On Campus Stadium

by ipfreely on Jul 10, 2007 11:05 PM PDT Comment 41 comments

Sure the Rose Bowl is historic and great, but what is one thing that would be even greater that any bruin would want...an on campus stadium.

I recently realized a mostly forgoten place where said stadium would fit. While many people think that there is no room for such a stadium on UCLA's campus, I disagree. You just have to stretch your mind far enough...across the 405. A while ago I came upon this fact from the "uclahistoryproject" website that got me thinking.

"1949-Federal government transfers 34 acres of Veteran's Administration property to UCLA, bringing total campus acreage to 419."
http://www.uclahistoryproject.ucla.edu/Timeline/Home.asp

Why not on the VA, especially since we own it. Jackie Robinson stadium is there and what better to complement it than an exclusively Bruin football stadium.

Sure parking would be a problem and traffic would stink, but traffic stinks everywhere else. Imagine tailgating on bruinwalk before a game, rubbing the Bruin statue's nose en rout to the game, and a state of the art stadium (which might help out with recruiting).

I bring this up because we all are die hard bruins who want the best...and because it seems that people of higher power might read this website and roll with the idea. Also people with connections to the athletic department should formally bring up the idea. I know this would take a long time, but ideally (and unrealistcally) it would be complete around the same time as the pauley pavilion renovations in 2010.

The biggest problem is of course the money, but the ball must start rolling sometime and if the idea gets out there I'm sure some company would sponser a stadium for one of the worlds most well known universities.

Saturday afternoons would forever change for the better.

Go Bruins!!!

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.

0 recs | Comment 41 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

We can only dream

There's a better chance of Bush admitting that he & his family knowingly took financial gifts in direct violation of NCAA rules and the SC Staff admitting that they knew about the arrangements than us getting an on-campus stadium.

The city, state and residents in the area would never allow this to happen. Can you imagine the gridlock it would cause. It could literally shut down the 10, 405, 101 and the 110.

by BlueReign on Jul 10, 2007 11:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Not to mention

the effect on global warming and extinction of several rare species of whale.

Just remember - this was decided in about 1965 by a total of a handful of voters who were against adding about $1.00 to the incidental fee of $121.80 a semester.

I'm not sure of the moral of this story. And FWIW, I don't think the traffic would be as world-endish as all that. It's bad to start with, of course, but it should be no worse than a sell-out at Dodger Stadium or going out of business sale at some mall.

But we'll never know, because I just don't think there is the will (or the wherwithal) on the part of the pro-Stadium forces to overcome the clout of the Westwood residents.

by Fox 71 on Jul 11, 2007 5:26 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I've been proposing this

for quite some time now, namely to put a football stadium where Jackie Robinson Stadium is and to move that stadium where the football practice field is. It would raise attendance for BOTH sports!

And I don't really agree about the gridlock, that's just a lame excuse by the 3B residents (Bel Air, Brentwood, Beverly Hills). Games at the Mausoleum don't cause gridlock on the 10. Furthermore, games are on Saturdays so traffic is a bit lighter...well just a bit.

The amount of construction done on the UCLA campus in the last two decades is 50 times more than what building a stadium would be.

by tasser10 on Jul 11, 2007 6:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I admit I'm a big Rose Bowl fan

So you can take what I say with whatever grain of salt.

But, while I appreciate the optimism, I don't think this idea has legs. For one thing, I think the government is interested in using the veterans' land for veterans. Particularly since, thanks to some policies you may or not agree with, we have quite a few more veterans who will be needing care over the next couple decades.

Beyond that, I think the cost, traffic and other concerns are larger than a bunch of snotty richies just not wanting the stadium in their back yard. You've got to remember how big this thing would need to be, not to mention the parking, concessions, etc. It's no hoops area or baseball stadium, and to do it right, the thing would have to be huge. Take the already conjested 405 (which, unlike the 10 and 110 downtown, is very busy on weekends), the property values in West LA (well over 1MM per 1/6 acre), and the general political/neighborhood environment, and I think your chances of getting a stadium there are just slightly less than putting it on Venus.

I hate to be a buzz kill, but I'm pretty certain that this is the reality of the situation.

Of course, none of that applies to the long overdue restoration of Pauley, which I hope is moving along (and not lost in the mysterious "quiet phase")....

by Menelaus on Jul 11, 2007 8:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Dream the impossible dream...

Do you know how many multi-millionaire homeowners there are within a 5 mile radius of that location? These people are too busy counting their money to give a rats-ass about a UCLA football stadium. All they need to hear are the words "increased traffic" and the idea will quickly fade to oblivion.

Sure, it would be convenient and all, but honestly, it doesn't get any better than the Rose Bowl. Nothing beats the pre-game atmosphere and the stadium speaks for itself. I wouldn't have it any other way (well, except maybe for getting a new head coach who actually knows how to win consistently).

GO BRUINS.

by norcalbruin95 on Jul 11, 2007 9:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm not saying it'll happen

I am saying it is feasible. The acreage is available and they already own it. It'll cause traffic for 6 Saturdays out of 52, big deal. In a city where people get in their car to go half a mile to buy a coke, they can suck it up. Besides, a lot of the attendance will be local and people will walk.

I'm just saying, people are immediately negative when the idea is brought up and it shouldn't be that way. Open minds would come in handy. That being said I do love the Rose Bowl too.

by tasser10 on Jul 11, 2007 9:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Do we already own it?

I am asking because I don't know. I thought we leased the land from the VA for Jackie Robinson.

by Menelaus on Jul 11, 2007 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Westside football

I know the topic has been discussed a lot...but having a stadium closer to campus would be better. Period. The Rose Bowl is a fine venue, but the drive blows on game day, the amenities are lacking, and it doesn't draw the casual fan. A smaller stadium, 50,000-75,000 seats, would be ideal if it were on campus or just across the 405. People could tailgate around campus, or a parking lot, then walk over to the stadium. It would be great. Not as pleasant a place to tailgate as the Rose Bowl, perhaps, but the benefit of having a nearby stadium for UCLA football (recruiting, atmosphere, home-field advantage)) matters more than the pleasure of tailgating on a golf course an hour away from campus. I think Fox is right about the traffic-it would suck, but so what? Traffic sucks on the 405 most of the time and in Westwood all the time, but careful preparation and traffic management would render the situation no worse than a game at the Mausoleum or at Dodger Stadium.

However, it won't happen. It won't happen because the political will to build it is simply insufficent to overcome the opposition. There are certainly wealthy and powerful people who whould like to see a new stadium built, but they are the ones seeking a new NFL franchise. A new UCLA stadium would likely be seen as a potential home for an NFL team, and you can be certain that the opposition would increase if the prospect of games every weekend from fall into winter were on the table.

by ucladj89 on Jul 11, 2007 9:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

It wouldn't be better

I disagree that an on-campus facility would be better.

At the outset, I agree that the Rose Bowl and it's amenities could use an upgrade, but, on balance, it's a far better location for football.

Even if you were able to squeeze a super-expensive stadium into Westwood, the experience would be noticeably lacking. Where would you tailgate? Nowhere. Where would the city/school let you put your barbecue? Nowhere. You'd be crammed into a little unattractive spot, after you'd spent a half hour or more trying to find parking. You wouldn't have the same community or atmosphere, as folks would be forced to disburse to hundreds of balconies and open spots all over West LA. Most won't bother, and the experience (and atmosphere) will be diminished with it.

More to the point, I am unconvinced by the primary arguments folks seem to make for ditching the Rose Bowl (and all it's grand history). Frankly, I don't have a lot of sympathy for folks that can't handle a half hour drive. I also am not excited about catering to the casual fan. A lot of fans day out of their trips to the Rose Bowl, and I don't see the utility of throwing away all that just so some dude can roll out of his dorm room at 12:45 and make it to the game on time.

Obviously, I'm being a tad selfish, but, seriously, if you can't handle the drive to Pasadena, you're not exactly a superfan. And what, may I ask, are you going to do when you're spending a half hour trying to get from your parking spot on sub-level 10 of the new Westwood stadium parking lot onto the 405. It's 6 1/2 dozen the other.

Sure, it sounds all good to have a shiny stadium to dangle in front of recruits, but that's just one thing. And, unlike most other Pac-10 schools, UCLA doesn't need a brand new building to distract recruits from the (inner city slum/nowheresville campus/lack of sports tradition) the other schools have to deal with.

Of course, I'm not directing all this at you- this just seemed like a good spot for my diatribe. And, it all doesn't matter a ton because, as you mention, the lure of tying in an NFL franchise, along with other realities, keep the project an impossibility.

by Menelaus on Jul 11, 2007 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Superfans

Well, I usually get a lot of flack for saying this, but I personally think that UCLA has a shortage of Superfans when it comes to football. The point of having the stadium closer is that it would attract the casual fan and it would be full for every game, giving us a better home-field advantage. That's what nearly every other college has.

The Rose Bowl is grand and beautiful and I would still use it for the game against U$C.

And as for the space argument, like I said, go look at the Google satellite pictures, there is plenty of room.

by tasser10 on Jul 11, 2007 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I see your point

As I mentioned below, there is indeed a lot of space. Just not a lot of space if you keep the VA facilities there. As other people have said, just imagine the sh!tstorm that would be caused if someone seriously proposed taking VA land several years into combat operations in Iraq for a football stadium. So, what I think you'd get, even assuming everything else goes right, is a small slice of that land. And I'd prefer the Rose Bowl over that. (Disclosure: my brother is a veteran, so I am also sympathetic to the VA retaining land aplenty).

by Menelaus on Jul 11, 2007 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's a whole other can of worms!

Considering how poorly veterans have been treated lately, I don't know what is worse: the VA owning valuable land and not doing a damn thing with it, or selling it for a football stadium. I would pick the first option, as you can always justify making money and you can use the proceeds to do good things for veterans. The whole VA campus is dreary and downright depressing, I even went into one of the buildings for a med school interview back in the day and I felt like I was going into a mental facility!

I do love the Rose Bowl, don't get me wrong. Unfortunately there is a serious lack of public transportation to get there (aside from the student buses), and I think that would also help A LOT!

by tasser10 on Jul 11, 2007 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Superfans versus casualfans

Just speculation on my part, but it certainly seems likely that we could get another thousand or two thousand or so casualfans who live on campus but who just don't want to make the drive, or have something they have to do on game day that prevents them from making the all-day trip to Pasadena.

And casualfans who live on the west side and who don't want to make the drive to Pasadena would come.

And the superfans will come even if the game is on the moon.

(Tasser, you can't use the word "Superfan." Ed "Superfan" Beiler was a radio talk show sports guy. As far as talent is concerned, let me put it this way: If he were a coach, we would far prefer Mr. Dorrell. I think you may lose fans if they think they fall in the same category as this guy. Again, find the Jim Healy site - he talked about the "San Antonio River flowing through the heart of downtown Los Angeles" and he refered to former basketballer Manute Bol as Manuel Boat. Please find the Healy site and listen for yourself.)

by Fox 71 on Jul 11, 2007 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Superfans?

Geoff Strand is the ultimate Superfan and he only makes appearances at football games. If he goes to basketball games at Pauley, then he blends himself in with the crowd because I have yet to see him or hear about him leading his "every man, woman, and child" cheer at Pauley.

Geoff also has a sidekick, don't remember his name, but he assists Geoff at all the football games.

There is also Lucy, the older woman who wears an old cheerleading type of uniform and a cowboy hat. I do not recall seeing her where this outfit at Pauley.

I think there are actually a lot of football superfans. Also remember that the Rose Bowl's capacity is much larger than a typical football stadium's capacity. So a half full Rose Bowl may appear to lack UCLA Superfans when it is actually equivalent to a full college stadium elsewhere.

by yellcrew on Jul 12, 2007 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rose Bowl capacity

I said the same thing you did earlier in a comment below. Even if we have 60,000 in attendance, it makes for 60% capacity...so it looks almost half empty, even though that's a pretty good crowd!

I don't think we have the same idea of what a Superfan is...

by tasser10 on Jul 12, 2007 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We're not communicating

Change it to something else: super-duper-fan or hyper-fan or uber-fan. But Superfan makes me think of Ed Beiler, not of Geoff Strand. And Ed Beiler is not something I want to be reminded of.

by Fox 71 on Jul 12, 2007 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

he he he

SUPERFANSUPERFANSUPERFANSUPERFANSUPERFAN!

Sorry, I'm feeling a bit rambunctious today Fox. Just had some jolly rancher candy too.

by tasser10 on Jul 12, 2007 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And this is after all my good advice, too.

Go to the Jim Healy site and press some buttons so that you can hear what Superfan sounded like. He was far worse as a talk show host than Mr. Dorrell is as a head coach.

(And you should do yourself a favor just by listening to some stuff on Healy's show. There really was no one like him.)

by Fox 71 on Jul 12, 2007 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I did!

I am just teasing you. I heard the "Manuel Boat" thing, it was hilarious! You won't read Superfan from me any more.

Do you remember how a while back, when you searched "miserable failure" on Google, the first query result was George Bush's bio on the White House web site? I think Dorrell has earned that spot now. Maybe Nestor can figure out a way we can make this happen...

by tasser10 on Jul 12, 2007 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rose Bowl and Coliseum

Having been in both a lot, they both need to be scraped. I agree the political realities may make that unfeasible.
Bill

BillSouthBay

by Mensgym on Jul 11, 2007 9:56 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Feasibility

Something like 130 acres at the Rose Bowl are devoted to parking- while some of the parking can be redirected to preexisting parking structures in Westwood, the reality is that you have less than 34 acres to fit 120 acres full of cars. You'll essentially need to build 20 acres worth of parking structure 5 levels tall. Given that a it's about $10K per parking space for a parking structure (correct me if I am wrong on this), you need about $200 million just for the parking structure alone!

Keep in mind too, that tailgating at level 3 of a parking structure seems... hazardous.

Throw in a typical cost for a football stadium built from scratch ($200-250 million), you're looking at about half a billion dollar project. UCLA has an endowment of about $2 billion and it doesn't seem feasible to spend 25% of its endowment for a Rose Bowl substitute.

Finally, has anyone consider the PR implications of tearing down a VA hospital so you can built a football stadium over it?

by laertes on Jul 11, 2007 10:06 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Not quite right

For one thing, the parking for this stadium would be smaller than for the Rose Bowl, since it would be a smaller stadium.

I doubt UCLA would be alone in paying for the stadium.

No one is talking about tearing down the VA hospital. There's a golf course already north of Wilshire on VA property. Check it out on Google Maps, you'll see that there is plenty of room. There is also a large unused field, some tennis courts, and a track with a soccer field inside.

Anyway, I know it won't happen, but it's not because it's not feasible, it's because people are not willing to consider it seriously.

by tasser10 on Jul 11, 2007 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Another source of revenue

FWIW, I worked on a case involving a NASCAR type track, and the experts said the naming rights for that little item were on the order of $30 million. As the old saying goes, if you pick up $30 million here and $30 million there, pretty soon you're talking about some real money.

Tasser, it seems to me that the first place to mobilize the forces would be on campus. If someone in the BN were to suggest that a petition campaign be instituted on campus, maybe the DB would notice it and run with it. (AND I HEREBY FOREVER WAIVE AND RELINQUISH ANY RIGHTS I MAY HAVE TO YELL "PLAGIARIST" IF THE DB WANTS TO USE THIS IDEA.)

by Fox 71 on Jul 11, 2007 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Google Map

Though, as I've mentioned, I'm not a big proponent of the idea, I was surprised to see how much open space there is on the West side of the 405. Having driven through the VA a number of times, I know that the buildings are sparsely populated and far from one another, but there was even more space than I had recalled. So, despite what I've already said, I think your right to raise the possibility.

by Menelaus on Jul 11, 2007 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Smaller Stadium

Let's say you built a 50K stadium, your parking need goes down to 70 acres. That's still not a easy fit to the 34 acres you get from the VA.

You could do it, you just have to be willing to make quite a number of compromises.

by laertes on Jul 11, 2007 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm just an idea guy

and I love to brainstorm about things like this! I think it's a fun discussion. Also, I am the son of a civil engineer who built a soccer stadium for a certain national team, so I just love big projects and such!

Anyway, just throwing some thoughts out there as you guys are. I just don't like it when people say "it's impossible", we're just having a discussion and kicking a few brain cells into gear on a painfully slow hump day!

by tasser10 on Jul 11, 2007 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've got it!

Build it at night, and no one will know what you're doing. Then when it's finished, have a game there and see if there's much disturbance. That should work.

by Fox 71 on Jul 11, 2007 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And I'm the Trained Killjoy

part of my PhD economist heritage :-)

Nothing, of course is impossible. I am using "feasibility" more in the financial and logistical sense rather than "There is no way it can ever happen sense".

Besides, you always need some devils advocates to fully vet your ideas eh?

by laertes on Jul 11, 2007 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

re: "Let's say you built a 50K stadium"

The median attendance (half the games were higher, half were lower) at home games over the past 8 years is 58,100.
A stadium that held only 65k still wouldn't have been big enough for over a third of the games in the last 8 years.

by McCloskey on Jul 11, 2007 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Replace Jackie Robinson altogether

Getting rid of Jackie Robinson Stadium and replacing it with a stadium that could be used for both sports would solve a few of the problems. Still having just the one stadium would allow more room for parking, and a new baseball stadium with larger capacity would allow the baseball team to host a regional or superregional.

Another way to fix some of the traffic issues would be to have shuttle services to and from other parking lots (like what they have at the Rose Bowl). Not all fans have to park at the stadium.

by SuperBruinMan on Jul 11, 2007 1:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

See? Ain't it cool?

SuperBruinMan just used some UCLA-molded brain cells and came up with some good ideas! I love it! Impossible is not Bruin!

by tasser10 on Jul 11, 2007 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You Would

still need to come up with vacant parking lots somewhere. And the further these parking lots are away from UCLA, the most expensive your shuttle services will have to become.

by laertes on Jul 11, 2007 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

A stadium near the west side...

Unfortunately there are so many factors that work against this.

If we want to put it on the VA, we'd have to take over the VA entirely to make room for all the parking, stadium, concessions stands, security, and other concerns. That won't happen. That VA location has been a part of LA history since the end of the Civil War if I recall.

The traffic problem is a major one for that location. Traffic sucks in LA everywhere, but that location is particularly bad because there are only 2 major streets (Wilshire and Sepulveda)and a handful of lesser ones to in the 1 mile area in order to get out. Anyone who remembers what happened when the 405 had a major police incident at Wilshire knows that when major traffic is put into that space, there is no good way out. That day I spent a half hour to move 3 blocks. If one were to build a stadium there, the city would also have to create and expand many streets to accomodate. That won't happen unless the NFL brings a team as well, and the residents would pitch a fit. Even a UCLA only stadium would cause problems with many of our neighbors, but

Also the VA is not what I'd call LA friendly walking distance from UCLA. Any stadium location would be a mile or more away from Gayley. While many of us wouldn't have a problem, there are many students who balk at having to live past Glenrock.

40 years ago we could have built something on campus and the city would have grown around it to accomodate, but at this time there is just too much in the way, and not enough services to cope.

There are better areas on the west side in terms of ease and mobility, but the property is just too expensive. Overall I think it just isn't feasible to build a new stadium. The only solution I see, if the school were so inclined, is to convert Drake. That would take alot and would be very flawed because of traffic, parking and the like. But, I think it is the only real solution.

I like the Rose Bowl though. So for me it's a wash.

by isodore on Jul 11, 2007 2:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

You're not playing the game!

Until your last paragraph. We all know how difficult it would be to do this. Just want to hear some good ideas of how it could be done.

And any excuse about students being lazy pretty much shows you how many of them go to the Rose Bowl...

by tasser10 on Jul 11, 2007 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry, just doesn't add up...

Building a 60,000-70,000 person stadium within a mile of one of the busiest freeways in the world, and directly between 2 of the 5 busiest freeway intersections in the US (101/405, 10/405) on only 34 acres VA land does not make any sense. Sorry, it's not even fun to imagine the possibilities, because it's so far-fetched. Not to mention the hell that is going to be raised by the Bel-Air/Brentwood/Beverly Hills constituents.

I would much rather drive 45 minutes to Pasadena and enjoy the beautiful atmosphere than spend 30 minutes getting from Westwood to Parking Garage C10, Level 6, stall #328. No thanks.

The argument that more students and casual fans would come doesn't really work either. Just look at what happens at Pauley.

by norcalbruin95 on Jul 11, 2007 3:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re Pauley

I was at the first game in Pauley (Alcindor/Jabbar's debut.) It was full as was every other game I ever saw there. I understand things are different now.

But the year before Pauley opened, we had to schlep to the Sports Arena, and those games did NOT get sold out. The student presence was thin, because fundamentally no one wants to drive a zillion miles for a "home" game.

If Pauley is not getting filled with students (which seems to be the point, and something that I can't dispute), then I submit that there would be even fewer students at an off-campus "home" site.

My point is that it stands to reason that there are X per cent more kids attending games at Pauley than would attend games at the Forum or Staples or the Sports Arena. So it would stand to reason that there would be that same X per cent more kids who would go to home football games that are actually on campus.

I have zero facts to back up any of these theses. In fact, my theses may be feces. (I have always wanted to say that.) But it seems like a reasonable position. I wouldn't want to drive to Pasadena to take an econ or a history class. I lived on campus so I wouldn't have to drive. I think the same goes with b-ball or football attendence.

That's not to say that norcalbruin's other points aren't valid. (Actually, I'm not sure they are, but I have even fewer facts to attack those.) My only point here has to do with Pauley.

by Fox 71 on Jul 11, 2007 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Likely true...

that more students would show up, but alternatively, it wouldn't surprise me if less alumni showed up if the games were held in Westwood. Where would you rather take the family, to the Rose Bowl/Golf Course amidst the beautiful tree-lined streets of Pasadena, or the even-more heavily congested, noisy streets of Westwood.

Even so, it is absolutely incredible that we have a hard time filling Pauley to the rafters, even after coming off a national championship game the previous year...

by norcalbruin95 on Jul 11, 2007 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Of course, there will always be a tension that needs to be balanced between what's most attractive to students versus alumni, and this is just another example.

Students generally are on or around campus and generally have less transportation options. Thus, an on-campus stadium is preferable.

Old guys like me, with two little kids, don't necessarily want to be cramped into a busy city environment, and prefers the golf course.

No big surprise.

by Menelaus on Jul 11, 2007 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No Sympathy

I love the Rose Bowl and it's history & setting. On a clear day the view is stunning. If someone needs to drive 30 to 40 minutes to get there doesn't conjure up a lot of sympathy from me.

When I was living in Southern CA, I still had a 35 minute drive to each home game & I didn't care because I was seeing the Bruins. Now that I live in the Fresno area, it takes me 3+ hours to get to a game & I still don't care because I am seeing the Bruins.

Even if there was a stadium real close to the campus, I would venture that most of the season ticket holders would still have a 20+ minute drive from where they are currently living (not counting the increased traffic).

My point is that no matter where the stadium is there will be people who will be complaining about the distance.

I also don't think a new stadium gives much of a recruiting edge because if it did, they would have to pay people to play for SUC........Oh, wait a minute, cancel that thought. Answered my own question.

by artybruin on Jul 11, 2007 4:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

All valid arguments

It seems to me though that nearly every other school in the country gets to have its football games on or very near to the campus. Seems to be the norm and seems to me that student attendance (read noise level) at those stadiums is far higher than at the Rose Bowl, percentage-wise. Again, I LOVE the Rose Bowl and the venue, but the size of the stadium makes it look half empty when we actually have good attendance.

Though people here seem to be of the dedicated and loud cheering type, it is somewhat telling that others think of a UCLA football game as a picnic day at the park and just go chill in the stands to get some sun. Nothing wrong with that...but we make fun of KD for his passive demeanor on the sidelines...should we expect the same of all Bruin fans? Not everyone is the ra-ra scream your head off kind of fan, but students are generally more vocal and passionate.

by tasser10 on Jul 12, 2007 8:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Racket-jaws

Many years ago (maybe even before the Rose Bowl) I think it was Wazzou's coach who complained about all the noise from the Bruin rooting section. He referred to us as "racket-jaws." Naturally, we all made it a point to be even louder when Wazzou showed up to play. We wanted it to be impossible for there to be an audible.

There ought to be some history out there about racket jaws, and maybe we need to get that tradition stirred up again.

by Fox 71 on Jul 12, 2007 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs