Allow for this thought, would the University of Southern California, aka USC, leave the Coliseum
for the Rose Bowl ?
Before you dismiss outright this question, consider the fact that USC and one of the historically inept public commission, the Coliseum Commission, have been deadlock on a future lease agreement for USC Football.
This impasse has the University engaging Pasadena
about playing future home games in the Rose Bowl as early as Fall of 2008. The deadlock between the University and the Coliseum Commission centers around the lease proposal by USC to be the "feature tenant" in exchange for a 10 year lease deal that would see USC commit $100 million dollars toward stadium renovations. The University also wants the exclusive rights to market the Coliseum for events such as concerts and other special events.
The Coliseum Commission for their part are clinging to some forlorn hope that the NFL will listen to the likes of Councilman Bernard Parks and relocate a team to the historic stadium. Thus do not want to give USC the "feature role" at this time.
It is this type of "myopic vision and foresight" that chased the formerly "Los Angeles Rams" to Anaheim in 1979. UCLA then lefted for Pasadena soon after. Then after luring Nate Holden's favorite team , the Oakland Raiders south in 1982, cause Al Davis to take $9 Million to look at some Gravel Pit
and scamper back to the Bay area in 1995.
If USC were to leave the Coliseum for Pasadena, this would deal a potentially fatal blow to the revitalization of the "Figueroa Corridor".
So for all sports fans and especially the "Trojan Family", will USC "fight on" in the Coliseum ? Or will the Coliseum Commission solidify itself as the "Champion of Ineptness" ?
Labels: los angeles memorial coliseum, los angeles politics, pasadena, usc