graduated without seeing a win over the Trojans, a Rose Bowl, or a basketball championship in a 4-year period. Those classes are 1980, 1991, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2011, 2012. Note 6 of these 8 classes graduated during Guerrero's reign of error Westwood (although the classes of '80 and '06 at least got to experience the NCAA championship game in hoops.
I don't think we can call those classes "unlucky." It's never bad luck to graduate with a degree from the best school in the country. However, those classes did get shortchanged because of the incompetence of one of the worst athletic directors in the country.
The question those alums of those classes and the UCLA community of alums, students and fans should be asking is just how much more incompetence Chancellor Gene Block will be tolerating from Chianti Guerrero? Is he waiting for some kind of bombshell scandal that will rock one of major revenues to boot Chianti?
Seriously. How much more evidence Chancellor Block needs to come to conclusion that Chianti Dan is the worst AD in modern UCLA history. Notwithstanding UCLA's finishes in the Director's Cup standings, our two major revenue programs have been dumped into the gutter under Dan's incompetent leadership. As Fox71 wrote Chianti has "the most massive Oh-Fer in UCLA history" in terms of Rose Bowls or basketball championship teams seen by graduating classes.
There are tons of other numbers to show total FAIL on the part of Guerrero. The basketball attendance figures are in the dumps. His incompetent administration cannot sync up simple scheduling issues in order to optimize positive exposure of our major revenue programs. There is no way around to spin the ugly numbers around both hoops and football despite the pathetic excuses we keep hearing from Guerrero. You can also check out more compelling data on the "unchecked decline" in our non-reveneu sports from 2005 onward here. So what is Chancellor Block waiting for?
Does Block even remotely care about the spirit of excellence behind those four letters? It is amusing to see Block and his administration pump up the "optimist" campaign using UCLA athletics because it appears he is not paying any attention to the total degradation of Bruin football and hoops tradition under his own AD.
What exactly is Block waiting for? Is he going to keep his head buried in the sand until a major national scandal gives a black eye to the program of Coach John R. Wooden? Fox71 noted this (emphasis ours):
I think the only way to get Block's attention is to cause him and Doughnut Dan massive embarrassment. Neither is embarrrassed at all about the state of the program, so the only thing I can think of is embarrassment. We need to flood letters to the editor (maybe even to the fishwrap) with comments ridiculing Guerrerror. We need to find someone with a contact in the national media - someone at Yahoo Sports, for example. There is undoubtedly no scandal in the classic sense that can be associated with Doughnut Dan, because it always seems that scandal is associated with someone who has a personality and a psyche and an ego, and this loser has none of the above. The only pseudo-scandals would be his obscene salary for doing bupkes, his inane blathering in his alleged "blog, and his stupd wine-tasting trip.
So what will happen if a "classic" scandal ever rocks UCLA? What will be Block's excuse be then for not firing the worst AD in the history of modern UCLA athletics.