Great article from the Arizona Republic that talks about the politics leading to the vote that approved the Arizona schools into the PAC back in 1976. I would like to post this in the main realignment board but since I can't open multiple threads on the same topic I'll just post it here, instead.
One big point was that UA was initially more enthused about the idea than ASU but, eventually, ASU was convinced to go along. The politics on the PAC side was also noteworthy.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/c...535235002/
(06-24-2019 10:09 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote: [ -> ]Great article from the Arizona Republic that talks about the politics leading to the vote that approved the Arizona schools into the PAC back in 1976. I would like to post this in the main realignment board but since I can't open multiple threads on the same topic I'll just post it here, instead.
One big point was that UA was initially more enthused about the idea than ASU but, eventually, ASU was convinced to go along. The politics on the PAC side was also noteworthy.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/c...535235002/
Interesting that ASU earned the invite on the field with their football success, but UA pushed much harder for it to happen. ASU under Frank Kush was very content to be the big fish in the WAC small pond.
I also found it interesting that USC and UCLA were thinking outside the box at this time. They did not believe that they were compromising their academic standards by making a decision that they believed to benefit athletics.
A time when letters ruled the world:
Quote:A letter prepared for the ASU and Arizona presidents dated Sept. 15, 1976, addressed to UCLA Chancellor Young, rejecting the Pac-8 overture can be found in ASU archives.
"It is our belief that circumstances do not justify a change in conference membership at the present time," the letter reads. "We do not believe the formation of a Pacific-10 would best meet the needs of the schools involved ... additional negotiations would not appear to be mutually beneficial."
Attached to the letter with a paper clip is a handwritten note: "Not sent. (UA) President Schaefer did not wish to."
Quote:Long before social media, or even email, people wrote letters. Schwada received many on both sides of the Pac-8 vs. WAC debate. Some still can be found in ASU archives.
Robert Petrillo, for example, was a hard no on leaving the WAC, which the Arizona schools joined in 1962 after three decades in the Border Conference. The WAC formed from a merger of Border and Skyline Conference teams.
"Since when does ASU let UA dictate the school's policy?" Petrillo wondered. "Twenty years ago, UA led one of the most disgusting and disgraceful attempts to override the interests of then ASC by attempting to prevent its achievement of full university status.
"Now it seems everybody's willing to fold up tent and follow UA blindly in another disgraceful episode instead of fighting for principle and determining our own future."
The Sun Angel Foundation and Sun Devil Club, ASU's largest athletic booster clubs, advocated for status quo in a September letter to Schwada.
Others took a macro view focused on being in the company of Stanford, California, UCLA, USC and Washington.
"ASU would become associated with some of the most prestigious academic institutions in the United States," Ronald Hummell wrote. "ASU would benefit, however tenuously, from that association."
Forrest Harding, an ASU marketing professor, agreed. "Although most of the pro and con arguments reported in the press stress economic or athletic considerations, my position rests on the rich academic advantages to be gained through formal association with universities reflecting traditions of excellence."