I Never Promised You a Rose Bowl? - Part 10 (alternative ain't happening)

Given the current conflict between Pasadena and UCLA over the latter's desire to exit the Rose Bowl for SoFi Stadium, the idea of a third way has (re)appeared: Create a stadium on campus.

From the LA Times: The latest proposal came from L. Carlos Simental, a lawyer and UCLA alumnus. Simental wrote an editorial in the Daily Bruin* contending that the school should construct a donor-funded, 45,000-seat stadium on the site of the Drake Stadium track and field facility... 

“It just ain’t going to happen,” said John Sandbrook, who was a UCLA assistant chancellor under Charles Young and a central figure in the school’s move from the Coliseum to the Rose Bowl before the 1982 season. Among other things, Sandbrook said, the practical realities from an architectural standpoint make an on-campus stadium nearly impossible. Construction would necessitate losing a major portion of the underground Parking Structure 7 and at least one-third of the recreational fields, not to mention cutting into the tennis stadium and Bruin Walk to accommodate the southern part of a new, expanded football stadium.

There would have to be a new service tunnel into the stadium from Charles Young Drive north and a new entryway into Parking Structure 7. A dedicated access lane to nearby Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, the primary trauma center on the westside, would have to be created, further snarling traffic. “You are basically blowing up things and having to rebuild it,” Sandbrook said. “You don’t say for the sake of six football games a year, ‘We’re going to do all these things.’” ...

Full story at https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/newsletter/2026-01-12/bruins-on-campus-stadium.

===

*https://dailybruin.com/2026/01/09/op-ed-ucla-must-build-on-campus-football-stadium-to-reclaim-athletic-identity.

===

So, if the on-campus alternative is not an option, there is still another puzzle. Why does UCLA want arbitration while Pasadena wants a court judgment? Wouldn't breaking the contract by UCLA lead to a big dollar payout, regardless of the locus of the decision? From the LA Times:

...UCLA filed a motion to move the matter from Los Angeles Superior Court to arbitration, which would keep the proceedings out of public view. Attorneys for the Rose Bowl and Pasadena contend that the case should play out in open court because it involves two public entities and is of great interest to the public. “The complaint by Pasadena and the Rose Bowl is partially a contract claim and partially addressed to the court of public opinion,” Haagen said. “So one of the things they certainly believe they want is to have this play out in the L.A. Times and to enlist public interest in it.”

Why would that matter? [Paul] Haagen [co-director of Duke’s Center for Sports Law and Policy] said it could invite legislative intervention if a public portrayal emerges that is unflattering to UCLA. “Part of it is explaining to your own voters what you’re doing and that you’re not hapless and stupid and you didn’t agree to all of this work on the Rose Bowl and now you’re not getting anything” in return, Haagen said. “But also if the narrative is ‘greedy UCLA is going back on its word, not meeting its commitments,’ that’s kind of a big impact.” ...

Full story at https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2026-01-19/can-ucla-be-forced-to-stay-at-rose-bowl-legal-scholars-weigh-in.