USC wants to play in the Rose Bowl?

UCLA Sports Information Director Marc Dellins sent this notice to media that cover the Bruins this evening:

"UCLA is aware that USC has contacted the Rose Bowl about the possibility of playing its home games in Pasadena next season while it continues to work on a lease with the Los Angeles Coliseum.

"UCLA’s long-term lease protects its position as the primary tenant. In the context of its ongoing partnership with the Rose Bowl, UCLA is willing to review any proposal regarding an additional tenant, after which UCLA would enter into the necessary discussions with both the city of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl regarding the feasibility of such an arrangement.

"‘While we are, of course, willing to explore this possibility,’ said Pete Blackman, UCLA Administrative Vice Chancellor, Emeritus and Special Assistant to the Chancellor for Intercollegiate Athletics, ‘protecting the ongoing integrity of the UCLA football program must be our highest priority.’"

Comment: USC’s interests are best served by staying at the Coliseum, but after a year of inconclusive negotiations with the Coliseum Commission, nerves at University Park are frayed. Having visited the Coliseum two weeks ago for a meeting, this grand old facility badly needs the infrastructure refurbishment that USC is committed to providing.

USC wants to stay at the Coliseum, but it makes sense for the university to at least explore a move to the Rose Bowl to add pressure to the delusional commissioners who refuse to give up the ghost of an NFL franchise there. If USC were to move -– and it’s a long shot -– it would eliminate the last remaining tenant of a facility that has hosted –- and already lost -– the Los Angeles Dons of the AAFC, the Los Angeles Rams and Los Angeles Raiders of the NFL, and UCLA. That would add to the list of tenants lost by the Coliseum Commission at the Sports Arena: UCLA, USC, the NBA Lakers and Clippers and the Kings of the NHL.

Comments

[Jaime]

About the only thing that would be interesting about this scenerio would be to see both teams at the big game in their home colors just like it used to be when i was a kid. If only Dorrell would have the guts to come out on saturday at the coliseum with home jerseys and take the timeout penalty. He blows timeouts anyway so no big deal. The downside would be to potentially see a bunch of SC signs around the rose bowl during UCLA home games. I would hope the primary tenant would be mindful of that possibility. It is bad enough when sc people wear their colors at UCLA home games. I bet there arent any bruins that do the same at the coliseum. As much as i dislike Dorrell, i do want to see the Bruins victorious on saturday so we can have another year to gloat. If they lose, so be it, time to move on and get another coach. Thanks Rich for the forum. Keep up the good work, and basketball season is here so lets enjoy a great ride, with a championship at the end.

[ForTheRecord]

A correction: The Los Angeles Kings were never going to be a permanent tenant of the Sports Arena or of the Long Beach Arena--the Kings played some of their games in the 1967-68 season at both arenas But they only played at both venues until the Forum was in Inglewood was completed later that season.

So...to be fair, the Coliseum Commission really didn't lose the Kings, did they?

[jaded]

I'm hoping the people of Pasadena have a fit over the idea, because I don't want to see the Trojans at the Rose Bowl, either. I don't want to see their colors, their logo, or their stupid horseman on the field.