"This month I was able to attend the Steelers-Chargers game at SoFi on a Sunday, followed the next Saturday by the USC-Iowa game at the Coliseum. Everything about those two places is different and only one of them feels like the college experience. SoFi crams tailgaters in like sardines. There is no room to enjoy the experience. The fresh air and scenery at the Rose Bowl are the best maybe in the country."
"People don't show up at the Rose Bowl for a very simple reason: The program stinks. Not the venue. This proves the old adage, "the fish stinks from the head down." Thousands of fans sat in the rain last weekend for a Trojans game because the product on the field was worth it. Simple. Who can blame UCLA for wanting to play at SoFi Stadium, the ultra-modern sports palace, not to mention great recruiting tool,"
"Afterward, those of us sitting on the east side of the stadium, staring into the setting sun until the fourth quarter, stumble with burned-out retinas to the muddy golf course that they call a parking lot, to wait in our stack-parked cars, until everyone else is out, so we can leave, an hours-long ordeal just to get home. My only question is, what genius at UCLA signed a long-term contract to play at a place that was obsolete long before the ink dried?"
UCLA plans to move home games to SoFi Stadium, a modern venue near campus, which offers recruiting advantages but lacks a college-game atmosphere. SoFi compresses tailgaters and limits enjoyment, while the Rose Bowl offers superior fresh air, scenery, and traditional college ambiance. Strong fan turnout at the Rose Bowl depends on team quality rather than the venue. Exiting the Rose Bowl lease will require millions in attorney fees and tens of millions in payments to Pasadena. Redirecting those funds toward hiring a top-tier coach, improving football programs, and upgrading facilities would likely deliver greater long-term benefit than relocating stadium sites.
Read at Los Angeles Times
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]