Prospect of sharing Rose Bowl pleases no one

By Wendy Soderburg

It doesn't happen often, but UCLA and USC fans joined forces last month in a common goal: to decry the possibility of the Trojans playing their football games in the Rose Bowl.

USC's two-year lease with the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum has expired and the university has reached an impasse in its negotiations with the Coliseum Commission, which repeatedly has rejected the university's offer of providing a minimum of $100 million over 10 years for repairs and restoration in exchange for the right to run the stadium.

As a result, the Trojans are threatening to jump ship to the Rose Bowl next fall, and the prospect of having to once again share a stadium — 25 years after the Bruins left the Coliseum — is not sitting well with anybody.

Distraught fans are taking to the Internet to protest the arrangement. In his Los Angeles Times blog, "All Things Trojan," USC alumnus Adam Rose wrote about a USC student government-led boycott of concessions at the Dec. 1 UCLA-USC football game which would, they hoped, hit the Coliseum where it hurts the most — in the pocketbook.

In an attempt to soothe heightened emotions and to clarify UCLA's position regarding the possibility of USC becoming a temporary secondary tenant at the Rose Bowl, Athletic Director Dan Guerrero sent an e-mail to UCLA's football supporters on Nov. 28. Excerpts of that letter are below:

"First, there is no agreement in place. At the request of USC, UCLA permitted USC to have preliminary discussions with the Rose Bowl regarding the possibility of temporary usage while it continues to negotiate with the Coliseum Commission. This is where the matter presently stands.

"Any possible agreement would be for one year and subject to approval by UCLA. No long-term arrangement between USC and the Rose Bowl would even be considered by UCLA. Our position as the primary tenant is protected by our long-term lease, which runs through 2023.

"Any temporary usage by USC at the Rose Bowl would have to be non-impactful on UCLA, our football program and our fans. Any such arrangement would have to ensure that the integrity of the UCLA football experience for our team and fans would not be compromised in any way. The Rose Bowl is UCLA's home venue and the occupancy of any additional tenant on a temporary basis, if approved by UCLA, must be clearly secondary to that concept.

"I feel that it is in the best interest of college football in Southern California for each institution to have its own home stadium and I remain hopeful that USC and the Coliseum Commission can reach a satisfactory accord."