USC to Leave the LA Coliseum

[LMU]

LOS ANGELES (CBS) ― The USC Trojans could be playing their 2008 home schedule at the Rose Bowl.

Sports Central's Jim Hill is reporting, USC is growing frustrated with the negotiating committee with the Coliseum and are considering making the Rose Bowl their permanent home.

The Trojans would like to be allowed to run and renovate the historic Los Angeles Coliseum.

USC has played football there since 1923.

The Trojans reportedly have received permission from UCLA to negotiate a lease at the Rose Bowl.

(© MMVII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

[Viper]

Hmmm... If the Trojans leave the Coliseum, does this mean that stadium is about to go the way of the Orange Bowl? And what might be built in its place? Perhaps a brand new *cough*NFL*cough* stadium?

[infrared41]

I always found it odd that The University of California Los Angeles played in Pasadena while the University of Southern California played in Los Angeles. It always seemed backwards to me.

I can't imagine why The Coliseum wouldn't let USC run the place and foot the bill for renovations. What else goes on there besides USC football?

[LMU]

I always found it odd that The University of California Los Angeles played in Pasadena while the University of Southern California played in Los Angeles. It always seemed backwards to me.

I can't imagine why The Coliseum wouldn't let USC run the place and foot the bill for renovations. What else goes on there besides USC football?

The problem is that the blowhards on the Coliseum Commission still think that the Coliseum is the #1 choice for a NFL team, even though the NFL has come out and stated that the Coliseum site is inadequate for a franchise. However, the Coliseum Commission refuses to budge, hence why they don't want to hand over control to a university.

And, more detailed story:

No matter the outcome of Saturday's game between USC and UCLA, the Trojans could wind up in the Rose Bowl.

For good.

Frustrated by lack of progress on a lease agreement with the Coliseum Commission -- one that would allow the school to run and renovate the venerable Coliseum -- USC is negotiating with the Rose Bowl to begin playing home games in Pasadena beginning next fall.

While a deal is not complete, a potential USC lease agreement is on the agenda Tuesday for the regular Rose Bowl Operating Committee meeting.

"Although we have been a faithful tenant of the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum for 80 years, we must now seek other alternatives for the good of our football program and our fans," said Todd R. Dickey, USC's senior vice president for administration. "The Coliseum has not benefited from substantive physical upgrades or preventive maintenance for more than 10 years because the commission has focused on attracting an NFL team that would renovate the stadium."

USC has offered to fund a minimum of $100 million over 10 years toward the repair and restoration of the Coliseum. As part of that deal, the school would be in charge of running the venue.

The commission has repeatedly rejected that offer, although it did comply with a request USC made in September for a new two-year lease, an agreement that has not been signed.

"As far as we're concerned, they asked us for two years and the commission gave it to them," said Pat Lynch, the Coliseum's general manager. "If they asked us for five years, we'd give them five. If they asked us for 10, we'd give them 10. We can't read their minds."

USC officials say those are simply long-term leases, at six games a year, not improvements to the facility or a master lease.

Some insiders have dismissed USC's talks with the Rose Bowl as a negotiating ploy, saying it's highly unlikely the school would ever leave a stadium that's practically part of its campus. But others point to the number of teams that have left the Coliseum over the years and say USC is likely to uproot if there's no significant progress with the commission.

"Playing in a renovated Coliseum would be our first choice," Dickey said. "However, the commission's rejection of our offer to provide for improvements such as bathroom and concession upgrades, new seats, new gates, new lights, and a new sound and video system, has led to this step."

Sources said USC first received permission from UCLA, the Rose Bowl's main tenant, to open talks.

"We recognize the history of USC and the Coliseum, but at the end of the day if USC needs a place to play we'll try to work something out with them," said Darryl Dunn, general manager of the Rose Bowl.

However, he added, "If it doesn't work for UCLA, it's not going to work for us."

USC began playing football at the Coliseum in 1923, but the school actually played in the Rose Bowl the year before that.

On Oct. 28, 1922, USC played host to California in the first football game played in that stadium.

[dfwabel]

That is very interesting, especially since the USC campus is basically across the street from the Coliseum. Plus, I wonder if it a revenue issue as both stadiums now do not sell beer during the games. USC stopped a few seasons ago and I know that the Rose Bowl did not serve during UCLA games as early as 2001. It is still more difficult to enter and exit Pasadena as opposed to downtown LA. I think they will remain where they are, although the Rose Bowl does have modern suites.

[Mac the Knife]

I can't imagine why The Coliseum wouldn't let USC run the place and foot the bill for renovations. What else goes on there besides USC football?

Well, there's always the gang fights...

[BB61]

I can't imagine why The Coliseum wouldn't let USC run the place and foot the bill for renovations. What else goes on there besides USC football?

Well, there's always the gang fights...

And the Lingerie Bowl...

[officeglenn]

I can't imagine why The Coliseum wouldn't let USC run the place and foot the bill for renovations. What else goes on there besides USC football?

Well, there's always the gang fights...

And the Lingerie Bowl...

I think Pride held an MMA event there in the summer. Former NFLer Johnnie Morton got knocked the out by a stand-up comic. And I think that was Brock Lesnar's MMA debut.

[leedsunited]

Ridiculous. The venue location is perfect for USC.

Check back with Miami in a few years and see how well going to games out in the sticks did for student support.

[averyj]

To reiterate, USC's motivation to move out is backed by their accusation that the Coliseum Commission is dedicating the majority of their efforts to try and attract the NFL to send a team to Los Angeles, instead of focusing on the much needed renovations that the venue needs to support itself as a functional stadium.

Renovations such as bathroom and concession upgrades, new seats, new gates, new lights, and a new sound and video system.

The main problem with the Coliseum, is the group that operates the Coliseum, the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission, or rather the groups that operate the Coliseum.

The Commission is comprised of reprasentatives from the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, and the State of California, as a result, they can't agree amongst themselves on anything, so no real progress is done.

All of this contributes to the fact that they've pretty much failed with their goals, they want to get an NFL team in LA, not happening. They want to make more renovations to the Coliseum, not happening. And, as a result of their stubborness and unwillingness to address the issues at hand, and instead go out on futile attempts to try and accomplish unrealistic goals, they've gone ahead and increased the tensioned relationship with their main source of revenue, the University of Southern California Trojan Football Team.

Mind you, even though the governing body for the Coliseum is comprised of governmental representatives, no taxpayer dollars are used to support the facility.

So great job Coliseum Commision, you screwed yourselves over.

Again.

But hey, the Dodgers are coming...

[averyj]

UPDATE:

UCLA Athletic Director Dan Guerrero has released a statement to clarifiy UCLA's position in regards to all this:

This statement is to clarify UCLA's position regarding the possibility of USC becoming a temporary secondary tenant at the Rose Bowl.

First, there is no agreement in place. At the request of USC, UCLA permitted USC to have preliminary discussions with the Rose Bowl regarding the possibility of temporary usage while it continues to negotiate with the Coliseum Commission. This is where the matter presently stands.

Any possible agreement would be for one year and subject to approval by UCLA. No long-term arrangement between USC and the Rose Bowl would even be considered by UCLA. Our position as the primary tenant is protected by our long-term lease, which runs through 2023.

Any temporary usage by USC at the Rose Bowl would have to be non-impactful on UCLA, our football program and our fans. Any such arrangement would have to ensure that the integrity of the UCLA football experience for our team and fans would not be compromised in any way. The Rose Bowl is UCLA's home venue and the occupancy of any additional tenant on a temporary basis, if approved by UCLA, must be clearly secondary to that concept.

I feel that it is in the best interest of college football in Southern California for each institution to have its own home stadium and I remain hopeful that USC and the Coliseum Commission can reach a satisfactory accord.

Personally I think I'd be hard to update the Rose Bowl for USC.

In one of the bathroom stalls, above the toilet paper roll, someone has appropriatley written IIRC:

USC DEGREES

TAKE ONE!

[winghaz]

Just how updated is the Rose Bowl, another old stadium, regarding bathrooms, concessions, etc.?

[averyj]

Just how updated is the Rose Bowl, another old stadium, regarding bathrooms, concessions, etc.?

Quote from Wikipedia:

Like other large municipally-owned, football-oriented stadiums, the Rose Bowl runs on a yearly operational loss. While it generates funds with the annual lease with UCLA ($1.5m), the Tournament of Roses ($900k), and a regularly hosted flea market ($900k), it makes up the loss by relying on funds generated by the adjacent city-owned golf course ($2m). While the stadium is able to keep operating in this financial set-up, it is unable to finance many of the capital improvements it needs to be considered a modern facility, including new seats, wider aisles, additional exits, a wider concourse, a renovated press box, a state-of-the-art video scoreboard, new field lighting, additional suites and a club. The estimated cost for such improvements ranges from $250 million and $300 million.

The stadium currently has long-term leases with its two major tenants, the Tournament of Roses (2019) and UCLA (2023). In 2006, the Rose Bowl and the City of Pasadena launched a $16.3 million capital improvement program that will benefit both UCLA and the Tournament of Roses. There will be new locker rooms for both UCLA and visiting teams, as well as a new media interview area.

All in all, it is a much better facility than the Coliseum, but still has its faults.

(Also, the Rose Bowl isn't on the edge of South Central L.A.)

[Mac the Knife]

The Commission is comprised of reprasentatives from the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, and the State of Los Angeles, as a result, they can't agree amongst themselves on anything, so no real progress is done.

I didn't realize there was a big secessionist movement there. Who got elected Governor in Los Angeles? Cheech Marin?

In all seriousness though, the NFL doesn't need a franchise in Los Angeles - the past 12 years have proven that. Los Angeles doesn't need the NFL, either - the fan base is far too fickle to consistently support a team, and at this point it would take a generation, maybe two, of really aggressive marketing - and of consistent Super Bowl appearances, on a par with the Dodgers World Series appearances during the first 25 years after they moved from Brooklyn - to make it an involatile (sp?) market.

I've always been of the opinion that the best solution for the L.A. Coliseum is to gut it, like Soldier Field and to lesser extent Lambeau, and build within the bowl a world-class, modern facility that could support both football and soccer. With the amount of space inside the Coliseum's bowl, you could EASILY shoehorn in all the modern amenities (luxury suites - and lots of them, a mid-level concourse, new press facilities, etc.) and still have a seating capacity of 110,000. Yes, you read me right - 110,000. The Coliseum's footprint is THAT big.

[Luigi74]

The Commission is comprised of reprasentatives from the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, and the State of Los Angeles, as a result, they can't agree amongst themselves on anything, so no real progress is done.

I didn't realize there was a big secessionist movement there. Who got elected Governor in Los Angeles? Cheech Marin?

In all seriousness though, the NFL doesn't need a franchise in Los Angeles - the past 12 years have proven that. Los Angeles doesn't need the NFL, either - the fan base is far too fickle to consistently support a team, and at this point it would take a generation, maybe two, of really aggressive marketing - and of consistent Super Bowl appearances, on a par with the Dodgers World Series appearances during the first 25 years after they moved from Brooklyn - to make it an involatile (sp?) market.

I've always been of the opinion that the best solution for the L.A. Coliseum is to gut it, like Soldier Field and to lesser extent Lambeau, and build within the bowl a world-class, modern facility that could support both football and soccer. With the amount of space inside the Coliseum's bowl, you could EASILY shoehorn in all the modern amenities (luxury suites - and lots of them, a mid-level concourse, new press facilities, etc.) and still have a seating capacity of 110,000. Yes, you read me right - 110,000. The Coliseum's footprint is THAT big.

I think it's wrong to blame the fanbase for LA not having a team, the Rams and Raiders had horrible ownership and played in bad football stadiums.

[Mac the Knife]

The Commission is comprised of reprasentatives from the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, and the State of Los Angeles, as a result, they can't agree amongst themselves on anything, so no real progress is done.

I didn't realize there was a big secessionist movement there. Who got elected Governor in Los Angeles? Cheech Marin?

In all seriousness though, the NFL doesn't need a franchise in Los Angeles - the past 12 years have proven that. Los Angeles doesn't need the NFL, either - the fan base is far too fickle to consistently support a team, and at this point it would take a generation, maybe two, of really aggressive marketing - and of consistent Super Bowl appearances, on a par with the Dodgers World Series appearances during the first 25 years after they moved from Brooklyn - to make it an involatile (sp?) market.

I've always been of the opinion that the best solution for the L.A. Coliseum is to gut it, like Soldier Field and to lesser extent Lambeau, and build within the bowl a world-class, modern facility that could support both football and soccer. With the amount of space inside the Coliseum's bowl, you could EASILY shoehorn in all the modern amenities (luxury suites - and lots of them, a mid-level concourse, new press facilities, etc.) and still have a seating capacity of 110,000. Yes, you read me right - 110,000. The Coliseum's footprint is THAT big.

I think it's wrong to blame the fanbase for LA not having a team, the Rams and Raiders had horrible ownership and played in bad football stadiums.

The Rams didn't have horrible ownership in the 1970's. Didn't have horrible coaching, nor horrible general management. The team won something along the lines of a dozen straight division titles and STILL had a weak as hell fan base.

The Raiders were vagabonds, moving into a city that already had no appetite for the NFL.

The fault that there's no NFL franchise in Los Angeles rests squarely with... Los Angeles.

[LMU]

Update:

Mayor benches NFL plan, wants Trojans in Coliseum

Villaraigosa's reversal could put pressure on the stadium to negotiate with USC, which is threatening to move to the Rose Bowl.

By David Wharton and Sam Farmer

Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

November 29, 2007

With USC threatening to move its home games to Pasadena's Rose Bowl, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa called for a long-term deal to keep the Trojans in the Memorial Coliseum, saying for the first time he has given up hope of the National Football League returning to the aging stadium.

"While I remain committed to bringing a professional team to Los Angeles, it is time to read the scoreboard," Villaraigosa said in a statement Wednesday. "The Coliseum is no longer a viable option for the NFL."

Many of the region's wealthiest and most politically connected figures have spent years in abortive attempts to bring an NFL franchise to Los Angeles. The city's leadership has insisted the league negotiate with the Coliseum -- an idea the NFL has repeatedly rejected.

The mayor's unexpected reversal could open the way for an NFL deal elsewhere in the region. It also increases the pressure on the Coliseum to deal with USC.

Speaking to each other through the media Wednesday, the university and the Coliseum Commission suggested there is a chance at reaching a compromise.

Both sides seemed to agree that a potential lease would need to address at least two issues: renovating a stadium that has grown long in the tooth and giving USC some control over a place its football team has called home for 80 years.

"We would entertain anything if they want to make a proposal," said Todd R. Dickey, USC's senior vice president for administration.

But with university administrators frustrated by a lack of progress in negotiations, Dickey also made it clear that the clock is running. The Rose Bowl Operating Co. will consider USC's request for a short-term lease at a meeting next Thursday.

"Frankly, if they approve it, we'll sign it," Dickey said.

The school's two-year lease with the Coliseum expires after Saturday's regular-season finale against crosstown rival UCLA.

Negotiations for a new lease have been hampered by the allure of the NFL and the commission's desire to attract a pro team after losing the Raiders in 1994 and the Rams more than a decade earlier.

Renovations have been delayed because a new franchise would probably want to gut or even raze the existing structure. And USC has worried about becoming an afterthought in its own stadium.

On Wednesday, after revealing their negotiations with the Rose Bowl, university administrators fired a public relations salvo by posting a number of documents they had submitted to the Coliseum Commission, including two recent lease proposals.

Option A asks that the commission perform $100 million in renovations -- updating seats, restrooms and scoreboards, among other things -- while promising that no other amateur or professional team would play in the Coliseum.

Option B calls for USC to provide the $100 million for improvements. In return, the school would take charge of the venue and seek to recoup at least some of its outlay by generating revenue from year-round events that might include international soccer games and concerts.

USC would be open to a compromise, Dickey said, but he expressed skepticism about dealing with the commission.

"There is no such thing as the Coliseum Commission," he said. "They are nine politicians, each with their own agenda, so it's virtually impossible to negotiate with this nine-headed hydra."

In fact, stadium officials appeared to contradict themselves on some points.

Pat Lynch, the Coliseum's general manager, said that if USC wanted veto power over an incoming NFL team, and nothing more, "we could do the deal tomorrow."

But City Councilman Bernard C. Parks, also a commission member, went against Lynch and Villaraigosa, saying the commission must keep the door open for a professional team.

Parks was talking about a years-long pursuit that has seen the Coliseum Commission flex its political muscle to push aside competing stadium concepts within the city limits.

Since the Raiders left after the 1994 NFL season, each of L.A.'s three mayors expressed strong support for the Coliseum as the city's preferred NFL site over proposals at Dodger Stadium and in downtown.

Most recently, competing stadium groups from the Coliseum and Anaheim traveled to Dallas in May 2006 to pitch their concepts to NFL owners. Villaraigosa came in support of the Coliseum, telling the league that it was the premier site.

"The Los Angeles Coliseum is the clear choice for the NFL," he said at the time, calling that stadium "a deal they can't refuse."

The Dodgers developed another plan two years ago for the Dodger Stadium parking lot, then backed off after criticism from civic and community leaders, with owner Frank McCourt publicly vowing to support the Coliseum "so long as the Coliseum is a viable site."

In a July letter to the Coliseum Commission, NFL executive Neil Glat cited cost considerations in saying the league was "not prepared to move forward with the [Coliseum] project at this point."

That's when Villaraigosa's thinking began to shift, with the mayor concluding that bringing the NFL to the Coliseum was "economically unfeasible," Deputy Mayor Sean Clegg said.

However, Clegg added: "When one door closes, another opens. The mayor believes it's time to look at other options in terms of making the NFL a reality in the Los Angeles market."

Dodger Stadium might come back in play. NFL officials recently visited a proposed site in the City of Industry, but Dodgers Senior Vice President Howard Sunkin said the league did not tour Chavez Ravine and said talks with the NFL have not resumed.

"Nothing has happened," Sunkin said. "Nobody has come by to visit."

Reached late Wednesday, Ed Roski, owner of the City of Industry site, didn't seem surprised by the mayor's comments about the NFL and the Coliseum.

"I think the NFL has made that clear," Roski said. "That's why I got back active in this, and we're progressing."

And that is why Villaraigosa is now backing an effort to keep USC from leaving the Coliseum.

"The mayor believes that it's time to contemplate the future of the Coliseum in terms of its relationship with its most loyal and long-standing tenant -- the USC Trojans," Clegg said, adding that Villaraigosa spoke to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday and called for a joint effort to ensure USC stays put. Both leaders have appointees on the Coliseum Commission.

There are complications with the Trojans' proposed move to Pasadena, which would require approval from not only the 13-member Rose Bowl Operating Co., but also the Pasadena City Council and UCLA, which has played its home games there since 1982.

At this point, USC is asking only for one year and an option on a second.

In an e-mail Wednesday, UCLA Athletic Director Dan Guerrero assured Bruin football supporters that the university would oppose any long-term arrangement between USC and the Rose Bowl.

Coliseum Commissioner Bill Chadwick predicted that USC students and Orange County-based alumni might grow tired of driving the extra miles.

"I think it would be great if they played at the Rose Bowl for two years," the commissioner said. "At the end of that two years, the leverage we would have in negotiations would be spectacular."

[averyj]

The Commission is comprised of reprasentatives from the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, and the State of Los Angeles, as a result, they can't agree amongst themselves on anything, so no real progress is done.

I didn't realize there was a big secessionist movement there. Who got elected Governor in Los Angeles? Cheech Marin?

In all seriousness though, the NFL doesn't need a franchise in Los Angeles - the past 12 years have proven that. Los Angeles doesn't need the NFL, either - the fan base is far too fickle to consistently support a team, and at this point it would take a generation, maybe two, of really aggressive marketing - and of consistent Super Bowl appearances, on a par with the Dodgers World Series appearances during the first 25 years after they moved from Brooklyn - to make it an involatile (sp?) market.

I've always been of the opinion that the best solution for the L.A. Coliseum is to gut it, like Soldier Field and to lesser extent Lambeau, and build within the bowl a world-class, modern facility that could support both football and soccer. With the amount of space inside the Coliseum's bowl, you could EASILY shoehorn in all the modern amenities (luxury suites - and lots of them, a mid-level concourse, new press facilities, etc.) and still have a seating capacity of 110,000. Yes, you read me right - 110,000. The Coliseum's footprint is THAT big.

Whoops!

Er... State of California, that is. (Run by another actor with an accent though...)

Fixed.

[winghaz]

The Rams didn't have horrible ownership in the 1970's. Didn't have horrible coaching, nor horrible general management. The team won something along the lines of a dozen straight division titles and STILL had a weak as hell fan base.

The Raiders were vagabonds, moving into a city that already had no appetite for the NFL.

The fault that there's no NFL franchise in Los Angeles rests squarely with... Los Angeles.

Anaheim Stadium was never a truly viable football stadium. And I'm saying viable by today's standards -- it was OK when it was renovated for football, but never was a football stadium.

Left with their choices for stadiums, you can't really blame the Rams for leaving L.A. for St. Louis.