Is Gene Block fit to be UCLA's Chancellor?
This is a topic I think we are going to have to zero in more and more in the coming weeks and months. The arguments about why Dan Guerrero should not be leading the UCLA athletic department is well established. We don't need to rehash them. The question is does it even matter if Block doesn't "get" the tradition of UCLA athletics and what bleeding blue and good means? Does Block understand the role he needs to pay close attention to athletics as the Chancellor of a BCS school involved in big time college athletics and the blue chip brand associated with those four letters?
I am not so sure and recently I have been hearing some disturbing feedback re. Block's lack of interest in aggressively championing UCLA. I am throwing these thoughts up in a quick fanshot now but would love to hear more thoughts from others. Specfically with "UCLA Day" approaching on campus, alums who live in Southern California and are planning to be at Westwood at day, may want to think about how to ask Block honest and frank questions? It is getting time to hold him accountable for the chronic underachievemnt of major UCLA revenue sports during his tenure.