"I attended my first UCLA football game at the Coliseum in 1969, when my brother was a freshman. Back then - and when I attended in 1977 - students sat at the 50-yard line. Soon, the athletic department moved the students to the 40 because those midfield seats could garner big donor bucks. With the move to the Rose Bowl, students still got those good seats. However, as the years passed, students were moved farther and farther down to where they are placed now - the end zone."
"Ticket sales are down because of the lousy product on the field. UCLA has it backwards. The Rose Bowl is ancient and needs major enhancements such as railings. It's time for Pasadena to spend money on the stadium and UCLA needs to honor their agreement. Both parties need to work together on a solution for the benefit of the fans."
"I have to wonder about those UCLA fans who are upset over the team wanting to play at SoFi Stadium instead of the Rose Bowl. As if the atrocious parking at the Rose Bowl wasn't enough of a deterrent, the uncomfortable seating, antiquated restrooms and food options, and the poor orientation of the field, which blinds those facing west during day games, should convince any sane person to cheer the proposed move."
Students were progressively moved from midfield seats to the end zone to monetize prime seating, diminishing student experience. Attendance has fallen due to poor on-field performance and declining fan engagement. The Rose Bowl suffers from outdated facilities, including seating, restrooms, food options, parking, and problematic field orientation that affects sightlines during day games. The stadium needs major enhancements and Pasadena should invest in improvements such as railings. UCLA should honor its existing lease while both UCLA and Pasadena collaborate on solutions. Some fans favor moving to SoFi Stadium for modern amenities despite lease and integrity concerns.
Read at Los Angeles Times
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]