Bumped. Let's do this Bruins. DESTROY TROY. - BN

We’re almost 24 48 hours away from the annual show down with the cheating SUCsters, and I have to admit that I’m concerned. I’m not necessarily concerned about our on field performance. God knows we’ve seen some disheartening athletic displays over the past decade. However, I always find myself hopeful before kickoff. The days and hours before kickoff retain the endless possibility of a blank canvas. Any number of things could happen, so I choose to focus on everything that could go right.

Continue reading this post »

This may only affect my blood pressure but, as the SUC game draws near, I've been thinking about what has irked me about past UCLA vs. SUC experiences in the Rose Bowl. Granted, the athletic performances have been hard to stomach for much of the last decade, but we support our team through thick and thin. I am most focused on the overall Rose Bowl fan experience and the atmosphere for this game in particular.

Like others, I am sickened by the volume of ketchup and mustard I see in the Rose Bowl. This has been discussed at length on BN. I'm glad a movement for a "Blue Out" has been started and that people are at least calling out misguided Bruins who give their tickets away to trogans.  

However, one of the things that really makes my blood boil has not gotten much attention on BN or anywhere else. I am referring to the pre-game performance of the SUC marching band and their mascot's antics. I am sick and tired of watching that stupid trogan prance to our 50-yard line in his mini skirt and plant his little sword in our UCLA logo. It just pisses me off. No one else lets their rivals get away with such crap!

Anyone else hate seeing this?

I sent a letter to Dan Guerrero detailing my complaints. While I know one letter is unlikely to gain any traction, the collective voice of BN might help raise the issue. If this is something that bothers you too, please let the administration know by emailing Dan Guerrero or tweeting directly to the UCLA Athletics Twitter account. I have posted my letter to Dan Guerrero below. 

Dear Mr. Guerrero,
 
I am a die-hard Bruin and long-time supporter of UCLA athletics and academics. I have invested my heart and soul into supporting my university and have made significant financial contributions to the athletic department.
 
I am writing today to implore a revision to the pre-game arrangements associated with the UCLA vs. USC football game.
 
Every year the Bruins play our cross-town rivals in the Rose Bowl, I watch in disbelief as the Trojan band marches across the field and their mascot plants a sword at the fifty-yard line – in the middle of the UCLA logo. Why does the university allow this? In fact, why is the USC band allowed to perform on the field before the game?
 
The spectacle inspires the attending USC supporters and undermines any semblance of home-field advantage. It is a sickening display that lacks respect and rallies the large crowd of USC fans attending the game. Sometimes the athletic performance on the field is painful to watch; yet fans endure it because we support our team and our school. We should not also be subjected to such pompous, stomach-turning displays that have no place on the Bruins’ home field. It is degrading, disheartening and unprecedented in college football.
 
I grew up in the heart of Texas and regularly attended the Texas A&M vs. Texas game. The rivalry is intense, yet sportsmanship and respect are maintained. However, neither team affords the other an opportunity such as that the Bruins provide USC’s band and mascot. You will never see Bevo at Texas A&M’s fifty-yard line, nor will you see the A&M band perform pregame in Austin. Each holds a significant home field advantage and does not allow activities that would undermine that atmosphere. The same can be said for rivalry games across the nation. Does Michigan allow the Ohio State band on the field to “dot the i” during pregame in Ann Arbor? No. Does Florida allow Florida State’s Seminole to embed a flaming spear into it’s ‘Gator logo? Absolutely not.
 
I appreciate the strides your department has made in cultivating athletic programs of which all Bruins can be proud. I hope to see similar advances made in enhancing the fan experience and increasing Bruin pride. Eliminating displays such as this would go a long ways toward improving Bruin involvement and support. I cannot over emphasize the negative effect it has on UCLA supporters and the boost it gives to our cross-town rivals.
 
I ask that you thoughtfully review the existing policy and make appropriate changes. Surely UCLA can extend goodwill and sportsmanship to its rival without handing over the keys to its home field.
 
Sincerely,
 
Andrew Smith
Class of 2001

<!--EndFragment-->

I’m not sure the best question is whether the point system is fair or unfair. The way the Campaign is designed, its hard to find a lot of fault with the basic logic. I am among the season ticket holders who bristled at being told, point blank, that I would need to donate about $150,000 to keep my seats! After 10 years, that was a shock to the system. However, at face value, the point system seems plausible and I know it has worked at schools like Texas A&M.

The problem I have involves previous inequities and the thought process for launching this initiative during the worst economic downturn in nearly 100 years. I think what the athletic department is struggling with stems from decades of inequity caused by the short-sided decision to grandfather-in donation rates from the 60s, 70s and 80s. While some season ticket holders have been paying $5-6000/year for the “right” to two seats, others paid around $500. So essentially, some donors were subsidizing others — that is truly unfair, and the point system doesn’t significantly change this inequity.

Under the point system, a 30 year donor (at $500/year) and ticket holder would accrue 1500 points, while a 10 year donor (at $5500/year) would accrue just 1000. So, the subsidy persists. Historically, the department should have charged everyone the same rate for donations, depending on seat location. It didn’t, and that is coming back to bite everyone. The Campaign has essentially unmasked years of inequity and it stinks to a lot of donors.

In my opinion, the fair approach would be to require ticket holders to make up the difference in the amount they paid and the amount they were “subsidized.” That would completely level the playing field. However, I’m sure the fall-out from those with grandfathered rates would be enormous. So, I guess the real problem I have with the point system is that it still creates a proportionally unfair advantage based solely upon consecutive years as a donor/ticket holder.

I understand they are trying to create more competition for the seats to maximize revenue, but it is extremely hypocritical when the department has failed to even attempt to adjust these discrepancies for decades. If the department had had any foresight, it would have gradually increased rates over the last 10-20 years for those grandfathered-in to maximize revenues and minimize ticket holder shock and discontent. The department was poorly managed for years and they are now trying to remedy that mismanagement in one fell swoop — and its painful to everyone involved.

The timing of this colossal restructuring, during one of nation’s worst economic downturns, only adds to the pain. Not only will the Campaign struggle with decades-old inequities, it will have to increase donation revenues when almost everyone has scaled back spending. The Campaign could effectively lock out recent grads and those currently struggling for decades — and that doesn’t seem fair. I’m afraid this will attract a certain demographic, essentially making decent-great seats at Pauley the province of well-to-do older people. So, the newly renovated Pauley may be better, but it almost certainly won’t be louder, more energetic or more intimidating.

So, is the point system unfair? On the surface level, not really. However, the Campaign exposes and maintains inequities that have persisted for decades. Given the opportunity to level the playing field and plan for the future, the Campaign for Champions’ approach and timing seems both short-sided and unfair.