USC says it may move its home games from the Coliseum to the Rose Bowl starting next season, due to a breakdown in negotiations with Coliseum management. Scott Wolf says this announcement, particularly in light of its timing the week before the UCLA game, "really smells like a negotiating ploy by USC to pressure the Coliseum into agreeing to its demands," which Wolf suspects involve not just "improvements" but "revenue-sharing plans (like luxury suites)." Here’s how USC’s top lawyer, senior vice president for administration Todd Dickey, characterizes the university’s demands:
"Our first choice is to play at the Coliseum. However, the Coliseum needs some significant improvements. The sound system is barely audible, the video system is failing, the bathrooms need upgrades, the entrances, the seats, the lighting, just about everything needs work."
Dickey says USC "has offered to make those improvements," but the university doesn’t want to "just to hand the money over to the Coliseum Commission" — it wants to "actually operate the facility." That, naturally, is the sticking point. The quasi-public Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission doesn’t want to hand over the keys of the kingdom to those high-falutin’ University of Spoiled Children snobs. [/sarcasm] The L.A. Times opines: "some political observers have suggested that commissioners would like to avoid making themselves superfluous." You think?
The Rose Bowl is a neat and historic venue (of course, so is the Coliseum!), and this would be a return to tradition of the Trojans and Bruins sharing the same home stadium (the Bruins were at the Coliseum from 1928 through 1981), and perhaps both wearing their home jerseys when they square off each season. But it would stink for USC students. The walk to the nearby Coliseum — kicking that flagpole for good luck on the way, and then walking past the rose garden, and past the local Mexican food vendors selling churros and such — is a memorable aspect of football Saturdays at ‘SC. Braving traffic on the 110 to Pasadena would be far less romantic, and far more inconvenient.
And of course, it would stink for the L.A. economy, too, from hotels and restaurants on down to those food vendors I mentioned, not to mention the locals who charge obscene prices for parking near the stadium. As a result, Mayor Villaraigosa is raising a ruckus, pontifficating about how he is "absolutely committed" to maintaining the status quo: "USC football is one of the most important economic engines in South Los Angeles and the Mayor has no interest in seeing those jobs leave for Pasadena." I’m not sure whether the Mayor’s "interests" matter for present purposes, except perhaps to get the Trojans some bad press from Telemundo, but I suppose he might be able to pressure the Coliseum Commission to make USC happy. [UPDATE: Boi From Troy, who, as an Angeleno, has far better knowledge than I of the strange quasi-governmental structures they have out there, points out that Mayor Villaraigosa "matters because he directly appoints 2 of 9 Coliseum Commission members." Well then! I stand corrected. But my error was totally worth it for the Mirthala Salinas joke.]
In any event, Pete Carroll isn’t concerned about a possible move to the Rose Bowl. "It’s kind of been our second home since we’ve been here," he says. Heh. Indeed.
Some players, however, aren’t taking the news so well. The Coliseum is "my home," said linebacker Keith Rivers. "I wouldn’t want to change that." Added offensive linesman Jeff Byers: "[You can take our lives but] you can’t take away the Coliseum. [I AM WILLIAM WALLACE!!]"
I’ll just say this. If, heaven forbid, USC loses to UCLA on Saturday, it almost certainly won’t be because the players were distracted by this news. But no one will be able to prove that that wasn’t a contributing factor, and as a result, people will talk about it, and they’ll wonder, and they’ll gripe. The university will take a lot of heat for its ridiculously poor (well-calculated, no doubt, but in the grand scheme of things, poor) timing here. And rightfully so.
Of course, there’s a simple way to avoid that problem: BEAT THE BRUINS!!!
P.S. On the bright side, a move to the Rose Bowl would mean USC students wouldn’t have to deal with being physically assaulted by Coliseum rent-a-cops.
P.P.S. Also, a doubleheader at the Rose Bowl next November 8 — Oregon State @ UCLA, then Cal @ USC — would be way fun. Er, except for the hellacious traffic, that is.
|
Categories: USC, College Football
|
November 28th, 2007 at 12:44:19 pm
I remember Mr. Dickey. I think I tore him a new one for not following USC’s sexual harassment policy in the newspaper I ran. He’s a handsome bloke. I’d like to see USC stay at the Colliseum. Let those rich namby pamby UCLA wimps keep their Rose Bowl. I wanna see my boys play in the ghetto!
Plus, it really is a boon to the local community.
November 28th, 2007 at 12:52:47 pm
It would be interesting for a season, but I don’t think the schedules are set up to handle USC and UCLA home games on the same Saturday, as the schedules (for the next few years) are already made.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:09:32 pm
With the exception of the occasional “24″ episode being taped there, it appears that the only ones paying rent to the place is USC. Doesn’t sound like the commission is in any sort of position to negotiate.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:25:34 pm
The Rose Bowl is a much nicer venue than the Coliseum plus there isn’t a bad seat in the house. I wish this would happen, but it won’t.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:40:14 pm
Flag pole not light pole you idiot! what kind of God Damn USC fan are you!?! Clearly you went to ND too long!! Clearly you never were really a USC fan and have been an ND fan all along!! We all know it’s true so why don’t you admit it!! Damn bruins… /sarcasm
Though seriously, it is a flag pole.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:42:47 pm
The Mayor matters because he directly appoints 2 of 9 Coliseum Commission Members!
November 28th, 2007 at 1:53:36 pm
LOL dcl, thanks - I fixed it.
Boi - good to know! But can he fire his appointees?
November 28th, 2007 at 3:08:57 pm
USC needs to contol its own athletic facilities — especially for the part of its athletics program that provides the vast majority of the revenue for the school. Leaving the Coliseum would obviously suck for USC students, alumni, and fans, but the break would devastate the city and the Coliseum commission far more. Remember that list of the most valuable college football teams? USC can’t rise much further up that list without being able to control its own revenue destiny at the facility where it plays its games.
USC and fUTLA both used to play in the LA Coliseum, so both playing in the Rose Bowl wouldn’t be much of a shock from that standpoint. However, it wouldn’t last long; I guarantee that USC would seek a long-term solution — perhaps partnering with the NFL to build a stadium somewhere and force the Coliseum commission’s hand once and for all.
November 28th, 2007 at 3:57:26 pm
well the Coliseum, as cool as it is, is a hole. So is the Rose Bowl, but that’s a separate matter. Both stadiums need major renovations… Ultimately, USC might be better served, as Andrew noted, by building their own stadium - or perhaps they could purchase the Coliseum and rehab the **** out of it. I think USC probably owns the land needed to build a stadium of their own but it might take knocking down a good bit of the current capital investment to do so and I don’t think students would look too fondly on the loss of, say, the parking center.
The tradition of the Coliseum is also really quite awesome… But it needs a lot of work and if the commission is going to be a bunch of asshats… well time to play hard ball… Certainly a large portion of why an NFL team can’t make it in LA is because of serious stadium suckage. Neither the Coliseum nor the Rose Bowl have luxury suites in the traditional sense. And luxury suites are cash cows they are where a massive percentage of cash comes from for most NFL teams. So even in a market as big as LA, it is hard to make the money off the team you could be making in a smaller market if you don’t have the boxes. Result = NFL teams don’t stay long. That and both USC and UCLA need new stadiums, or at minimum seriously renovated stadiums.
November 28th, 2007 at 4:20:36 pm
The Coliseum Commission, in my lifetime, has driven off the Lakers, Kings, Rams, and Raiders, plus UCLA football and USC basketball (albeit that last one was a long time due).
It was said that when one high-ranking Laker official, feeling jerked around by a CC seat warmer, broached the possibility of moving the Lakers to a new venue, and got this as a response (and I quote): “Har dee har-har.”
The result was the Forum, and ultimately Staples, a mere few miles from the Sports Center, and everything a rebuilt Sports Center could have been. Har dee har-har, indeed.
Granted, Al Davis is nobody’s hero, and moving the Raiders from Oakland was a huge mistake. But the CC did lure Davis to LA with the promise of refurbishments and luxury boxes. It delivered on nothing, and when the Raiders complained, the response was, “Fine. Sue us. See you in court for the next ten years.”
The result: your new Oakland Raiders.
The Coliseum is a venue of historic proportions. If the Commission won’t do right by the place, it should hand the keys over to someone who will.
November 28th, 2007 at 5:02:35 pm
I really don’t get what is wrong with the coliseum. I was going there for Raider games when I was in grade school and of course Trojan games, and Metallica concerts, and the XFL and when the Raiders went to the AFC championship a few years ago I went up there and what the heck is the difference? A football stadium isn’t suppose to be luxurious or fancy. The only thing I could tell from Oklands stadium was that they had a bar connected to the season ticket holders section or something, that was kinda cool, but I go to the games for the game, not to eat dinner or watch something else on television in a corporate box.
November 28th, 2007 at 5:07:38 pm
MAV’s appointees aren’t the problem on the Coliseum Commission. Add 2+3 and you have a majority… Now, who gets three appointments to come and save the day?!?
November 28th, 2007 at 5:08:14 pm
Yes, but the corporate boxes at a place like, say, FedEx Field for the Redskins, makes the majority of their ticket sales revenues from luxury suites. It is a show, and cash is king. if you can make more with sky boxes than without, you’ve got to have sky boxes.
November 28th, 2007 at 5:29:43 pm
I always wondered what kind of douchewad spends a zillion dollars on a sky box a million miles from the field. Aside from the fact that you can’t see crap going on without binoculors it’s like you’re not even at the damn game. The game is about the A-hole in front of you that’s so drunk and obnoxious and the hot chicks that walk up and down the aisles all game long that are too stupid to ever find their seats, and the peanut guy you’re waiting to nail some poor bastard in the face with a bag of peanuts he’s throwing 40 feet away from him.
November 28th, 2007 at 6:03:35 pm
its about status.
November 28th, 2007 at 7:56:55 pm
On an email recently received by BoiFromTroy (the original, that is):
Scott invited you to join the Facebook group “Keep USC football at the
Coliseum!”.Scott says, “Because we should ONLY play at the Rose Bowl on January
1st!”.To see more details and confirm this group invitation, follow the link
below:http://usc.facebook.com/n/?group.php&gid=6234979057Thanks,The Facebook Team
So get there and sign up.
November 28th, 2007 at 8:49:51 pm
November 28th, 2007 at 9:10:55 pm
What about when you play there for UCLA home games though?
November 28th, 2007 at 9:26:00 pm
Fair point, Davie. Doesn’t quite have the same ring to it, though, does it?
November 28th, 2007 at 9:51:51 pm
The following is from an alumni email I just received:
November 28th, 2007 at 10:37:51 pm
Sandy-
Hate to tell you, but the Oakland Coliseum is a hole, too. Next time you should travel across the bay to AT&T Park. THAT is the kind of facility USC should be playing at (configured for football, of course).