Welcome to the first installment of a Hotline series on the 40th anniversary of the Arizona schools joining the conference.

Over the coming weeks, we’ll focus on the best of the past four decades, but it seemed appropriate to begin the series at the beginning.

No one is better equipped to walk us through the expansion process in 1976 than John Sandbrook.

Former UCLA chancellor Charles Young was in charge of the Pac-8’s pursuit of Arizona and Arizona State, and Sandbrook served as Young’s point man — he was privy to all the essential meetings and negotiations, from the first conversation to the final vote.

Sandbrook, who spent decades as UCLA’s assistant chancellor under Young, graciously agreed to write a first-person account for the Hotline. Most of it was news to me.

The Expansion of the Pacific-8 Conference To Include The University of Arizona & Arizona State University

A First-Person History

By John Sandbrook, former Assistant Chancellor, UCLA

The entire effort in 1976 about expanding the then Pacific-8 Conference to the Pac-10 Conference with the addition of Arizona and Arizona State – how it started and how it was decided – was basically due to USC president John Hubbard. He was the motivating force behind the idea in early 1976 and also the one who pushed the proposal through to a final decision in December 1976.

But, to understand what happened in 1976, one needs to go back one year earlier to the spring of 1975 and the dust-up within the Pac-8 over the renegotiation of the Rose Bowl Game television contract with NBC. At that time, the Rose Bowl game on New Year’s Day was the joint property of the Pac-8 and the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Association; the Big Ten Conference had no say in the Rose Bowl Game in those days.

The oversight committee of the Rose Bowl Game was called the Rose Bowl Management Committee and comprised of six members: three from the Tournament of Roses and three from the Pac-8. The three Pac-8 members were the commissioner – at that time: Wiles Hallock – and two athletic directors. The Pac-8 athletic directors traditionally named the athletic directors of USC and UCLA to be the other two conference representatives on the Rose Bowl Management Committee.

However, in 1975, USC was in transition. The long-time athletic director, Jess Hill, had retired in 1972, and the USC head football coach, John McKay, was doing double duty as athletic director. But, as events later unfolded in fall 1975, McKay was planning to leave USC in early 1976 to become head coach of the new Tampa Bay Buccaneers. The UCLA athletic director, J.D. Morgan, was the other Pac-8 representative on the Rose Bowl Management Committee.

NBC had held the television rights to the Rose Bowl Game since 1952 and it was, at that time, one of the premier U.S. sporting events each year with Nielsen ratings almost equal to the Super Bowl. In the spring of 1975, the Rose Bowl Management Committee had agreed to extend the NBC television contract, as it had done several times in the previous two decades.

But this time was different. The president of CBS was Robert Wood, who had become a major force in U.S. television since 1969 (including the introduction of “All In the Family” in 1971). Wood was also a USC alumnus and in the 1970s was a member of the USC Board of Trustees. When the CBS executive in charge of sports told him that NBC was extending the Rose Bowl contract, Wood called Hubbard, the university president, and said that CBS would pay dearly for the Rose Bowl Game rights. He simply said: “We (CBS) want a crack at the Rose Bowl. The Rose Bowl Game is leaving money on the table by not putting the television contract out for bid.”

Hubbard then called Hallock, the commissioner, and told him that USC objected to the Rose Bowl Management Committee’s decision to grant NBC an extension of the TV rights. Further, Hubbard told Hallock that the presidents and chancellors of the Pac-8 should be asked to ratify any such decision — and that he, as the USC president, would not agree to an extension with NBC without an open bidding process.

Hubbard’s call to Wiles Hallock caused quite a a dust-up. The Tournament of Roses leadership told the Pac-8 that an agreement had been negotiated in good faith with NBC and that the Tournament of Roses might sue the Pac-8 for breach.

At that time, during the McKay dynasty, USC had a lot of weight in the Pac-8: It had been the conference representative in the Rose Bowl seven of the previous nine years and had won three national championships. And USC had many, many alumni within the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Association. In June 1975, Hubbard asked Hallock to arrange for a telephone conference of the eight presidents and chancellors.

Because I was just beginning what turned out to be a nearly 20-year role as UCLA chancellor Charles Young’s assistant, I actually was a listener on the conference call. Hubbard stated simply that the fiduciary responsibility of the Pac-8 was to obtain the highest possible value for the Rose Bowl, and the only way to know for certain what that amount could be was to have a bidding process. The other seven presidents and chancellors agreed with Hubbard.

Then Hubbard, in that Texas drawl of his, said, “Since the president of CBS is on the USC Board of Trustees, I am compromised. Therefore, I suggest that my colleague at UCLA Chuck Young be asked by all of us presidents and chancellors to lead the negotiation committee.” The other six agreed and, after the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Association leadership relented on their position, a bidding process began between NBC, CBS and ABC in the summer of 1975.

And there I was, as a 26-year assistant to chancellor Young, in meetings with the presidents of ABC, CBS and NBC. By the end of the summer, NBC won the bidding process — at a much higher price than the amount discussed with NBC in spring 1975. When the conclusive call was held by the Pac-8 presidents and chancellors to ratify the extension with NBC at the higher price the presidents and chancellors told Hubbard that he had been right to insist on the bidding process.

That’s the background for what then happened in 1976 with respect to the expansion of the Pac-8 and the invitation to Arizona and Arizona State to leave the Western Athletic Conference (WAC) in 1978 40 years ago.

Forward the calendar by a few months to February ’76. Hubbard called Young again and explained that he had spent some time visiting with John Schaefer, then the president of Arizona. At that time, of course, Arizona was consistently overshadowed by Arizona State in intercollegiate athletics due to the Sun Devil football program, headed by coach Frank Kush. But within the state of Arizona, a significant percentage of the government leadership was UA alumni, more so than ASU alumni. Higher education in the state was led by a single Board of Regents, overseeing three institutions UA in Tucson, ASU in Tempe and Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff.

But with UA being the campus with the medical school, it had the highest aspirations of joining a different level of higher education. Hubbard told Young that John Schaefer hoped to join the Pac-8, to be members of the same conference that had Stanford, UC Berkeley, UCLA, USC and University of Washington.

Hubbard also told Young that Schaefer was unsure how ASU would feel about joining the Pac-8, since UA would not be permitted – given political relationships in Arizona – to make a decision about the Pac-8 if it did not also include ASU. And ASU was the top of the heap in the WAC and a consistent participant on national TV via the Fiesta Bowl.

The wrinkle in the Hubbard-Schaefer discussions was, however, a different issue altogether. At that time, Pac-8 rules required that the home team split the gate from all football game ticket sales with the visiting team. Hubbard – and many others at USC – chafed a great deal about that regulation, due to the differences between: (a) what USC, as the home team, would pay Washington State, Oregon State, and Oregon when those institutions would be the visiting team at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum; and (b) what USC, as the visiting team, would receive from those institutions when their games were in Pullman, Corvallis and Eugene, with much smaller stadiums and much smaller attendance (at that time).

Hubbard was also annoyed at the limitations in the Pac-8 formula for the expense allowance given to the Pac-8 representative in the Rose Bowl game. USC had been the Pac-8 representative frequently during the McKay era, and I often stated that Washington State actually received more net income from its annual share of Rose Bowl revenue through the conference than USC netted, as a result of USC’s expenses exceeding the rather low expense allowance.

Hubbard felt that the larger stadiums in Tucson and Tempe, coupled with higher attendance that had been historically the pattern at UA and ASU compared to the three Pacific Northwest schools, would be one way of USC attaining a larger amount of football revenue. And remember that, in those years, there was only modest NCAA football TV revenue since the deregulation of college football on TV television did not occur until 1984. (The idea of Personal Seat Licenses for season ticket holders was concept whose time had not yet arrived.)

So, 40 years ago, the football gate revenue was the single most important revenue stream — and, unfortunately for USC, its basketball revenue was not on the same level as many other Pac-8 institutions.

That was the message that Hubbard gave to Young; he asked for support in a request to the other six presidents and chancellors to at least explore the ASU and UA option for conference expansion. And, of course, Hubbard said that an encore performance by Chuck Young in leading the Pac-8 in this matter was only logical, given the success of the previous year’s effort for the Rose Bowl television contract.

Hubbard then called commissioner Hallock and asked for a conference call of the eight presidents and chancellors to present his proposal to begin consideration of possible conference expansion. I remember vividly that conference call because it was set in March 1976, and I again listened in.

Hubbard made his proposal and simply said, “Chuck Young did such a fabulous job with the Rose Bowl television negotiations just a few months ago. I nominate him to lead the conference discussions on this issue also.”

The consensus was that there was no harm in discussing the issue informally and learning more about the two Arizona institutions — but no commitments were made. And this was to be done directly by Chuck Young and not through the conference office since, if the latter approach was used, the impression could be formed that this was an official inquiry rather than an informal one.

And that started a very interesting chapter in my life After the call, Young told me that he would call Arizona president Schaefer and, separately, ASU president John Schwada – neither of whom he knew. Young told me that he would explain to each of them the informal nature of the inquiry he had been asked to conduct on behalf of the Pac-8 schools and, further, that he would have a member of his staff (me) travel to their campuses to meet informally — and quietly — to start discussions and prepare a report for the Pac-12 presidents and chancellors. And Young explained that this was not being done through the conference office. Lastly, he asked that the two of them – Schwada and Schaefer – also talk between themselves.

So, there I was, about to mark my 27th birthday, and I was a secret agent.

I remember going to a Los Angeles Kings game on a Wednesday evening and then driving overnight to Tucson. I spent all day Thursday and Friday in Tucson – with no announcement to any media – and talked at length with president Schaefer, several vice presidents, and the UA athletic director, Dave Strack. I collected a lot of information about UA – since Google certainly did not exist in the 1970s.

I spent that weekend (my birthday) in the Grand Canyon and then returned to Tempe on Monday night. On Tuesday and Wednesday, I repeated the same exercise with ASU president Schwada, several vice presidents, and the ASU athletic director, Fred Miller.

The contrast between the two visits was striking. The folks in Tucson were anxious to make the invitation to join the Pac-8 happen. The folks in Tempe were much more cautious, even reluctant. As the perennial WAC football champion, ASU’s attendance was very high at Sun Devil Stadium, and a major expansion of the stadium – to be financed by gate revenue – was underway.

Yet, Fred Miller knew that the opportunity to be in the Pac-8, and potentially play in the Rose Bowl, was very attractive. It could help ASU and UA – as members of the Pac-10 rather than the WAC — recruit more football and men’s basketball players from California.

I returned home and prepared a 35-page report for the presidents and chancellors, with as many facts and figures about each institution – academics and athletics – as I could compile. Young sent my report, under a seal of confidentiality, to the other presidents and chancellors and to commissioner Hallock in mid-April.

Another telephone conference call was scheduled – about mid-May, as I recall – to discuss my report and, more importantly, whether or not to take a next step. The call was again only with the presidents and chancellors; no athletic directors or faculty representatives were involved, but each president or chancellor undoubtedly had discussed the matter with his athletic director before the call. Once again, Young had me listen in.

He began by saying, “I did what I had been asked to do. My staff visited with presidents Schaefer and Schwada – informally – and prepared the report for you. So what do we want to do now?”

I remember Hubbard saying on the call that, based on my report, he saw no reason not to take a second step of having a more official – and more public – set of discussions with UA and ASU, with a public announcement that the Pac-8 was considering – but not yet committed to – possible expansion.

The presidents and chancellors blessed Hubbard’s suggestion for a second step and, again, asked Young to be the leader of the official visitation committee. A Pac-8 committee of vice presidents and faculty athletic representatives from at least four schools, plus commissioner Hallock and assistant commissioner David Price, was then appointed.

Young then called Schaefer and Schwada, separately, and reported to them that the Pac-8 would like to take the next step, in a more public manner, by having a formal delegation committee meet with them. Neither president objected, but one could not but help notice the continuing contrast between the attitudes in Tucson versus Tempe.

The official visit occurred in mid-June. I was in charge of setting up the logistics, and the meeting occurred over a two-day period. And, yes, the newspapers in Arizona reported it.

Following the visit, another conference call of the Pac-8 presidents and chancellors was held in late June and a green light was again given to the process. The result was the appointment of a working group, including various Pac-8 athletic directors, to study possible football schedules with a 10-team conference, financial projections and even possible adjustments in the conference regulation on how to divide the ticket revenue from home football games.

By September, the working group, led by Price, the assistant commissioner, had flushed out enough of the issues – including the financial provisions required by ASU and UA to join the Pac-8.

In early fall of 1976, the issues had progressed to the point that Young felt an in-person, half-day meeting of the presidents and chancellors was needed. The meeting took place at a hotel near the San Francisco International Airport. Seven of the presidents and chancellors attended; the only absentee was Stanford president Richard Lyman, who was represented by one of his vice presidents.

The discussion about the results of the working group took quite a while, but, by the end of the meeting, the consensus was clear: The Pac-8 had some push-back on several of the stipulations from ASU and UA on financial distribution regulations. But pending resolution of those issues — and final details of the football and basketball scheduling issues — Young was told by his fellow presidents and chancellors to inform Schaefer and Schwada that the Pac-8 would take up the issue of conference expansion as a formal action at the regular December meeting in San Francisco.

October and November were busy months, working on many details – including adjusting the distribution of gate revenue between home and visiting teams. And it was clear to us, from afar, that Schwada was receiving much pressure – from Schaefer and others in Arizona state government leadership positions – to accept any such invitation to become members of a conference with several of the leading research universities in North America … even if it meant a possible different financial future for ASU football.

The December meeting was held in San Francisco at the St. Francis Hotel. The presidents and chancellors – all eight of them — stated that they would meet in executive session, with only commissioner Hallock in attendance, to take up the matter of conference expansion. Significantly, the Pac-8 conference bylaws at that time required that any vote for conference expansion had to be unanimous. A single ‘no’ vote would sink the proposal.

Young instructed me to sit on a sofa immediately outside the meeting room in case he needed me to come in to answer any questions. I remember that the athletic directors and the faculty representatives were having their own meetings in other rooms. And I could see that there was a considerable number of the media – particularly from Phoenix and Tucson – setting up equipment for a press conference that was anticipated immediately after the meeting.

I remember being puzzled, sitting on that sofa, as to why the discussion among the presidents and chancellors was taking so long. And I could hear some raised voices through the doors. Then, after 90 minutes, the meeting room doors open and Young tells me to find J.D. Morgan (UCLA’s athletic director at the time) and the faculty representative (Doug Hobbs) — and for the four of us to have an immediate conference. I located J.D. and Doug in their meeting rooms. Young then waved for us to join him in an empty room.

He explained that the meeting had gone sideways. President John Hogness from Washington and president Lyman from Stanford – who had not been at the September meeting – had stated that they would be voting ‘no’ on the expansion proposal. They felt that the two Arizona institutions were not an appropriate fit for the Pac-8. Since a unanimous vote was required, their negative votes would sink the proposal.

Young then explained that Hubbard had erupted and stated that Washington and Stanford had given their blessings to the potential expansion at the September meeting and that, as a result, he and USC felt double-crossed. Young then told us that Hubbard had stated, loudly, that if Washington and Stanford voted ‘no’ on the proposal, then USC would announce to the assembled press downstairs that, instead of the Pac-8 expanding with an invitation to UA and ASU, USC was instead providing public notice that it would be withdrawing immediately as a member of the Pac-8. Young told J.D., Doug, and I that everyone had turned white in the meeting room and a recess was called.

Young turned to the three of us and asked “What should we do, if Jack does this?” And I remember that J.D. replied without a moment’s hesitation, “Chuck, you will stand next to Jack Hubbard and say that UCLA is joining USC in withdrawing from the Pac-8 also.” I was gulping, thinking that those guys in the media room had no clue as to the blockbuster announcement that might be forthcoming.

After 15 minutes, the presidents and chancellors reconvened, again with only Hallock in attendance. I again sat on that sofa outside the meeting room, but a bit more anxious than before. After 30 minutes, the meeting room doors opened and everyone was smiling. Hallock went downstairs and made the public announcement that the Pac-8 presidents and chancellors voted unanimously to extend the invitation to UA and ASU to become members of an expanded Pac-10 conference, effective July 1, 1978.

Of course, I was more than a bit curious as to the turn of events. What I learned later was that, during the 15-minute hiatus, Lyman had used a pay phone — this was the 1970s! — to reach the vice president who had represented him at the September 1976 meeting to clarify exactly what had been the representation provided by Stanford. Related Articles Playoff or bust for the Pac-12? How key media voices define success in 2018

Using virtual reality goggles, Pac-12 research project aims to ‘unpack the history of concussion’

Postseason potpourri: Projecting the CFP teams, the New Year’s Six games and the Pac-12 bowl participants

Back from vacation? Here’s what you might have missed on the Pac-12 Hotline

Once the two of them talked, Lyman returned to the meeting room and stated that Stanford would abide by the representation provided at the September meeting. Hogness, realizing that he and Washington would be in an untenable position if he was the sole negative vote, then also agreed to vote in support of the proposal of the expansion of the conference.

After Chuck had told me about the turn of events, all I could say was that Hubbard – that dear but crusty fellow – had called a bluff, and he had won.

And that is how the chapter in 1976 of the expansion of the Pac-8 occurred, step-by-step. To this day, I have been amazed that the details of what happened in that presidents and chancellors session had not become more widely known.

A postscript:

Last week, Arizona State announced that it had become a major tenant in a large office building in downtown Los Angeles, not more than three miles from the USC campus, to begin offering academic instructional programs for the greater Los Angeles community.

When I read that brief article in the Los Angeles Times, my memories of 1976 and the indefatigable Jack Hubbard, came bubbling forth … and I smiled.

Why we need your support: Like so many other providers of local journalism across the country, the Hotline’s parent website, mercurynews.com, recently moved to a subscription model. A few Hotline stories will remain free each month (as will the newsletter), but for access to all content, you’ll need to subscribe. The good news for Hotline faithful: I’ve secured a discount: 12 cents per day for 12 months. Click here to subscribe. And thanks for your loyalty. Get Pac-12 Conference news in your inbox with the Pac-12 Hotline newsletter Sign Up

*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to pac12hotline@bayareanewsgroup.com

*** Follow me on Twitter: @WilnerHotline

*** Pac-12 Hotline is not endorsed or sponsored by the Pac-12 Conference, and the views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Conference.