Why did the Pacific 8 take Arizona and Arizona St from the WAC in 1978?
There was no tv money considerations back then.
Conferences weren’t stealing away schools from other conferences back then.
Conferences were regional back then. Arizona wasn’t on the west coast.
Thoughts?

(12-17-2020 06:35 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Why did the Pacific 8 take Arizona and Arizona St from the WAC in 1978?
There was no tv money considerations back then.
Conferences weren’t stealing away schools from other conferences back then.
Conferences were regional back then. Arizona wasn’t on the west coast.
Thoughts?

Arizona State felt like they had outgrown the WAC and politically Arizona had to be part of the deal. Besides, by taking both of them the conference continued to have an even number of schools.

(12-17-2020 06:38 PM)NotANewbie Wrote:  

(12-17-2020 06:35 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Why did the Pacific 8 take Arizona and Arizona St from the WAC in 1978?
There was no tv money considerations back then.
Conferences weren’t stealing away schools from other conferences back then.
Conferences were regional back then. Arizona wasn’t on the west coast.
Thoughts?

Arizona State felt like they had outgrown the WAC and politically Arizona had to be part of the deal. Besides, by taking both of them the conference continued to have an even number of schools.

But why did the PAC want them?
Conferences didn’t raid other conferences back then.
The AZ schools didn’t fall in the footprint.
They were desert schools, not Pacific schools.

(12-17-2020 06:46 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(12-17-2020 06:38 PM)NotANewbie Wrote:  

(12-17-2020 06:35 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Why did the Pacific 8 take Arizona and Arizona St from the WAC in 1978?
There was no tv money considerations back then.
Conferences weren’t stealing away schools from other conferences back then.
Conferences were regional back then. Arizona wasn’t on the west coast.
Thoughts?

Arizona State felt like they had outgrown the WAC and politically Arizona had to be part of the deal. Besides, by taking both of them the conference continued to have an even number of schools.

But why did the PAC want them?
Conferences didn’t raid other conferences back then.
The AZ schools didn’t fall in the footprint.
They were desert schools, not Pacific schools.

A variety of reasons Arizona was booming - and still is. ASU had a rapidly growing enrollment as well as developing academic strengths, U of A also to a lesser extent. The conference fluidity (raiding) was more subtle back then, but not nonexistent. For example, Tulane and Georgia Tech used to be in the SEC.

USC actually threatened to leave I’d they weren’t added. They, and others, had the foresight to see that the AZ schools, BYU, and some other other old WAC schools were starting to gain ground and a 2nd western conference would be bad for business so they cut off the head in order to cripple them.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/08/29/4...onference/

Here is a link to an article discussing the whole thing. UCLA was going to walk out with them.

(12-17-2020 07:15 PM)EKUSteve Wrote:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/08/29/4...onference/

Here is a link to an article discussing the whole thing. UCLA was going to walk out with them.

Wow that was a great article!
Aces!

(12-17-2020 06:35 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Why did the Pacific 8 take Arizona and Arizona St from the WAC in 1978?
There was no tv money considerations back then.
Conferences weren’t stealing away schools from other conferences back then.
Conferences were regional back then. Arizona wasn’t on the west coast.
Thoughts?

Why did the SWC take Houston?

(12-17-2020 07:33 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(12-17-2020 07:15 PM)EKUSteve Wrote:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/08/29/4...onference/

Here is a link to an article discussing the whole thing. UCLA was going to walk out with them.

Wow that was a great article!
Aces!

Conference politics are amazing.

(12-17-2020 07:56 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(12-17-2020 06:35 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Why did the Pacific 8 take Arizona and Arizona St from the WAC in 1978?
There was no tv money considerations back then.
Conferences weren’t stealing away schools from other conferences back then.
Conferences were regional back then. Arizona wasn’t on the west coast.
Thoughts?

Why did the SWC take Houston?

I don’t know any details but Houston was an up and coming program and was starting to catch the eye of the SEC. The SWC added them to keep the SEC out of Texas.

UNT was also trying to court the SWC at the time too. They failed, overspending in the process, and eventually dropped to DI-AA.

Great thread and article on the Pac 8/10 history.

I remember the departures of the Arizona schools from the WAC ripped the heart out of the league at first. It soon recovered with new schools (San Diego State and Fresno State?) but it wasn't quite the same without the Arizonas (esp ASU).

(12-17-2020 09:08 PM)NuMexAg Wrote:  Great thread and article on the Pac 8/10 history.

I remember the departures of the Arizona schools from the WAC ripped the heart out of the league at first. It soon recovered with new schools (San Diego State and Fresno State?) but it wasn't quite the same without the Arizonas (esp ASU).

San Diego St, Hawaii, and Air Force. Fresno St didn’t come until the 1990s

The Old WAC:

Arizona
Arizona State
BYU
Colorado State
New Mexico
Utah
UTEP
Wyoming

Arizona State was the best football program and they constantly won the WAC. Since joining the Pac-10 in 1978, they’ve only won it once in 1996 and it’s their only Rose Bowl appearance. Arizona hasn’t won the conference since joining in 1978 and it was the only Pac-10 school that hasn’t been to the Rose Bowl. BYU took Arizona State’s place as the WAC’s football program (1978-1999) and Boise State became that program from 2001-11.

Most people don’t know the WAC established the Fiesta and Holiday bowls for their champion.

The west has limited recruiting capacity.

That is why the PAC picking up the AZ schools and then later Utah/Colorado has crippled recruiting in the WAC now MWC.

BYU as independent too which is a much larger recruiting force to be reckoned with at times when they are good like this year.

MWC is no longer a fringe power conference. I said that after Utah/BYU left but people bought into the MWC brand. Utah and BYU were replaced by Utah St and San Jose St, not bad programs but pretty mid major.

MWC 2.0 feels like CUSA 2.0 with a couple of national players but no depth.

(12-17-2020 07:09 PM)NotANewbie Wrote:  

(12-17-2020 06:46 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(12-17-2020 06:38 PM)NotANewbie Wrote:  

(12-17-2020 06:35 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Why did the Pacific 8 take Arizona and Arizona St from the WAC in 1978?
There was no tv money considerations back then.
Conferences weren’t stealing away schools from other conferences back then.
Conferences were regional back then. Arizona wasn’t on the west coast.
Thoughts?

Arizona State felt like they had outgrown the WAC and politically Arizona had to be part of the deal. Besides, by taking both of them the conference continued to have an even number of schools.

But why did the PAC want them?
Conferences didn’t raid other conferences back then.
The AZ schools didn’t fall in the footprint.
They were desert schools, not Pacific schools.

A variety of reasons Arizona was booming - and still is. ASU had a rapidly growing enrollment as well as developing academic strengths, U of A also to a lesser extent. The conference fluidity (raiding) was more subtle back then, but not nonexistent. For example, Tulane and Georgia Tech used to be in the SEC.

Arizona St. had also developed into a very strong program. They went 62-9 from 70 to 75 and 5 of those losses were in one year. They had 4 top 10 finishes and ended up as high as #2. That is when the expansion process started. It was made official at the end of the 1976 season. They did finish 4-7 in 1976 but were 9-3 the last year in the WAC.

(12-17-2020 08:18 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(12-17-2020 07:56 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(12-17-2020 06:35 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Why did the Pacific 8 take Arizona and Arizona St from the WAC in 1978?
There was no tv money considerations back then.
Conferences weren’t stealing away schools from other conferences back then.
Conferences were regional back then. Arizona wasn’t on the west coast.
Thoughts?

Why did the SWC take Houston?

I don’t know any details but Houston was an up and coming program and was starting to catch the eye of the SEC. The SWC added them to keep the SEC out of Texas.

UNT was also trying to court the SWC at the time too. They failed, overspending in the process, and eventually dropped to DI-AA.

Houston was a big plus at the time. They had just been to an NCAA final 4. They drove everyone to start taking basketball seriously. And they provided a strong new competitor in football, winning the SWC title 3 of the first 4 years.

At the time they were invited, Texas was in the midst of a 13 year streak (and 25 of 28) vs. SMU, 18 year win streak vs. Baylor, 26 year vs. TCU and 28 year vs. Rice. Texas had only lost 3 times in 35 years to A&M. They were in a streak of 14 wins in 17 years vs. Texas Tech. Arkansas was the main threat.

(12-17-2020 06:38 PM)NotANewbie Wrote:  

(12-17-2020 06:35 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Why did the Pacific 8 take Arizona and Arizona St from the WAC in 1978?
There was no tv money considerations back then.
Conferences weren’t stealing away schools from other conferences back then.
Conferences were regional back then. Arizona wasn’t on the west coast.
Thoughts?

Arizona State felt like they had outgrown the WAC and politically Arizona had to be part of the deal. Besides, by taking both of them the conference continued to have an even number of schools.

You have that wrong way it was Arizona, not ASU that was pushing for the move to the Pac8.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/c...535235002/

As for why the Pac8 invited the Arizona schools well the AZ schools have the LA schools to thank for that, they wanted more regional schools to limit the long distance trips up to the northwest. USC went as far as to threaten to leave the conference if the others (Stanford & Washington) didn't "fall in line" and approve the expansion.

They play good football in the PAC. I know I really enjoyed SC games when I lived in HB.
Folks on the Left Coast know there’s an East Coast bias when it comes to sports. That’s why so many are unfamiliar with PAC football.

The truth is SC / Stanford, Cal / Stanford and SC / UCLA are as big as any rivalries here in the East.

(12-17-2020 07:56 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(12-17-2020 06:35 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Why did the Pacific 8 take Arizona and Arizona St from the WAC in 1978?
There was no tv money considerations back then.
Conferences weren’t stealing away schools from other conferences back then.
Conferences were regional back then. Arizona wasn’t on the west coast.
Thoughts?

Why did the SWC take Houston?

You tell me Rice fan.
Terrible troll attempt.
Why didn’t the AAC take Rice?

(12-18-2020 06:27 AM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(12-17-2020 06:38 PM)NotANewbie Wrote:  

(12-17-2020 06:35 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Why did the Pacific 8 take Arizona and Arizona St from the WAC in 1978?
There was no tv money considerations back then.
Conferences weren’t stealing away schools from other conferences back then.
Conferences were regional back then. Arizona wasn’t on the west coast.
Thoughts?

Arizona State felt like they had outgrown the WAC and politically Arizona had to be part of the deal. Besides, by taking both of them the conference continued to have an even number of schools.

You have that wrong way it was Arizona, not ASU that was pushing for the move to the Pac8.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/c...535235002/

As for why the Pac8 invited the Arizona schools well the AZ schools have the LA schools to thank for that, they wanted more regional schools to limit the long distance trips up to the northwest. USC went as far as to threaten to leave the conference if the others (Stanford & Washington) didn't "fall in line" and approve the expansion.

Exactly right about Arizona. Associating with elite academic schools was important for U of A leaders while ASU leaders were dragging their feet and happy in the WAC.