Attention Dan Guerrero's Replacement: Fix UCLA's Football Facilities (Part 4-The Pac-12)
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. In Part 3, we looked at some of the premier facilities around the country. This post will examine some of the facilities in the Pac-12. Again, as in Part 3, this is a timely topic as we will soon be looking for a new football coach and hopefully a new athletic director. UCLA needs an elite coach and a top-notch AD, both of whom will rightfully insist on facilities upgrades, particularly when the football team had to get ready for the game against ASU without hot water last Thursday. Dan Guerrero is the Tom Hansen of Pac-12 ADs, presiding over an athletic department infected with resiliant and institutional rot, 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.
Numerous other Pac-12 programs have upgraded or are in the process of upgrading their facilities. UCLA needs to upgrade its facilities to keep up in the facilities arms race.
Oregon has received a lot of publicity for its facility upgrades, and rightfully so. Oregon recently completed an academic center. It has also built the Moshofsky Center, the first indoor practice facility on the West Coast. In addition to offering protection from the elements,
the center features full climate control to allow for simulated heat, humidity, and wind, as well as crowd simulation. The center also hosts an auxiliary medical treatment center, catering services, meeting and storage facilities, and an athlete lounge.
Oregon's practice facilities actually help them prepare for the games. Oregon also has a center housing its football locker room and weight room. There have been numerous renovations and upgrades to the facility, which includes amenities such as individually-ventilated lockers and lighting that adjusts to match the lighting outside.
In this five-star, two-story gridiron getaway, where the wood-paneled lockers have Internet ports, ventilation systems and plates engraved with every players' name, jersey number and hometown, grass stains can look as out of place as a rusty padlock.
But Oregon is planning to upgrade the Casanova center yet again:
University of Oregon Athletics are getting yet another major facelift thanks again to Nike co-founder Phil Knight who is going to finance the expansion of the Len Casanova center, as well as a new facility for the women's soccer and lacrosse programs.
The heart of the Oregon Athletics Department -- the Len Casanova Center -- will soon be expanded by 130-thousand square feet to the north and to the west, part of a much bigger plan to create a state-of-the-art operation center for Duck football.
USC has planned a 110,000 square foot athletic facility:
A new 110,000-square foot building that will house meeting rooms, coaches offices and a locker room for the football program, as well as an academic center, weight room, athletic training room and state-of-the-art digital media production facility for all of USC's 21 sports, will be built directly west of Heritage Hall on the USC campus, Trojan athletic director Pat Haden announced today (Oct. 30).
USC's new athletic facility will include a 32,000 square foot weight room, academic services and football offices and meeting rooms:
The new building's basement, which will be connected to Heritage Hall's basement, will be approximately 60,000 square feet and will house a 32,000-square foot weight room (USC's current weight room in Heritage Hall is 9,600-square feet), an 18,000-square foot athletic training room (the current athletic training room is 2,700-square feet) and men's and women's locker rooms. A football locker room with an adjacent lounge will have access to the entrance of the nearby football practice field.
Cal has significantly invested in its facilities and its football program:
The University of California has begun to see the value of a successful football program. Perhaps AD Sandy Barbour was swayed by additional revenue and donations following the 2004-06 season in which the Bears went 28-9. Cal has since broken ground on new athletics facilities as well as begun remodeling Memorial Stadium. Simply put, Cal is supporting their football program in ways that UCLA is not.
Among Cal's facilities improvements are rrenovations to Memorial Stadium and its Student-Athlete High Performance Center:
The SAHPC is a revolutionary student-athlete training, coaching, and applied sports science and sports medicine center. The SAHPC embodies the High Performance Initiative (HPI), Cal's innovative performance philosophy designed to build competitive advantage, maximize efficiency and enhance the student-athlete experience.
A 142,000 square-foot facility, the SAHPC is a state-of-the-art complex with year-round access for over 450 student-athletes. The SAHPC is home to the locker rooms, meeting rooms and offices for Cal football and several Cal Olympic sports. Importantly, the academic center gives student-athletes access to the resources they need — from computers to tutors — to meet the high standards that have always been the hallmark of our great university.
The performance center will include an 18,700 square foot strength and conditioning center, a therapy and rehab area, an academic support area, staff offices, locker rooms, and nutrition.
Also, UCLA is in a better financial position than Cal, and yet Cal has still decided to make investments in its facilities:
In budget news, the L.A. Times has a discussion of the new $3 billion television deal that the Pac-12 just completed and the financial impact it will have for cash-strapped athletic departments, such as Cal. Cal, needing to borrow money from the academic side of the university, still managed to make Jeff Tedford the highest paid University of California employee. UCLA, on the other hand, is in the black, will be getting a major cash infusion from the television deal, and yet, we still aren't willing to pay top dollar for a big name, big time coach (read: Dan, offer to pay Urban a lot of money; at least freakin' ask!). WTF Dan.
Washington is upgrading its facilities quite a bit as well, including major renovations to Husky Stadium. In fact, Washington officially broke ground on the Husky Stadium renovations on November 7:
Washington broke ground Monday on its $250 million renovation of Husky Stadium, an 18-month project that will kick the Huskies out of the 91-year-old building until September 2013.
“This is truly a project built by the fans and for the fans and for that we are truly, truly grateful,” Washington President Michael Young said.
The renovation funding is to include $50 million in private donations. According to documents obtained by The Associated Press through a public records request, the school already has $17.9 million of that in hand.
The school says it has nearly $44 million total in signed pledges. The school says many of its donors plan to spread their donations over a five-year period, but there was no set total needed to break ground on the project, only internal goals for the fundraising efforts.
The renovations will remove the track, add premium seating, and adding a football operations center:
Football operations support building housing locker rooms, weight rooms, team meeting rooms, recruiting lounges, player lounges and coaches offices integrated into the west end zone
In addition, Washington built the Dempsey Indoor practice facility in 2001. UW also built Husky Legends Center in 2007. Windemere Dining Hall was renovated in 2005. UW also built a sports medicine facility in 1999 and renovated its weight room in 2007. Washington also built an academic center in 2005.
Stanford made extensive renovations to Stanford Stadium, even though it is located in a very wealthy community filled with tech billionaires and endless Google money. The renovations even included a $70,000 bathroom for the head coach. The renovations were initially projected to cost $85 million, and eventually cost about $90 million. As Stanford realized, and we've pointed out time and again:
In addition to replacing the dilapidated old structure, the plan also was driven by a compelling need to increase football revenue. Successful football teams at major universities typically generate enough profit to partially subsidize other sports programs. It’s partly a function of scale—whereas one football game might attract 50,000 spectators, many sports cannot sell that many tickets in multiple seasons. When Leland arrived at Stanford in 1991, football ticket sales generated $4 million and accounted for 18 percent of the athletic department’s overall income. In 2005, football still earned just $4.2 million in ticket sales, which represented only 7 percent of all funds. Stanford athletics has weathered the Cardinal’s middling financial performance because it has a huge endowment (the largest of any athletic department in the nation) and, oddly, because of the success of two-time national champion USC, among others. As a Pac-10 member, Stanford gets a share of revenues generated by the Rose Bowl and Bowl Championship Series whether or not it qualifies for either. Whew.
In addition to stadium renovations, Stanford also built a new dining hall, Arrillaga Family Dining Common, with athletic performance in mind:
Stanford Dining is has created a new dining program called Wellness and Performance dining which was developed in partnership with Stanford Athletics, School of Medicine and the Culinary Institute of America. This involves synergistic food combinations and promotion of antioxidants and other nutrients to help students perform at their mental and physical peak. Stanford Dining employs a full-time Wellness and Performance Dining Nutritionist, who counsels students and student athletes, and consults for groups such as the athletics department. Wellness and Performance Dining falls under our EatWell program, which encompasses fresh, healthy and sustainable food.
Arrillaga is a 35,000 square foot facility, built at a cost of $20 million.
Utah is upgrading its football facilities as well, with a new 57,000 square foot football complex.
As we mentioned in Part 1:
While UCLA did renovate the Acosta Center, to include a 15,000 square foot weight room, 8,000 square feet for athletic training and rehabilitation, and the Bud Knapp Football Center, which includes the locker rooms, equipment room, and nine meeting rooms and a team meeting room, the facilities are not in the top of the conference or comparable programs. As we have demonstrated, financially, football is the most important sport for the financial health of an athletic department, and spending on football and reinvesting in the football program makes a lot of sense.
However, the Acosta Center renovations were simply not visionary enough. UCLA needs to upgrade facilities, generally and focusing on football. The baseline needs to be at lest equal to the improvements made by USC and Cal. In the next and final installment of this series, we will provide specific recommendations and solutions.
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; Facilities Part 3 examines some premier facilities around the country.
24 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Great research O
What is happening all over the conference just underscores the urgency for the need for wholesale cultural change around our athletic programs.
Out of topic
Regardless of the garbage put out by some posters on Jon Gold’s blog (baseless and misguided attacks on you and BruinsNation), you guys are providing a great service to UCLA community. You are putting stuff out there that needs to be said pushing for change for the better. Keep on doing what you are doing. We UCLA alumni and supporters are behind you %100.
Go UCLA, Go Bruinsnation
We appreciate it
For the record we appreciate the hard work Gold does on “Inside UCLA.” Like his enthusiasm and passion for his job even though he is “growing” into it. As for the commenters, we just don’t pay much attention to “noise” and more focus on the smart, well thought out arguments and information pertaining to UCLA athletics. That has always been the goal.
We know we are harsh a lot of times to casual commenters or drive by posters. That is by design because this place has always been geared for alums, season ticket holders who are more than just emotionally invested in our programs. We know it often turns off some folks but so bet it. The incredible growth this community has experienced in 6+ years and the kind of conversation, brainstorming and thoughts it has generated, we are more confident that we are on the right track.
Thanks for the support. Cheers. :-)
Great read.
The research and info here is spectacular. It really sheds light on the state of our facilities for not just football but all other sports. We used to be a leader in the PAC-10 but every other school seems to leap frogging over us by leaps and bounds. Has the Morgan center even put a thought into upgrading our facilities? Maybe they can put their BS blog into actual use and communicate how they plan on dealing with it.
but hey
But hey, we’re making a big investment is renovating Pauley, a plan that many alumni/donors/season ticket holders hate. So we’ve got that going for us. Which is nice.
by RealisticBruinFan on Nov 8, 2011 11:30 AM PST reply actions
Great research, and a good read.
It is appalling to me that what is common sense at other schools, (including our sister school) is a pipe dream at UCLA.
Winning is not a sometime thing; it's an all the time thing. You don't win once in a while; you don't do things right once in a while; you do them right all the time. Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. ~ Vince Lombardi
A different view
I think that this has been an interesting series and as an alum, I’d certainly be happy to see UCLA spend more on athletic facilities because of the way they help the university’s profile. But what keeps popping into my mind is the other students on campus.
In a lot of ways, athletes – at least at UCLA and certainly at other places as well – are perceived as being given preferential treatment. At UCLA, some of the perks that accrue to being a student athlete are (or were) priority enrollment in classes, priority choices in terms of on-campus housing, priority in getting a parking pass, not to mention all of the student athlete-only facilities, such as the various practice fields and training centers. On top of this, a lot of the student athletes are on scholarship, so they’re getting all this on top of a free ride. Now, I’m not saying that some of these things aren’t very important to the student athletes, and, yes, there are plenty of other times where regular students are “allowed” to utilize Athletic Department resources (for example, using Pauley for IM league things). However, in a lot of ways, the massive expenditures just don’t seem fair to the student body at large. So, when a university – any university (I’m not saying it’s a UCLA-only thing) – spends SO much money and resources on such a narrow set of students, it just doesn’t seem right to me. I certainly understand the concepts behind such decisions, but that doesn’t make it feel any better to me. In a lot of ways, regular students at UCLA get the short end of the stick – for example, when new residence hall construction and Athletic Department facility construction in the dorm and Sunset Rec area meant that things like basketball courts and tennis courts were just paved over. UCLA is only 419 acres – the smallest UC (other than SF) – so even looking at the physical space devoted solely to the Athletic Department compared to the students themselves is pretty staggering.
Again, I’m not saying that i’m opposed to building these facilities, but if we want UCLA to be a place where students are able to thrive and learn and have an enjoyable college experience (including athletics, intercollegiate and IM) then I think that maybe it’s important to keep them in mind.
The Athletic Department budget
is separate from the general University budget.
If you want UCLA to spend more on its students, which it should, you need to approach different people. This is about student-athletes.
Also, perhaps you should go complain when they build a conference center or yet another new medical building instead of spending on the students. Again, you’d be complaining to a different audience.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Correct re: budgets, but...
… my concern is about the perception of such spending on athletics and student-athletes, particularly in the eyes of the students, regardless of where the funding is actually coming from. Students shouldn’t feel separate and unequal from the student-athletes. And student-athletes shouldn’t feel separate and unequal from their fellow students. When so many resources are devoted to student-athletes, you get a situation where students feel as though they’re second-tier by virtue of just being ‘regular’ students. (I’m also concerned that student-athletes would feel ‘superior’ to their fellow students.) Again, the budgets are separate, but perception can be overpowering. Giving vast, vast resources to student-athletes – state of the art tutoring centers, modern weight rooms, fancy dining halls – while the rest of the students are dealing with (arguably less cutting-edge) general campus facilities just seems like it sets up a tiered system that ought to be avoided. Students who feel marginalized by the athletic department are not going to support the athletic department, whereas students who feel like they’re all part of one big UCLA family will get involved and go to games and support athletics.
And, again, while the budgets are separate, the space on campus is certainly finite and shared. And the more that is dedicated to athlete-only or med center-only or whatever-only uses means less for students at large. (I could probably go on and on about that new convention center they’re building, but I’d rather not!)
Do you actually believe that?
I think that this hypothesis sells the intelligence of our student body short. I didn’t know anyone there that had a problem with priority enrollment for athletes. For one thing, there really aren’t that many of them compared to the rest of the student body. The other part of that is that everyone realizes that the cost of having that class at a certain time is having almost every other hour of your day accounted for. We can do this exercise with every other supposedly unfair benefit that “regular” students would allegedly have a problem with, and at the end of the day, on balance, I find it hard to believe that students would choose the athlete’s life for more than perhaps a week over their own.
And let’s not pretend that so-called student marginalization is even in the same ballpark as Morgan Center’s lack of engagement in generating student excitement. Why be angry at the student athletes when the big grownups at Morgan Center try to sell a plan to give those same students worse seats in new Pauley and tell them it’ll be good for them?
This is a prime example of how Morgan Center needs to care, spend, and do more, not less.
And not all athletes are the same.
There are walk ons, and there are people in the “other” sports.
The “perception” that you talk about is unwarranted, and I question whether it is as widespread and as negatiive as you seem to suggest, Joe. The current crop of Bruins is surely smart (and don’t start quoting from Airplane, please) enough to know that the Athletic Department budget is totally separate from the university budget.
I didn’t know any students who felt marginalized because they didn’t get the perks the athletes did. Maybe there was some kid who spent every night in the library reading the citations in the footnotes, but I didn’t know him, and he has his own problems. Normal kids, in my opinion, embrace the concept of elite athletes wearing the four letters and creating excitement and pride in all of us.
Just my opinion, of course, but I think you’re worring too much, Joe.
Great job Odysseus
It is so frustrating to read these posts because I get so upset with the administration. We have the best athletic program in the country, yet we are resting on our laurels. We need to keep our competitive spirit…competitive! Our student athletes and alumni/fan base deserve it. I will help with donations as long as i know it will go towards endeavors we have been demanding for a while now.
On Campus Stadium
This is what would truly revolutionize our football program. If we took Drake and expanded it over the IM fields (just as far as need be), football would literally become the center of campus.
Great read.
I’m very interested in the next installment.
I think that building new facilities on campus is difficult because of limited open space. The IM field is ripe to be used for new athletic facilities, but I can only imagine the possible uproar that may come with reducing the size of the IM field. There isn’t much open space around Pauley and Acosta for a new athletic complex. I’d hate for the current regime to decide to build a new athletic complex in North Campus or somewhere not close to the current athletic facilities.
On Campus Stadium
Would be great except it will never happen.
A) It wouldn’t be big enough.
B) If it was big enough there would be no way to get people in
C) the construction costs would be prohibitive
D) There is no way to increase infrastructure for traffic
and finally the endless litigation from various places would keep it tied up for years.
Besides, where are we going to tailgate:)?
On Campus Stadium
This would be true if we stick to the idea of a stadium at the current drake location. However, there is a prime location that needs to be explored – the current location of the VA Hospital and its surroundings, near Jackie Robinson stadium. This would be a nice short walk (that could become a tradition) from campus. The fact is, not having an on campus stadium is a huge disadvantage for recruiting and home field advantage. A nice 65,000 seat stadium in that location would be perfect.
VA HOSTPITAL!
DUDE, totally forgot about that place. But isn’t that place federally owned land? That place is literally a huge parking lot, with an old 60’s hospital. Just across from the 405 and “large enough” for a on-campus stadium.
I will miss the rose bowl if it does happen though
Feds
Aren’t the feds unloading some of their holdings? I’m just saying, someone should look into this. I’m sure the right people can get together to discuss this and make it happen. I remember walking around the VA and aside from the parking lot there is a lot of empty untouched land.
Wah wah wah
There’s no way to do this, there’s no way to do that, let’s not even bother trying, let’s not rock the boat, UCLA can’t win a national championship in football, why bother paying a good coach, etc, etc.
Have you done a study not this project? Has anyone? You’ve talked to people who have? Right. Didn’t think so.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
On 5-25-61, JFK said we would land on the moon by the end of the decade.
At that point, we had put one man in space, on a suborbital mission. We would not have anyone in orbit until February of 1962. The rocket we had to use for the orbital flight was the Atlas, which didn’t have a good success rate. We didn’t have room for the rocket. It would make so much noise that the neighbors in Bel Air would object. Parking in Westwood and Titusville would be impossible.
So I guess with all those impossible things to overcome, we were smart not even to try to get to the moon.
Let me make a generalization here. Those who are so sure we could never make an on-campus stadium (not a VA stadium) a reality are the same people who think that our team has turned the corner (yes, another corner) and so we should not even think about replacing our coach or our athletic director.
Are there no longer any leaders on campus? Is no one going to step up and say that we should not be the only school in the world without an on campus football stadium?
We came pretty close
to putting a man on the moon (winning a fb NC) “by the end of the (de)Cade.”
I wish that our generation, in addition to going to the moon and getting us out of Vietnam, was able to say about the still-spiffy on-campus stadium, “We did that, too.”
Not too late, though.

by 



















