Q

In Tom Hansen’s 26 years as commissioner, the Pacific 10 Conference has enjoyed unprecedented success -- particularly in the non-revenue Olympic sports. However, it has also endured its share of criticism, notably its lack of national exposure in an ESPN world.

Hansen is set to retire July 1, meaning he will be leaving in the midst of an investigation into alleged NCAA rules violations concerning USC football and basketball.

In a recent question-and-answer session with The Times, Hansen talked about the investigation, the controversial Bowl Championship Series he was instrumental in forming, and the future of the Pac-10. The following are edited excerpts:

--

Question: Does it bother you to leave with the USC investigation still unresolved?

Answer: It doesn’t bother me, because it’s a rare time where you don’t have some investigation going on. I realize the Reggie Bush part of this has gone on, I think it’s safe to say, longer than any case that’s happened during my tenure. . . .

The frustrating thing is that it’s been so extremely difficult to gather information even when people are running around leaking information that they allege to be true. I notice that most of the time when people are talking in these cases there’s a book about to come out, but I’m sure that’s just happenstance.

--

Q. Why has it taken so long?

A: The single factor that people probably don’t understand, because they watch TV and they watch these prosecutors and police nail people . . . and they all do it in 19 minutes or whatever you have in a half-hour show . . . you have an excruciating process because we do not have subpoena power. . . . We cannot subpoena anyone or force them to testify, so they don’t.

--

Q. Cynics would suggest the Pac-10 is trying to protect USC football because it is a cash cow.

A: Well, that’s absolutely false. We have devoted great time and resources to try to resolve the issue, whatever the outcome might be.

--

Q: Are you comfortable the USC case will come to a just conclusion?

A: Yes, I think the history of the NCAA and the conference enforcement programs is that things are done fairly, so I’m confident they will be in this case. I just hope, like everybody else, and I’m sure USC is No. 1 on this, that it all could be concluded. But I think you have to step back and see that USC can’t bring this to a conclusion, because almost all of the parties involved lie outside the university and outside the control of the university.

Once those student athletes leave, and there’s no eligibility at risk, you lose leverage completely over them. If Reggie Bush or O.J. Mayo were trying to retain their eligibility, then you’d have some leverage. But that’s not the case.

--

Q. Hypothetically, how would you strip a national title from a football team? Unlike basketball, the NCAA doesn’t run football.

A: It’s trickier because you don’t have the NCAA mechanisms. . . . It’s not completely clear exactly how the process could be pursued.

--

Q: How can you say the BCS has been good for the Pac-10? Oregon finished No. 2 in the polls in 2001 but didn’t make the title game. USC was No. 1 in the coaches’ poll in 2003 but finished No. 3 in the BCS.

A: Each conference has had some disappointments. . . . The BCS, through obvious great foresight of the commissioners who were involved, has been an extraordinary success in terms of the regular season being so strong. Television, attendance, everything about college football is much better than before the BCS started.

--

Q: Does it bother you that you are portrayed as an obstructionist by the pro-playoff crowd?

A: I primarily reflect the view of the conference. . . . If people disagree with that view, I don’t take it personally.

I think many of the people who advocate a playoff have no real understanding in the difficulty of a playoff.

--

Q. Would that include the president of the United States?

A: Yes, and I don’t think he begins to understand the difficulties of a playoff. I think he’s probably very well-versed on North Korea and the Middle East but not particularly the college football playoff.

--

Q. Does it complicate the issue when someone so prominent goes public with his position?

A: I would be much more concerned if a president in our conference came out in favor of a playoff than I am of President Obama saying it.

It would be so negative for college football in my opinion that it just doesn’t make good sense. Including the fact it would be 16 teams, not the four that many people advocate, because politically you couldn’t stop at four, you couldn’t stop at eight, you couldn’t stop at 12. And even at 16 you’d have problems.

--

Q: Are you confident the BCS can withstand another legal challenge?

A: I am confident. We’ve had excellent legal counsel. And I trust lawyers from all over the country who comment that there’s nothing illegal about it.

The only thing the federal government could do to force the issue, I think, would be to cut off funding for higher education. Well, that isn’t going to happen.

--

Q. What if ESPN, which takes over the BCS package starting in 2010, eventually wants a playoff?

A: They’re not going to influence the [university] presidents. That’s where the decision on this lies. And a lot of people just don’t understand. It’s not the athletic directors and the coaches saying no, no, no . . . it’s the presidents.

--

Q. How much has the “time zone factor” hurt the Pac-10 in terms of national perception and your ability to maximize your broadcast package?

A: It’s a major impediment. I saw it when I lived in Kansas City for 16 years. . . . The news flows from East to West -- it’s like pushing boulders up hills to get information to go the other way. It’s been helped by cable TV and it’s been helped that Fox Sports Net is a Western company . . . but it’s still been a struggle every day of the year to try to get the recognition we deserve.

--

Q. Wouldn’t it be easier if you had a better working relationship with ESPN?

A: We’ve been criticized a lot because we’re not on ESPN, particularly in basketball. We talk to them. . . . ESPN would put us on Thursday night almost every week of football season, but they’d want us to play at 5 o’clock. Our campuses are not emptied by 5. Your [parking] garages are full. Traffic is horrific. We just can’t start a football game at 5.

--

Q: Should the Pac-10 be in better bowl games?

A: We have been criticized. But we have talked to bowls not on the West Coast. They’re not interested. People, I believe, unfairly overlook the fact we’re in the Rose Bowl, which happens to be the best bowl game of them all. They kind of pass over the fact we sell 37,000 tickets, we the Pac-10, in the Rose Bowl. . . . We’ve talked to bowls who are good partners of ours about going Jan. 1, but there are four bowls there already before the Rose Bowl game. The networks don’t want more bowls there, and the ones that are there are not in our area.

--

Q. Is it time for a Pac-10 Network?

A: We’re sure going to look at it. One of the reasons I find it particularly attractive is that it would give more coverage to these great Olympic sports teams that we have. We’ve got the world’s best athletes in a lot of sports and we don’t get coverage. . . . We need to be competitive financially with the two conferences that have done these recent TV deals: the Big Ten and SEC. The Big Ten did it by forming a network and the SEC did it by threatening to form a network.

--

Q: The Pac-10 has been the Pac-10 since 1978. What about expansion?

A: You expand a conference to extend your television imprint in football, to get greater football TV rights, and there just aren’t any members close by that would do that for us. There are not enough TV homes in Utah and any institution within our footprint would only be a negative because you’d be dividing up the same money more ways.

--

Q. What advice would give your successor, Larry Scott?

A: I’ve told him he’s extremely fortunate to be associated with the conference. Beyond that, he’s going to need to be his own man and pursue it as he sees.

--

Q. What are you going to do on July 2?

A: My wife is a very avid golfer. We belong to golf club close by. I think I’ll transition there. I have great, great upside to my golf game. I’m going to try to make it better.

--

chris.dufresne@latimes.com