I agree 100% that playing at the Rose Bowl is actually the biggest albatross around our football program's neck. I want opponents to fear coming to our stadium, but every team gets fired up to play in the Rose Bowl. The capacity works against us because 60K fans in a 90K stadium looks awful (and we haven't been able to put even 60K fans …
I agree 100% that playing at the Rose Bowl is actually the biggest albatross around our football program's neck. I want opponents to fear coming to our stadium, but every team gets fired up to play in the Rose Bowl. The capacity works against us because 60K fans in a 90K stadium looks awful (and we haven't been able to put even 60K fans in the Rose Bowl for the last couple years already). We lose out on lots of revenue that we have to share with the facility and City of Pasadena. The physical separation from campus kills the important relationship between the school itself and athletics, and it obviously crushes student attendance which translates to decreased long term alumni connection with the school.
I've been stoking coal on the on-campus stadium train for years now. Bruins Nation (long before that place became the vacuum of intellect and emotion that it is now) ran a series that addressed this back in the day. Here's how it might look:
U.C.L.A. should build a 50-60K capacity stadium in the footprint where Drake is now, though I'd rotate it 90 degrees and have a partly open eastern end that looks toward Tongva (Janss) Steps and the Royce quad. It would be an epic visual. It could also double as a soccer stadium and free up some additional space on the IM field for student use, and bleacher extensions would allow the track to remain within the facility. U.C.L.A. would keep all revenues from tickets, parking, food, concessions, etc, and additional student employment. 15k seats should be reserved for students and we'd fill the stadium every week and have the biggest home field advantage akin to Oregon. Westwood businesses would welcome the infusion of fans looking for pre- or post-game entertainment. Tailgating gets alumni back on to campus and strengthens those critical bonds.
The lazy naysayers with no vision or balls or work ethic will chirp, "It will never happen! Traffic, waaahhh, neighborhood opposition, waaahhh, money, waahhhh...!" Traffic is a BS excuse. 60K people already come to campus every day of the academic year, so adding 6 Saturdays (when there isn't workweek traffic already) with a smaller influx (since many of the seats go to on-campus students) makes the traffic issue a nothing. And it's our campus so Bel Air can hide behind their gates and deal with it. We built an unnecessary hotel/conference center without their permission so we can build a stadium, too.
Money...now that's a legit issue for us. Dan left the athletic department bleeding red, and that's only gotten worse playing sports during covid without any revenue from fan attendance (never mind the fiduciary irresponsibility by the Pac12 conference). And we'd have to break that ridiculous 30 year lease with the Rose Bowl (which should still host the U.C.L.A. - *$c game every year). But if one looks with long term vision, this investment is the right one. An on-campus stadium generates more revenue for us and it becomes the focus for a deeper connection between the fanbase and the school which has significant long term financial benefits. An on-campus stadium builds a better football culture, and that better football culture helps recruiting, which helps results, which helps culture, which helps recruiting, which helps results, etc, etc. Most importantly, it creates a base for an identity, something U.C.L.A. Football has been sorely lacking for 30 years.
I agree 100% that playing at the Rose Bowl is actually the biggest albatross around our football program's neck. I want opponents to fear coming to our stadium, but every team gets fired up to play in the Rose Bowl. The capacity works against us because 60K fans in a 90K stadium looks awful (and we haven't been able to put even 60K fans in the Rose Bowl for the last couple years already). We lose out on lots of revenue that we have to share with the facility and City of Pasadena. The physical separation from campus kills the important relationship between the school itself and athletics, and it obviously crushes student attendance which translates to decreased long term alumni connection with the school.
I've been stoking coal on the on-campus stadium train for years now. Bruins Nation (long before that place became the vacuum of intellect and emotion that it is now) ran a series that addressed this back in the day. Here's how it might look:
https://youtu.be/aw5qsbzaKjk
U.C.L.A. should build a 50-60K capacity stadium in the footprint where Drake is now, though I'd rotate it 90 degrees and have a partly open eastern end that looks toward Tongva (Janss) Steps and the Royce quad. It would be an epic visual. It could also double as a soccer stadium and free up some additional space on the IM field for student use, and bleacher extensions would allow the track to remain within the facility. U.C.L.A. would keep all revenues from tickets, parking, food, concessions, etc, and additional student employment. 15k seats should be reserved for students and we'd fill the stadium every week and have the biggest home field advantage akin to Oregon. Westwood businesses would welcome the infusion of fans looking for pre- or post-game entertainment. Tailgating gets alumni back on to campus and strengthens those critical bonds.
The lazy naysayers with no vision or balls or work ethic will chirp, "It will never happen! Traffic, waaahhh, neighborhood opposition, waaahhh, money, waahhhh...!" Traffic is a BS excuse. 60K people already come to campus every day of the academic year, so adding 6 Saturdays (when there isn't workweek traffic already) with a smaller influx (since many of the seats go to on-campus students) makes the traffic issue a nothing. And it's our campus so Bel Air can hide behind their gates and deal with it. We built an unnecessary hotel/conference center without their permission so we can build a stadium, too.
Money...now that's a legit issue for us. Dan left the athletic department bleeding red, and that's only gotten worse playing sports during covid without any revenue from fan attendance (never mind the fiduciary irresponsibility by the Pac12 conference). And we'd have to break that ridiculous 30 year lease with the Rose Bowl (which should still host the U.C.L.A. - *$c game every year). But if one looks with long term vision, this investment is the right one. An on-campus stadium generates more revenue for us and it becomes the focus for a deeper connection between the fanbase and the school which has significant long term financial benefits. An on-campus stadium builds a better football culture, and that better football culture helps recruiting, which helps results, which helps culture, which helps recruiting, which helps results, etc, etc. Most importantly, it creates a base for an identity, something U.C.L.A. Football has been sorely lacking for 30 years.