Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Full Coverage of 2012 Coke 600

Attention Dan Guerrero's Replacement: Fix UCLA's Football Facilities (Part 3-Around the Country)

In Part 1 of this series, we argued that a program of UCLA's historical stature deserves first-class facilities, especially for the football team, given the primacy of football for an athletic department's bottom line. In Part 2, we demonstrated that investing money in the football program generally can improve the bottom line for the athletic department and even the university as a whole.  We also demonstrated that schools can win by putting money into the program and failing to invest in the program pretty much guarantees a lack of success.  This installment will look at some of the premier facilities around the country as well as some non-BCS level conferences.  This is particularly relevant as we will soon be looking for a new head football coach.  UCLA needs an elite coach and a top-notch AD, both of whom will rightfully insist on facilities upgrades.  Dan Guerrero is the Tom Hansen of Pac-12 AD, presiding over an athletic department infected with resilient and institutional rot and a diseased culture of mediocrity and an ivory tower mentality.  Bruins fans are sick and tired of Dan Guerrero and the Morgan's Center's insular culture and stuck-in-the-past mindset: it's time for wholesale regime change in Westwood. As Dexter Fishmore astutely pointed out:

The rot that infects the program is resilient and institutional. It grows and festers in an athletic department that's been unwilling to pay for top-notch facilities or the most sought-after coaches and that uses admissions standards as a spurious excuse for underachievement. The time has come for some high-level soul-searching.

In this post, we will examine some of the premier facilities throughout the country.

Star-divide

Commitment to football goes hand-in-hand with investments in football facilities.  When Florida hired Urban Meyer, it really upgraded its facilities, starting with its Football Complex.  The upgrades to the strength and conditioning facilities sound truly amazing:

The new weight room is the crowning jewel of the new facility. The first thing the strength and conditioning staff needed was more space. The old weight room had less than 10,000 square feet and after the renovation, it features close to 25,000 square feet at the staff’s disposal.

"We can get more quality work done in a more efficient time," said Marotti. "Now, instead of being smashed into a little area and waiting on things, we have more equipment, more space, and can position our staff in different places so the flow is one after another and they’re not wasting time."

The Gators’ new weight room includes an area of turf that is 50 yards long, which also allows for multiple teams to use the weight room at the same time.

Notre Dame has recently upgraded its facilities significantly.  First, the Guglielmino Athletics Complex:

The 96,000-square-foot complex was designed and built by McShane Construction of Chicago. Interior design and banners were produced and ZeDesign of Dayton, Ohio. Groundbreaking took place on May 5, 2004.

The first floor of the Guglielmino Complex features the 25,000-square foot Haggar Fitness Center (gift of Ed and Patty Haggar, Joe and Isabell Haggar) with the latest state-of-the-art equipment that all student-athletes can use on a daily basis. The 8,300-square foot Loftus Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation Center (a gift of John and Julie Loftus) services all of Notre Dame's student-athletes. The athletic training facility is a state-of-the-art area with two new swim exercise pools - one of which includes a treadmill at the bottom. The facility also houses the athletic training staff and gives that department significant office space, in addition to increased area for rehabilitation.

There are additional details on the Haggar Fitness Center here.  Notre Dame additionally recently upgraded its practice fields and has long had an indoor practice facility.

Texas boasts The Dr. Nasser Al-Rashid Strength Complex, which is 20,000 square feet and includes a 70-yard turf straightaway.  In addition, Texas also renovated its football support facility, the Moncrief-Neuhaus Athletic Center, and built an indoor practice facility, and a student-athlete dining hall.

At Alabama, the Mal M. Moore Athletic Facility houses a 20,000 square strength and conditioning center.  In addition, Alabama has Bryant Hall, which includes an academic facility, dining hall, and residence hall.  Alabama's practice fields include three grass fields, one turf field. and an indoor practice facility.

Nebraska's facilities are also among the nation's elite.  The Osborne Athletic Complex includes football offices, meeting facilities and the football locker room.  The Hawks Championship Center includes an indoor practice facility and a multipurpose area that can accommodate as many as 1,000.  Nebraska also has a student life complex, three full-length outdoors practice fields, and a performance center including the weight room and athletic medicine center.  Even though the facility was only four years old, after being drafted, Ndamukong Suh donated $2 million to further enhance the Nebraska strength and conditioning facility. 

If that's not enough, Nebraska recently completed a massive renovation for its basketball and wrestling facility.  Yes, that's right, this facility is for wresting and, of all things, Nebraska basketball and it's better than Acosta and Pauley, which house all of our teams.  That's just one reason why the Pauley renovation is not up to standards.  We're spending a ton of money for something that pales in comparison to what Nebraska built for basketball.  Nebraska basketball.  

Texas A & M has invested a tremendous amount in its facilities, including opening a football complex in 2003, a 6,500 square foot locker room, 5,500 square foot players' lounge, and a 28,000 square foot academic center.  Texas A & M also has an indoor practice facility, two full-size grass fields, and a 23,000 square foot strength and conditioning facility.

Oklahoma State has made a tremendous commitment to facilities.  Obviously, T. Boone Pickens plays a big part, but UCLA has plenty of wealthy and influential alumni (if we only had a real athletic director who could utilize these resources).

There is a new commitment to winning at Oklahoma State. And tangible brick and mortar proof of that commitment is now on display.

Oklahoma State officially entered a new era in the summer of 2009 with the completion of the historic west end zone project.

When the football staff and daily operations of the program made the move into the mammoth new facility, which spans more than 146,000 square feet on the field level alone, it put the exclamation mark on a five-year building period that saw the transformation of Lewis Field into the sparkling, 60,218-seat Boone Pickens Stadium.

Cowboy Football is now housed in what is unquestionably one of America's top facilities. And the glitter includes substance. Every detail that encompasses the daily life of a college football player has been included in the meticulous planning and execution of the west end zone project. From ventilated lockers to functional meeting rooms, to the sports medicine center and its various options of hydro-therapy, OSU student-athletes truly find themselves in a new world.

 

Pickens made major donations, but the school made real efforts to obtain funding from numerous sources through its Next Level Campaign, generating over $100 million from more than 2,500 donors.  In addition to the stadium renovations and football facilities housed in the stadium, OSU also built a new training facility, including an indoor practice facility and outdoor grass and turf practice fields.

As mentioned in Part 2, NC State has built a fundraising machine and an impressive football operations center:

When it comes to football operations facilities, there is none in the country as fine as the Wendell H. Murphy Center. The 103,254-square-foot complex houses every aspect of Wolfpack football, from sports medicine, to equipment, to academics, to the Gunter / Blank Family Strength & Conditioning Center. As functional as it is aesthetically pleasing, the Murphy Center is definitely the Wolfpack's den.

The Murphy Center (known as "The Murph" to the Wolfpack players) is the largest operations facility in the country devoted solely to football.

First Floor: The heartbeat of the Murphy Center is on the bottom floor. The beautiful locker room stretches the length of the building on one side of the hall, boasting 114 custom wood lockers, bathrooms, showers, a stereo and TVs. The other side of the hall is home to the equipment room and the state-of-the-art sports medicine facility, which covers 6,000 square feet and includes an aquatics area with three pools.

The center also includes a 15,000 square foot strength and conditioning center.

West Virginia has a 22,000 square foot weight room, an 8.000 square foot academic center, and an indoor practice facility.

Michigan has a 38,000 square foot academic center, a new indoor practice facility to supplement its old indoor practice facility,

Tennessee has a 33,000 square foot student life center,the Neyland-Thompson Sports Center, which houses football offices, the strength facility, training room, and an indoor practice facility.  Tennessee's crown jewel is its football training facility, which will open in 2012:

The 145,000-square foot building includes an amphitheater-style team room, coaches offices, position meeting rooms, a dining hall, players' lounge, a 7,000-square foot locker room, a 22,000-square foot, multi-level weight room as well as a new training room and hydrotherapy area.

Minnesota opened a brand-new football stadium in 2009, even though the University of Minnesota is an urban university in a major city

Similarly, Louisville opened Papa John's Cardinal Stadium in 1998, again on a public university in an urban setting.  For comparison's sake, Louisville is an urban public university with an endowment of $762 million and an enrollment of 15,000 (compared to UCLA's 27,000 undergraduates and $1.8 billion endowment).  Louisville also recently opened an indoor practice facility.  Louisville is an example of a smaller school with a less prestigious history that upgraded its program and its facilities, and even its conference, going from Conference USA to the Big East in 2005.

LSU has an all-in-one football facility as well, with four full-length outside fields and one full-size indoor field, as well as academics, strength and conditioning, meeting rooms, and a training room.

Among non-BCS teams, SMU spent $3 million renovating its locker room, and could soon be a Big East program.  TCU, another non-BCS team invested heavily in its facilities.  As noted by Jeff Caplan, TCU invested in its facilities and its product on the field, and as a result was invited to join the Big East, and eventually, the Big XII:

This time around, TCU's house is not built of straw or sticks to be easily cast aside. No, this house is now solid brick: sparkling facilities as good as any in America; a stadium undergoing a $143 million renovation that will be expandable up to 50,000; and a Rose Bowl pedigree.

For every argument that the Big 12 erred by excluding TCU after the death of the Southwest Conference, a better one can be made -- and TCU people make it -- that the exclusion finally kicked the university into gear.

Apathy was rooted out. Action, starting in 1997 with the vision of former athletic director Eric Hyman and then-provost William Koehler, still rules the day.

One of the key points of Caplan's argument is that TCU's commitment to improvement is demonstrated by its investment in facilities.  In other words, it's not necessarily entirely a "build it and they will come" situation (although there are stories of recruits who makes decisions based on facilities, and that certainly part of the equation), but investment in premier facilities is just something that happens when a university commits fully to athletics generally and football particularly.  Among TCU's facility upgrades, renovations to the football stadium, an athletic complex and academic enhancement center, and an indoor practice facility.

As we've shown before, football is crucial to the health of an athletic department and athletic departments can win and increase revenues by spending money on their football programs.  In the next installment of this series we will look at other facilities in the Pac-12.

This is a multi-part series analyzing UCLA's facilities and the failure of the current regime to invest in facilities.  Facilties Part 1 is an introductory post; Facilities Part 2 looks at how investments in football can pay off.

Comment 58 comments  |  2 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Around SB Nation

Comments

Display:

The BN editorial staff does not always speak for me, but this time they are saying exactly what I'm thinking, and quite eloquently.

“Dan Guerrero is the Tom Hansen of Pac-12 AD, presiding over an athletic department infected with resilient and institutional rot and a diseased culture of mediocrity and an ivory tower mentality. Bruins fans are sick and tired of Dan Guerrero and the Morgan’s Center’s insular culture and stuck-in-the-past mindset: it’s time for wholesale regime change in Westwood.”

I do not believe that anything in that paragraph is overstated or exaggerated.

Great job, O (I would spell out your whole name but I would be embarrassed about half way through). Great job also to any and all who helped you. Let’s get this sent to Morgan Center and to the Chancellor.

by Fox 71 on Nov 1, 2011 11:07 AM PDT reply actions  

I thought a comparison would be helpful...

in further illustrating your points!
The Acosta Athletic Center currently has a 15,000 square foot weight training room with an additional 8,000 square foot training and Rehabilitation area.

Of course Spaulding field is a whole different thing…but i hope these comparitive stats help put things into perspective.

by GogetemBruins on Nov 1, 2011 11:17 AM PDT reply actions  

Will this make it even more difficult?

Many people have discussed Lot 6 as a prime spot for possible athletic facilities, but today UCLA announced that the lot will be replaced with what is basically a hotel. Oh well…

http://luskinconferencecenter.ucla.edu/

by SB526 on Nov 1, 2011 11:21 AM PDT reply actions  

the location of the hotel seems shortsighted

but don’t give up. We’ll share some ideas in future posts. And additional ideas from the community are always welcome.

by Odysseus on Nov 1, 2011 11:30 AM PDT reply actions  

On-campus stadium

The tag for the photo says Bruin fans wonder why they can’t get an on campus stadium…isn’t the main issue that local residents would never allow it? Even if we had the money to build it, the residents of Westwood and Bel-Air will never accept the traffic nightmares that go along with a 60-80,000 seat stadium. I live in lower Bel-Air and would LOVE it but I am in the smallest of minorities, I think. So the question here is more about an upgrade to the practice and training facilities, which is clearly needed. And to ridicule the current Pauley renovation, which it deserves but unfortunately that ship has sailed. Dan Guerrero is a boob.

by RealisticBruinFan on Nov 1, 2011 11:41 AM PDT reply actions  

I'm wondering whether you have any suggestions

Also, since when do local residents have veto power? The issue is an athletic director and athletic department with a vision, goals, and plans to implement them. Something we don’t have. And your defeatist mindset isn’t helping.

by Odysseus on Nov 1, 2011 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions  

Pressure and whining from local residents is nothing new

Perhaps it’s something we would worry about 15+ years ago when there was no internet and no organizing platform for thousands of Bruin alums and students. That’s not the case any more. If this is something we discuss – which we will during the off-season – we will explore solutions in addressing local pressures. We feel pretty good about lobbying power of BN.

And as O mention if you have creative suggestions, let’s hear it. We don’t care much for the usual, boilerplate, “can’t do” excuses we hear whenever this kind of conversations come up.

Thanks.

by Nestor on Nov 1, 2011 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions  

Are there any transportation planners in the crowd?

In thinking up of specific ideas for an on campus stadium, some might argue that traffic would be an absolute nightmare. But with the future Westwood/UCLA subway station and perhaps using the Hollywood Bowl shuttle service model, this might not be as bad as some would think. If I was a transportation expert, I would love to take on a project like this on the side. Alas, I am not. Any takers?

by GilbyDM101 on Nov 1, 2011 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

This will be a good project

for the off-season. Unless someone wants to get started, we think it’ll be the best use of time after basketball season.

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on Nov 1, 2011 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

Beg to differ 'cept...

Frankly all this talk about an on campus stadium is a little tedious…

The RBOC isn’t about to let UCLA out of the lease and is doing everything they can to live up to the terms of that extended lease, including the millions of dollars in significant renovations taking place currently in order to keep the facility up-to-date and the prime tenant, UCLA, happy.

In the 1980’s and 1990’s we drew major crowds for games including nearly 100,000 for Nebraska and others. The card section alone used to extend from the circular isle around the middle of the stadium from section 6 to section 8 and the student section was down to the field level.

It isn’t the location or the facility we play our games in boys and girls, it’s the product on the field. When we had the product, we had the crowds…and the luxury of making bank on potential ticket sales of 96,000 plus.

Build a winner…and they will come. Stay irrelevant and it doesn’t matter where we play. Please, please, please lets keep our eye on the real issue here, fixing the irrelevancy problem with regime change.

by GemCityBruin on Nov 1, 2011 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

Gem

We get it. However, we are going to explore every angle that pertains to long term success from our program. We can handle talking about multiple issues. If you want to focus on something more intensely, you are welcome to lead the charge on it beyond telling us what to focus on in the comment threads.

by Nestor on Nov 1, 2011 12:41 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

Gem, I don't think we should focus on things that should keep us from dreaming

Just a couple of points.

1. If we starting making some concrete proposals with real people and real numbers and real timetables, then we can start dealing with arguments that might be made. I prefer that to starting arguments that we think might be made. Also, in my business, I have learned that it’s almost always a bad idea to assume what the other side is going ot argue and then refute it. Either the argument you suggest they make is lame (a strawman) and they make you look bad in the end. Or the argument you come up with is a good one, maybe one they hadn’t thought of, and they beat you with it. Let’s wait to hear what those against an on campus stadium actually have to say before we worry too much about what they might say.

2. Your notion about what the RBOC isn’t about to let happen isn’t the focus of the argument for an on-campus stadium. To me, an on campus stadium is NOT about money. (And I’m an econ major, so everything in the dismal science is supposed to be about money. I guess that’s why I didn’t become an economist.) What an on campus stadium is about is the students. A student should not have to schlep to the Crapaseum, as I did, or to the Rose Bowel to see a football game. For want of a better term, and to risk being ridiculed by people who …, well, by people like me, students should be able to study in the morning (yeah, sure, on a Saturday morning), then go over to the stadium, show their ID, and get in for free to watch and cheer and have the best kind of Saturday afternoon experience. I had to schlep to the Sports Arena for basketball games, Gem. I can tell you what the current students will soon find out first hand. It is better to walk over to Pauley, show my ID as I did back in the old days, and go into the game and cheer. This shoud be done for the students. There has to be more to the University experience than continuous tediously boring study. [And now cue “Vocational Guidence Counselor”]

3. An on campus stadium doesnt’ depend on the skill or ranking of the team for the experience. I went to a homecoming game at Mrs. Fox 71’s alma mater, Friends Univerity in Wichita. There were maybe 1,000 people at the game. Maybe 500 for the other school. It was wonderful. It was the prototype college football day,. There were bands. It was everything that I missed because of the absence of an on-campus stadium.

Even if we don’t get the on-campus stadium, I think the breadth and might of the Bruins Nation should get behind a movement to stop gouging students on tickets. You should be able to get in to any sporting thing if you’re a student. My most memorable experience was once when I was taking tickets for the NCAA volleyball championship at Pauley, back when it wasn’t any big deal. It was a dollar or two for a ticket. Gary Beban walked up with his football shoes in hand and askedwhat was happening and I told him. He asked if there was a charge to get in, and I am proud to have said “Not if you’ve won the Heisman Trophy.” I am positive JD Morgan would have approved.

Every student should get that same treatment. There are other sources of revenue, or if there aren’t then there are plenty of smart people here in the BN who can come up with some ideas.

by Fox 71 on Nov 1, 2011 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

This. Imagine this.
students should be able to study in the morning (yeah, sure, on a Saturday morning), then go over to the stadium, show their ID, and get in for free to watch and cheer and have the best kind of Saturday afternoon experience

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Nov 1, 2011 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

The student experience

Fox,

Your observations about getting the students in to sporting events—at no expense—rings incredibly true to me. I was on the Student Legislative Council (SLC) in the late ‘70s, and read an article in the Daily Bruin about a proposal to charge students for football games. Back then, football was free, and basketball was 50 cents per game. I placed a call to the Athletic Department, which then consisted of Director J.D. Morgan and a few staff members and secretaries, to express my concerns. Much to my surprise, J.D. took my call immediately. His view: Athletics are an integral part of the student experience. Also, you build your loyal alumni base by getting to them to the games while they’re students. I couldn’t have agreed more. J.D. thanked me profusely for my call, and pledged to the effect that students would never be gouged on his watch. I have two rhetorical questions: 1. Does anybody in the current regime think in this manner? 2. Would the A.D. today have taken my call?

by TfXc79 on Nov 1, 2011 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

Oops

“getting them to the games”

by TfXc79 on Nov 2, 2011 12:06 AM PDT up reply actions  

The AD would not take your call

but he would interpret your concern about pricing as your permission to double ticket prices and that all students agreed with you.

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Nov 2, 2011 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

Does the lease require that we pay them, or do we actually have to show up, too?

This is a serious question. Because if we are obligated to pay the RB Commission a certain amount of money only, one option is to pay them per the contract, and then play every Saturday on our own campus, the proceeds of which should cover the lease payments just fine.

No, it’s not the smoothest financial solution, but if we aren’t contracted to actually play there, it’s an option.

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Nov 1, 2011 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

You can just break the lease

I’m sure there is either an early termination fee, or they will try to sue. At which point we make the arguments that Fox presented above and let a judge and jury decide.

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on Nov 1, 2011 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

That's my question - what does the lease specify?

If it says for X number of dollars, we can have the stadium on 7 Saturdays every fall, but doesn’t specify that we actually have to show up, sell tickets, and play a game, then we make our payments as we are obligated to do and we play in our new 70K on campus stadium and pay ourselves for that. Win-win.

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Nov 1, 2011 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions  

In looking at the rennovation budget

The RBOC takes a percentage of the gate plus the concessions (shared with their vendor) plus the suite rentals and parking.

by GemCityBruin on Nov 1, 2011 5:39 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

With all due respect to the Westwood/Bel-Air crowd who oppose UCLA developing its campus.

Screw them.

UCLA can and should do what is in its best interests. And an on-campus stadium would be a good thing for the school and far better than some ultra-rich neighbors who are pissy 6 or 7 days a year.

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Nov 1, 2011 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

This just ain't going to happen

This is not a decision that will be made by UCLA, by the Chancellor, by the Regents or by anyone who really cares about UCLA.

UCLA is a state university and is dependent on the taxpayers, the state legislature and the governor. This will be a political decision and not a UCLA decision.

All it will take to kill it, and it would be killed as it has in the past, will be for some well connected political contributors in Bel Air, Holmby Hills, Beverly Hills to make a few phone calls to their bought and paid for politicians and that will be it. Period.

If you don’t think this is how it works then explain how not one person on Wall Street has been prosecuted and how oil companies get bonus depreciation on domestic wells. It has nothing to do with what is right and wrong and what is good for UCLA. It has to do with money and power and who wants it and who doesn’t want it.

There is no way that the Spellings and Speilbergs of the world who give lots of money to various politicians are going to allow it. That is how the decision will be made.

Powder to the People

by bruinski on Nov 1, 2011 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

This is not a helpful comment and ignores the political power of UCLA

Also do you have any support for argument, or are you just another one who says “we can’t do it, let’s not even try.” Have you ever thought that maybe UCLA has money and political power?

Also, you’re the one who is hopelessly naive. You can’t just “kill it” by making a few phone calls. They would try to kill it, and to succeed, we would need to stop bringing a knife to a gunfight. This is why we are where we are. Too many UCLA “fans” refuse to fight.

Also, you know Aaron Spelling is deceased, right?

by Odysseus on Nov 1, 2011 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

Actually, I think that comment is helpful in a way

in that it identifies some of the traditional roadblocks that such a project would face, and some of the mindset that we would need to overcome.

We do need to consider why the naysayers say nay, so we know what we will be facing and plan for it.

And BTW, bruinski, I agree with you 100% on the Wall Street/oil companies/politicians angle. But if that’s what we face, then we’ll have to outdo them. I think U.C.L.A. has the manpower and resources. It just needs the leadership.

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Nov 1, 2011 8:03 PM PDT up reply actions  

Exactly the arguments that said Pauley Pavilion couldn't be built

I remember in my youthful days, Roger Arneberg, LA City Attorney, said that it looked like LAX would have to be shut down because of airport noise litigation. That didn’t happen. It would not surprise me much if the super rich in BH even know that UCLA exists.

There is nothing that can’t be built if there is enough will to get it built. President Kennedy promised the nation that we would go to the moon before we had put a man into space, and when roughly 40% of our rockets blew up on the pad. We build Hoover Dam, which I still think is not possible.

Bruinski, I hope that I don’t get as cynical as you when I get to be your age. We can do this.

by Fox 71 on Nov 1, 2011 6:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

The problem is

you are wrong when you say this:

UCLA is a state university and is dependent on the taxpayers, the state legislature and the governor.

UCLA owes those entities not very much anymore, considering that the percentage of it’s funding is barely in double digits. Can’t have your cake and eat it too. They want to have a say in something like this, they’d better start providing funds again. Otherwise, they can shut up.

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on Nov 1, 2011 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

The point is...

that decisions like this are political decisions which are made by people whose #1 goal is not the betterment of UCLA. Yes. Aaron Spelling is dead, but his widow sold their house for $85MM and the people that bought it might not be happy about having their drive down Sunset slowed down.
http://www.christiesrealestate.com/News/Headline%20News/ReadNews/NewsContent/54876

The point is that you and I can agree that it would be great for UCLA to have an on campus stadium, but in order to get it done you will need to take on huge political powers. So if UCLA wants to and can take on the constituencies of Bel Air, Holmby Hills and Beverly Hills then it can try. But realize what you are taking on.

If you don’t believe me then explain why the 710 Freeway stops on either side of affluent South Pasadena and doesn’t go through, but the 105 Freeway was built through butt poor South Central LA since there was no one powerful there to stop it. There was also a freeway planned to basically follow the route of Sunset which never got built due to rich people not wanting it in their neighborhood.

Also, it doesn’t matter one whit what percentage of UCLA’s budget comes from the state these days. What matter is that UCLA is state property and what gets built and not built is decided by the state whether you and I like it or not.

UCLA can get fans and fill the Rose Bowl the day they attract top coaches and top players like Troy Aikman and Brian Price. Until then, it doesn’t matter where the stadium is.

Powder to the People

by bruinski on Nov 2, 2011 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

The problem is that

there are too many people like you who give up before even starting.

And comparing an on-campus stadium to a freeway is totally asinine. 5 Saturday of traffic / year vs. daily traffic? Oh the horror!

Have you ever stopped to think whether anyone had actually gone through this process before throwing your hands up in the air.

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on Nov 2, 2011 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

I agree with the state-of-of-the-art facilities...but I think playing at the Rose Bowl and mediocre coaches are finally hurting us...

We need to keep up-to-date but we more desperately need to invest in the coaches first and start winning. When we win and contend for conference championships, then the local fans will come (especially without a local NFL team in the area). I hate to say it, but all I see are USC jerseys at Walmart!

The stadium being miles away is killing us and we have few student support due to our culture. I remember this article stating:

Residents of the affluent surrounding communities, mindful of the noise and traffic congestion football Saturdays would bring to the area, were dead set against a large Westwood stadium.

Perhaps we can get these neighbors to subsidize our facilities on campus? LOL!

by WickedBruin on Nov 1, 2011 11:44 AM PDT reply actions  

I'll make it real simple

for the simple-minded booger eaters at the Morgan Center:

Football-only weight room means not sharing with other teams, means not waiting turns while you are working out, which means MORE TIME AVAILABLE TO STUDY. Isn’t that what you want? Guess what: your graduation rate is 59%.

The same can be said for Spaulding.

And, further down the line, the same can be said for the Rose Bowl. 1.5 hr commute to the Rose Bowl, plus time spent in a hotel = time not available to study. Guess what: your graduation rate is 59%.

Football Athletic Facility that includes a Study Facility with tutors = Efficient Use of Time for ALL athletes + improved graduation rates for football players.

Is that a language you understand? See? I haven’t even made it about winning football games.

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on Nov 1, 2011 1:18 PM PDT reply actions   1 recs

p.s.

Excellent post, Odysseus.

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on Nov 1, 2011 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

On campus football stadium

For the record, when I was a student we had a student vote (since student fees would provide part of the cost) on having an on-campus football stadium. the issue was whether the build Drake stadium and make it expandable to football (40-50k capacity) or not. The vote was negative, IIRC, and the discussion was around the residents not wanting the traffic on the weekends as well. At the time UCB was going getting to know Maro Savio and the hippie culture was spreading south, so anything the administration wanted, the students might oppose on principal.

Times have changed and this may be the time to revote the issue and opportunity. If DG made commitments to the City of Pasadena, let him solve it. an on-campus stadium is the best of ideas, and the logistics would be a challenge. But if it were easy, I’ll bet it would already be a done deal….

Mensgym

by Mensgym on Nov 1, 2011 1:45 PM PDT reply actions  

Do you remember voting, Mens?

As I recall, there was zero publicity, and the vote was only a very small fraction of the number of students. If that vote were done again today, with all the electronic ways to communicate, I think things would b different. I don’t know how it would come out, but I think there would be a much greater turnout.

Back then, if I recall correctly, the vote was whether to increase our incidental fee (which is what we called tuition) by eight tenths of one percent, from $121.80 to 122.80 a semester. Something tells me that the student body would willingly accept an increase of eight tenths of a percent a quarter to have an on-campus stadium.

My recollection of all this is fuzzy, Mens, what else do you remember? (I agree that the FSM was a big influence on the non-vote.)

by Fox 71 on Nov 1, 2011 6:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

Excellent information

Thanks for for sharing it. It is so obvious that Guerrero is far behind. the curve when it comes to vision that he can’t even see the curve.

by UCLA2020 on Nov 1, 2011 1:50 PM PDT reply actions  

neighbors might not want an on campus stadium but...

One of the benefits of being a public academic institution, any facility development is not subject to approval of the city council, county supervisors etc. The school (most likely the regents) are the approval body. The neighbors would have to attack a project like a new stadium on the basis of insufficient environmental mitigations through a legal process not a planning and review process. The impacts of traffic , noise, pollution etc. can be mitigated through shuttles, sound walls etc. That being said, there is a political side to any land development , and you can bet that any stadium project be delayed in review after review and will end up in court. Bottom line is that it should not be written off because the neighbors will oppose it, it is just another step in the process.
On the subject of tapping into influential alumni, the CEO of Parsons ( one of the world’s biggest engineering construction and design companies) Charles Harrington is a UCLA alumni- the kind of person that could get something like this done with ease.
Great post Odysseus!

Go Bruins
TRM

by G0Bruins on Nov 1, 2011 2:33 PM PDT reply actions  

Now THIS

is what I’m talking about. Someone with some relevant knowledge saying that “it’ll be hard, but it’s not impossible”, instead of someone without the knowledge saying “it’ll be hard, why bother.”

Thank you TRM, this is very informative.

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on Nov 1, 2011 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

UCLA

Best part of being a Bruin, you can always find an expert on almost any topic.

by Bruin'96 on Nov 1, 2011 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions   2 recs

I've worked some public construction cases

and I would have no compunction whatever about entrusting the construction of Bruins Nation Stadium to Parsons.

(I once thought that it should be Sanders Stadium, but then I thought it should be named for the driving force that got it build. I am much too modest to allow it to be “Fox 71 Stadium,” so the next best would be "Bruins Nation Stadium.)

But seriously, folks. Naming rights are incredibly lucrative. I did some brief research, limited to NFL stadia, and found this:

Texans – Reliant Energy bought naming rights for $400 million for 32 years
Redskins – Fed Ex – $200 million for 27 years
Cardinals – Univ. of Phoenis Stadium – $154M for 20 yars
Panthers – B of A Stadium – $140M for 20 years
Eagles – Lincoln Financial – $149.6M for 20 years
Colts – Lucas Oil – $121.5M for 20 years.

I would be willing to let naming rights finance the construction. Maybe Ralph M. Parsons field. I could live with that.

by Fox 71 on Nov 1, 2011 6:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

Sounds good, thanks for the info

So now the question is…if a stadium could be built symbolically…where would this stadium go? The westside is pretty crowded. I know many acres of VA land is up for sale.

"A legend is an old man with a cane known for what he used to do. I'm still doing it." Miles Davis

by milesdavis93 on Nov 1, 2011 8:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

Ye shall receive that answer soon

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on Nov 1, 2011 9:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

Further legal thoughts...

California courts have held that the university regents have virtually plenary power in regulating the university’s affairs. As such, a University’s project should not be subject to municipal regulation, and should be exempt from local zoning regulations and building codes. (Regents of the University of California v. City of Santa Monica (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 130). With that said, UC is a political institution and will “listen” to community concerns and have a desire to be a “good neighbor.” Ultimately, though, what the Regents want the Regents will get. Great post – I’d actually donate funds to see this happen. I bet many other alums would as well.

by Jim Rogers on Nov 1, 2011 4:47 PM PDT reply actions  

Just Wondering

But where could you even put a stadium now?
Drake is far too small would have to be torn down before you could even start and would have to get rid of intramural fields.
I would say you could do something in the VA and make a football only facility there with weight rooms and practice field as well, however I see that as unlikely due to the ridiculous amount of money that would cost. Think Pauley times 10. You would then have to make Spaulding intramural fields and put new Jackie Robinson Stadium where the current intramural fields are but that sounds like an awful lot of movement and somewhat unrealistic.

by blueandgold100 on Nov 1, 2011 6:45 PM PDT reply actions  

Using the model set forth by TCF Bank Stadium

and guesstimating the increase being in LA, etc, a stadium could be built for under $400 million. Considering the original plan was to raise half of that for a crappy Pauley renovation and the naming rights avenues were not investigated, a properly run Morgan Center wouldn’t have too hard a time raising the funds.

As for the space, the VA is an option (a politically complicated, but not impossible option), while there is more than enough space on Drake and the IM fields if you take a look at an overhead view and do measurements.

Two roads diverged in a wood and I – I tweeted my followers to ask which I should take

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Nov 1, 2011 7:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

The IM fields

are as of right now the biggest waste of space by UCLA as it is under utilized, yet takes up very precious space. If allowed to be voted on, I don’t think too many bruins would vote against a football stadium on campus so they can play ultimate friisbee

by Ganplosive on Nov 1, 2011 9:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

Drake

There is plenty of room where Drake is now. If you look at the space that is there now and build a compact double deck style urban stadium such as Wrigley, Fenway, Camden Yards, Northwestern U’, etc. it could easily fit on the existing footprint. You wouldn’t need to use much of the IM fields.

Powder to the People

by bruinski on Nov 2, 2011 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

extend drake

sideways, tearing down the east side of the stadium and expanding it towards the IM field. Wrap back around with surrounding seating. Share the underground parking facilities with the new hotel.

Will look more closely at the plan given the time

by Ganplosive on Nov 1, 2011 9:44 PM PDT reply actions  

Five years max: 2017 at the latest ...

Is the time it would take to complete the stadium. Really.

It just takes leadership, vision and commitment to make us second to none.

It’s not a materials problem or a location problem or a physical problem.

It’s a people problem, because the people now are not leaders. They are just too focused on protecting their own turf and salaries and are blinded by their tired old tunnel vision.

Keep it up BN. You are laying waste to all the tired old excuses.

by uclahy on Nov 1, 2011 10:42 PM PDT reply actions  

I like your thinking uclahy

Money, materials, opportunity, ideas, motivation – these are the roadblocks of a quitter, but they are the tools of a leader.

I just made that up, and I’m pretty happy with it.

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Nov 2, 2011 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Bruins Nation, an unofficial daily online scrap book covering the greatest collegiate athletic program in the nation. Established June 16, 2005. GO BRUINS.

Managers

Uclabear1_small Nestor

Arron_afflalo1_small Tydides

Brad_pitt_as_achilles_small Achilles

377011_2642084725867_1068030137_32302525_1166539782_n_small Ryan Rosenblatt

Telemachus_small Telemachus

Licenseplate_small gbruin

2761_small tasser10

Blue_bellerophon_small Bellerophon

Img_0052_2_small Patroclus

Small DCBruins

Of Counsels

094_small Ajax

Menelaus2_small Menelaus

Small Meriones

Small Odysseus

Associates

Eee_small freesia39

Uclabruins_small AHMB