TrojanNYC.com

Photo of the Day: USC Beats Oregon 120-23?

Check out the scoreboard (click to enlarge).  H/T to the official blog.

Pic of the Day: "115,000" Dodger Fans @ the Coliseum

That number is totally off just by glancing at the crowd, but still an interesting sight nevertheless.  Apparently it was the largest crowd ever to watch a baseball game.  The people in the Peristyle must have had some horrible sightlines. 

Pic of the Day: Coliseum Prepping for Dodgers

See the rest of the pictures over at USCRipsIt.com. 

Trojans Stay in Coliseum

From Rivals.com:

The Coliseum Commission voted unanimously to sign a letter of intent with USC, promising major improvements to the stadium. The letter outlines "key business terms" that the sides are set to include in a new lease agreement, which must be finalized in the next 60 days.

Here's what USC gets:

• A Commission-implemented program of about $100-million worth of "substantial capital improvements" to stadium. These will include upgrades to, among other things, the: sound and lighting systems; elevators and escalators; concession areas; seating; and video board.

• A 25-year lease, with multiple options that can extend the deal up to 47 years.

• A promise that stadium capacity will not be cut below 90,000 permanent seats.

• Veto power over bringing an NFL team to the Coliseum.

• Representation on the Coliseum Commission.

USC's primary concession was to lend university affiliation to whichever company purchases the naming rights for the Coliseum.

However, USC has some control over which company will pay -- an estimated $5 million a year over 10 years -- for the rights. The university's senior vice president for administration, Todd Dickey, said alcohol, tobacco, firearms and sex-related products cannot put their name on the stadium.

All I have to say is, HOME SWEET HOME!

Quote of the Day: Scott Olin Schmidt

On the Coliseum Commission's reluctance to grant USC a master/long-term lease and the possibility of them walking away from the $100 million in renovation money offered by USC:

At a time when the state is suffering from a $14-billion deficit and the city of Los Angeles could face a $340- million shortfall, it would be totally irresponsible for elected leaders to walk away from an offer of millions in private investment for the public benefit.

The commission could make sure that USC lives up to its end of the deal, and if the university is found to be in breach of its contract, the commission could take the back control of the stadium.

The problem with this idea, however, is that it meets everyone's needs — which means it ignores anyone's secret motivations to, for example, lure an NFL team to the Coliseum, and would never be accepted.

That last sentence pretty much sums it up.  Read the whole thing.

Coliseum Commission to Present USC With New Proposal

From OCRegister.com:

The Coliseum Commission emerged from a special closed-door session Wednesday evening and announced it would present USC with a new long-term lease proposal within 24 hours.

While USC still needs to review the proposal, it could be the first step in keeping the Trojans from acting on their threat to move to the Rose Bowl next season.

"We thanked the Commission for having this extra meeting and we look forward to reviewing the proposal," USC spokesman James Grant said.

Great to hear.  Can't wait till this is all behind us...

Open Letter From Mike Garrett to Trojan Family

From USC.edu:

Dear Fellow Trojan:

It gives me no pleasure to write a letter of this kind, but there are issues facing our university that you need to understand. The University of Southern California has been negotiating diligently for months, trying to renew USC’s lease with the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, and trying to get guarantees that USC’s football team and fans can enjoy home games in a completely renovated and improved stadium.

Unfortunately, talks are at an impasse, and right now we have no lease for the Coliseum next year. As a precaution, USC has negotiated a lease with the Rose Bowl to ensure that we have an acceptable stadium in which to play our home football games for the foreseeable future.

But this arrangement is not what we want. We want our football program to remain at the Coliseum. And we want the Coliseum Commission – our “landlords” who manage the stadium – to begin the long overdue rehabilitation of the Coliseum.

You all know the many things that need attention:

   1. Complete replacement of concession facilities to afford modern food and beverage services like those offered at all major stadiums.
   2. Replacement of, and additions to, the currently inadequate restroom facilities.
   3. All new, state-of-the-art video and score boards.
   4. Replacement of the grossly inadequate sound system.
   5. Improved access through renovated and replaced stairs, elevators and escalators.
   6. Repair of crumbling concrete stairs, walkways and infrastructure.
   7. Replacement of all seats.
   8. Reconfiguration of entry gates in order to move fans in and out of the stadium safely and efficiently.

This isn’t just about people’s comfort and enjoyment; it’s about the long-term viability of the structure. It’s old and worn out. And it is not being used to its fullest potential by the wider community.

USC has been waiting – I believe patiently – ten years for the Commission to do this, but they have not taken the necessary steps, and they will not promise to do so anytime soon. For a decade the nine-member Coliseum Commission has hoped to attract an NFL franchise to the stadium. Their plan has been that the NFL would pay for renovations. There was a clear message from the NFL last summer stating that “notwithstanding all of our best efforts to identify a mutually acceptable solution, we have determined that the Coliseum renovation project, as currently contemplated, would create significant economic risks for the NFL such that we are not prepared to move forward with the project at this time.”

The Coliseum Commission asked USC to submit a proposal. So we did. We made to them what I think is an amazing offer. USC offered to spend $100 million to repair and improve the stadium on a ten-year plan, phasing in renovations each year. In return, we requested a master lease that would allow us to play football in the Coliseum for many years. We asked to participate in making decisions regarding the Coliseum and to be given opportunities that would allow us to offset our outlay of money by controlling more of the stadium’s revenues. And we’d help make sure the Coliseum has a full life all year round, with entertainment and sporting events, both large and small, not just the six home games for the USC football team.

But the Coliseum Commission rejected our offer.

Our team deserves a great stadium. So do our fans. So do the people of Los Angeles.

The Coliseum Commission is made up of representatives from the city, the county and the state. They need to know how you feel about this. I believe that our voices will be heard if we work through our elected officials. I urge you to e-mail, fax or phone the appropriate official asking them to:

   1. Let USC direct and fund the Coliseum’s refurbishment in partnership with the city, the county and the state.
   2. Let USC, in collaboration with the Coliseum Commission, determine and perform vital repairs while ensuring steady income to offset expenses and upkeep.
   3. Let USC be more than a tenant – USC already brings in 60 percent of the Commission’s revenue and has been the only steady tenant for 80 years! We seek to be a key player in the preservation and enhancement of this great civic treasure and historic landmark. Remind them that for 80 years USC has stayed while other teams have gone, and that our home games spark spending in the neighborhood each fall to the tune of approximately $5 million. And that, in total, USC contributes $4 billion to the local economy each year.

If you’d like to join me in taking action, click here and you’ll get the names of the people to contact.

Your support of and commitment to the University of Southern California is invaluable. Together, let’s continue to work hard to keep the USC football program in our beloved Coliseum.

Thank you for caring about this issue and for expressing your concerns.

Yours truly,

Michael L. Garrett
Director of Athletics
University of Southern California

If you wanted to take action, here's your chance. 

USC to Call Rose Bowl Home?

 

From LATimes.com:

Frustrated by lack of progress on a lease agreement with the Coliseum Commission -- one that would allow the school to run and renovate the venerable Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum -- USC is negotiating with the Rose Bowl to begin playing home games in Pasadena next fall.

While a deal with the Pasadena stadium is not complete, a potential USC lease agreement is on the agenda for a Dec. 6 meeting of the Rose Bowl Operating Co. The school's two-year lease with the Coliseum expires after Saturday's game.

Some insiders have dismissed USC's talks with the Rose Bowl as a negotiating ploy, saying it's highly unlikely the school would ever leave a stadium that's practically part of its campus. But others point to the number of teams that have left the Coliseum over the years and say USC is likely to uproot if there's no significant progress with the commission.

"We've been a loyal, faithful tenant of the Coliseum for 80 years, and our goal is to continue playing in the Coliseum for another 80 years," said Todd R. Dickey, USC's senior vice president for administration. "But in order to do that, the Coliseum has to be improved. It needs to be repaired and restored. And we've offered to make those improvements, not just to hand the money over to the Coliseum Commission, but for the university to actually operate the facility."

That offer: A minimum of $100 million over 10 years toward the stadium's repair and restoration. As part of the deal, the school would be in charge of running the venue.

Some might question the timing of the leak in information, but personally I like everything about this move.  With everyone's focus on the game this Saturday, this news comes at the peak of public attention.  Already fans/media/etc. are up at arms contemplating whether this Saturday's game might be a temporary/permanent goodbye.  It's time to step up and put the pressure on the Coliseum Commission to make a long-term move.  As much as I abhor the idea of having to watch SC play at the Rose Bowl on Saturday's, this is without question a necessary move.   

USOC Picks Chicago

The USOC picked Chicago over Los Angeles today as the representative city for the bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics:

"It was a very tough decision," USOC chairman Peter Ueberroth said before opening a sealed envelope and revealing the winning city. "If I had all the power -- and sometimes people accuse me of that -- I would take the map and merge the two cities, because I'll tell you what: If you could take the mayors of these two communities and have them run our country, we would all be better off."

By choosing Chicago instead of Los Angeles, the 11-member USOC board of directors went with a city that needs to do plenty of work if it's going to be the 2016 host. Los Angeles already had most venues in place, having held the Summer Games in 1984 -- when the Olympics were run by Ueberroth -- and in 1932.

So with the Summer Olympics officially out of the picture and the patience of the Coliseum Committee with the NFL wearing thin, will USC finally be given the master lease?

Thursday Top 3

• Rumors are swirling that Demar DeRozan of Compton HS will commit to SC soon.  Demar would be a great pick-up for the Class of '08 and would likely be a impact player right away.  Lot of activity going on, so stay tuned...

• The Governator authorized $250 million in state funds for the 2016 summer Olympics trying to sweeten L.A.'s bid.  This is relevant to SC because if L.A. is chosen over Chicago, the Coliseum will be renovated and the football team will be without a home for a few years.  There are definitely pros/cons to this as a SC fan, but I'm hoping Chicago is chosen in the end. 

• The Galen Center was nominated as a "ugly building" in the "Ugliest Building Contest" over at CurbedLA.com.  As one of my architecture friends put it, "It's a box with turrets."  Putting my biases aside, I have to agree that GC's architecture leaves much to be desired.  I do however love the sightlines!

I had the privilege of touring the facility privately and I think Carol Dougherty is fumbling the ball on this one.  I'll reserve judgment and wait to see if SC decides to cut corners and not install the 360 degree ribbon boards and the white ceramic plates to the outer facade.  I can't understand why anyone would allow a brand new arena to remain looking semi-complete.

Compare the actual picture of the arena to the artist rendering and then look at Virginia's stadium which opened the same year as GC.  We have a very successful alumni base and an elite architecture program that has produced two Pritzker Prize winners in Frank Gehry and Thom Mayne and that was the best we could do?  It's not even about being ungrateful, it's simply expecting better of a top flight university with a ton of money...