Do you think college football and/or basketball is rigged? If so......

[Myotis]

In the Texas-Arizona thread, there is a clear opinion by several posters that the game was fixed - that the referees did not make a targeting call to ensure that Texas won. And that not only is football rigged, that college basketball is and what's more, has been for far longer.

For those of you who do believe this, I have just one question.

Why do you even bother to watch?

I'm not convinced that the games are fixed, although with all the legalized sports gambling, the motive is clearly there and it wouldn't take much hard evidence to convince me, but I haven't see it yet. But if I was, I'd never watch again. Why would I even care, since the outcome wouldn't have anything to do with the actual competition? Why get excited about a team when their season is basically scripted?

 

[UKWildcats1987]

I dont think the games are rigged but definitely think some officials are on the gambling take.

People are gonna focus on that one call but ignore some calls earlier in the game that went Arizona states way. That is usually true for all games.

 

[Chad Rock]

In the Texas-Arizona thread, there is a clear opinion by several posters that the game was fixed - that the referees did not make a targeting call to ensure that Texas won. And that not only is football rigged, that college basketball is and what's more, has been for far longer.

For those of you who do believe this, I have just one question.

Why do you even bother to watch?

I'm not convinced that the games are fixed, although with all the legalized sports gambling, the motive is clearly there and it wouldn't take much hard evidence to convince me, but I haven't see it yet. But if I was, I'd never watch again. Why would I even care, since the outcome wouldn't have anything to do with the actual competition? Why get excited about a team when their season is basically scripted?

Well, probably because not much else is on. College football used to be fun but now it’s a distraction from playing or watching golf.

But to your point, I don’t know if these games are fixed. But I do know that as textbook of a targeting call as you could get by definition.

Do you agree?

 

[BBN-N-AZ]

I wanted to Texas to win. But if that wasn’t targeting, I apparently don’t know what targeting is. I’m all about the SEC winning, yes, even if that means EwwTee beating OSU. I wanted as many SEC teams in the final four as possible.

 

[BlueWorldOrder74]

100% targeting

Terrible non-call and seemed like the only way to not call that targeting is cheating

And in 2017 no doubt in my mind that Higgins was cheating, but not due to gambling.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

It was so clear to these posters that it could not just be incompetence of the ref and must have been cheating by the refs. Otherwise, it would not have been clear to couch Joe sitting at home. There is your answer. They all believe that game was rigged to some extent.

 

[Rockfly78]

Not rigged. Officials have a hard job and they do it poorly

That said I don’t like the targeting in this case and I think they got it right by not calling it. He didn’t launch or lead with the crown if the helmet. I’d have to go back and watch again but if memory serves I think they made face to face helmet contact. I know we want to eliminate any head contact but damn we all have heads and sometimes there’s just no place to hide them. Helmets will contact helmets.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

The replay must confirm targeting to be targeting. Therefore, the replay must be clear that the defender left his feet to launch at the opponent or crouched before making a tackle to create maximum force or lowered his head and made forcible contact with the crown of the helmet or something else’s that could be defined as targeting. The WR had the ball and was making his turn. The defender did not crouch, lead with the crown, and had his hands out wide with his head up ( classic tacking technique). The top of their face masks collided, not the circle defined by a six inch radius from the top of the helmet. The call was reasonable.

But, if you think it was clearly targeting, you must believe the refs rigged the call in favor of Texas, but let the possible call for targeting early against ASU go. Rigged for Texas on one call, not the other.

To each his own.

 

[CondorCat]

Rigged? No, but ref calls can affect the point spread (gambling).

I thought the call in the Texas - Arizona State game was clearly targeting. It certainly affected the last minute of regulation. I'd like an explanation from the official. TV is happy Texas goes to the Cotton Bowl vs Ohio State for the ratings.

 

[Rockfly78]

I can tell you what rule was blatantly broken right in front of the world and it wasn’t called. It was when the ASU lineman grabbed his running back and pulled him into the end zone. Can’t do that. Who knows why they don’t throw flags when they should.

 

[HeismaNole]

I think it would be incredibly naive to not believe that there are refs on the take. We really believe that in the history of sports that only Tim Donaghy was guilty? C’mon. He talked about how the league would send its company men to get desired results (ie push this to seven games).

I think refs are on the take. They aren’t held accountable and don’t answer to anyone or have to talk to the press. There’s billions and billions of dollars involved in this stuff. They definitely try to influence. In football, there’s only so much you can do (you can throw a PI to get a team in range for points, you can throw a flag to negate some points). In basketball, you can control an entire game.

I do not think you reach this level of officiating and be incompetent. I’ve seen stuff too much in sports to not notice what they’re doing.

Think it’s a coincidence that the Chiefs always benefit from a last minute call and is one of the least penalized especially in super bowls despite constant holds?

There’s definitely favoritism. Just like how Kansas basketball routinely gets home cooking.

Do I think this is directed down from the league? Not really. I think some may have been (2017 UNC basketball carried in five of their six games by officials during AFAM scandal comes to mind).

Still I love sports.

 

[R.O.T.Muckinfush]

Always has been to an extent. Look up tim donaghy for all the proof you need.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

I can tell you what rule was blatantly broken right in front of the world and it wasn’t called. It was when the ASU lineman grabbed his running back and pulled him into the end zone. Can’t do that. Who knows why they don’t throw flags when they should.

That certainly did not look like a push, but rather a pull into the end zone.

 

[Cat06]

It would take someone extremely naive to believe no college officiating team members are on the take. A recent UK basketball game included an official repeatedly over turning officials who had a better vantage point. It was so bad I mentioned it to my wife, and saw posts here questioning the same.

 

[Cat06]

Always has been to an extent. Look up tim donaghy for all the proof you need.

But he is the only one ever. Right?

 

[JimBR]

Based on what I've watched this year in college football I don't know what targeting is. There's been numerous times where I thought it was targeting and it wasn't called and vice versa.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

It would take someone extremely naive to believe no college officiating team members are on the take.

The flip side is that whenever fans get excited about officiating, there can be paranoid conclusions of officials being “on the take.” Most recent example, the targeting non-call yesterday.

 

[BigRedMachineBigBlueNation]

In the Texas-Arizona thread, there is a clear opinion by several posters that the game was fixed - that the referees did not make a targeting call to ensure that Texas won. And that not only is football rigged, that college basketball is and what's more, has been for far longer.

For those of you who do believe this, I have just one question.

Why do you even bother to watch?

I'm not convinced that the games are fixed, although with all the legalized sports gambling, the motive is clearly there and it wouldn't take much hard evidence to convince me, but I haven't see it yet. But if I was, I'd never watch again. Why would I even care, since the outcome wouldn't have anything to do with the actual competition? Why get excited about a team when their season is basically scripted?

As Kentucky fans we know that refs can be biased against certain programs (2017🧐.) and that certain programs get protected more I.E. Duke and UNC in basketball, and Alabama in football.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Hhhhhhhmmmmm. You can watch a Notre Dame or Bama or Ohio State game with fans from those schools and hear all sorts of charges of officiating trying to screw their team. It’s kind of one of the definitions of “fan.”

 

[sefleming]

Whenever money is involved strange things happen. anything is possible.

 

[Lempface]

There are multiple conditions that can be met for it to be targeting. One of those is contact to head or neck area of a defenseless player, with any appendage, fist, elbow, helmet, shoulder. The rule even says if it could questionably be targeting it should be called. Legitimately, as written, this had to be called targeting. The whole damn reason they instituted the rule to begin with was to prevent head hits on guys running crossing routes getting lit up by safeties and line backers just like that hit on the ASU player.


ARTICLE 4 No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below) When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6).

Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:

• Launch A player leaving their feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area

• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground

• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area

• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet

 

[Caveman Catfan]

It should be called, but on review, I believe it must be “clear.”

 

[Rembrandt90]

In the Texas-Arizona thread, there is a clear opinion by several posters that the game was fixed - that the referees did not make a targeting call to ensure that Texas won. And that not only is football rigged, that college basketball is and what's more, has been for far longer.

For those of you who do believe this, I have just one question.

Why do you even bother to watch?

I'm not convinced that the games are fixed, although with all the legalized sports gambling, the motive is clearly there and it wouldn't take much hard evidence to convince me, but I haven't see it yet. But if I was, I'd never watch again. Why would I even care, since the outcome wouldn't have anything to do with the actual competition? Why get excited about a team when their season is basically scripted?

Of course college sports aren't "rigged".

But the quality of officiating is poor. This has at least two causes. For one thing, the rules (such as targeting and new interpretations of PI) are getting more and more subjective. Two, no dedicated effort has been made to clean up officiating, even though it has been problematic for a long time. Even video replay has not always been employed correctly.

Why Do Some People Go Crazy When Their Teams Lose in Sports?

Why are we so connected to sports? Learn more about the psychology behind extreme sports fans and their reactions.

www.discovermagazine.com

The judgment of fans is even more subjective than the judgment of officials. It is very difficult for some people to simply accept that their team lost. Post-game discussions are often full of excuses. We see it all the time.

 

[FirewithFire]

To be truly "rigged" every single player on the field would have to be in on the gig and would have to basically choreograph the entire game in such a way that no one could tell it was all an act. So no, it isn't rigged in a traditional sense.

That said, anytime there is money involved in anything there will be corruption. The sudden influx of TV money and opening up gambling just made things that much worse by injecting massive amounts of money into a system that already had little to no protections in place to combat the corruption.

There are definitely refs on the take and refs who are just outright biased against certain programs. To a lesser extent (I hope) there are players who shave points. I am not sure how anyone who watches sports can deny this, especially when refs are caught, but they do.

 

[Girthang]

It would take someone extremely naive to believe no college officiating team members are on the take. A recent UK basketball game included an official repeatedly over turning officials who had a better vantage point. It was so bad I mentioned it to my wife, and saw posts here questioning the same.

People in positions of perceived authority or judgment are more likely to deny any wrongdoing on the part of officials. It's been that way forever. Always afraid someone will accuse them of the same, I guess. It's not naiveté so much as wishful blinders and keeping up appearances.

There have been enough officials that are dropped from covering certain teams, games, and conferences, as well as being fired outright or demoted to tell you it's going on. It's only when it becomes too obvious and open that they do anything about it. It's not like officials haven't spoken openly before about the influencing of outcomes for gambling purposes. You'd have to be an idiot and/or just willingly ignorant to think it doesn't happen

Not making that call goes specifically and purposefully against the rules of targeting. If you're going to keep the rule, you have to make that call on the field and in the booth upstairs. No two ways around it

 

[Girthang]

I can tell you what rule was blatantly broken right in front of the world and it wasn’t called. It was when the ASU lineman grabbed his running back and pulled him into the end zone. Can’t do that. Who knows why they don’t throw flags when they should.

EXACTLY!
Watched a running back get picked up and carried for either a first down or TD this past week. NO flags anywhere. The refs either don't know the rules are aren't enforcing them except in critical situations and for a certain reason.

The quality of officiating is repugnant at best these days, and they could easily correct it, but won't

 

[K_TIME]

Not likely to happen…but we need to remove so many subjective rules that only make the
Job of a ref harder…additionally allows leeeway for game manipulation


1. Targeting is the easiest rule to remove….there are many hits that go unnoticed. If the player being hit pops up quickly….many times it’s never looked at

2. The extra rules surrounding the Qb are second problem. Roughing passer by hitting any part of helmet, hitting too low, landing on top of Qb, Qb can ground the ball outside pocket…that ain’t easy to tell sometimes, etc. we’ve created a myriad of rules thet ref has to determine real time

3. The pass interference rules have for sure evolved over the years….

4. Substitution rules are new and subjective…how long does a team have to sub in players when the offense subs in

We csn go on and on wjtb all the rule changes most of which are subjective snd put honus on official.

I’d argue remove these rules and we all need to realize human error is part of any game…trying to over officiate anything makes the game worse imo

 

[catsfanbgky]

Not rigged. Officials have a hard job and they do it poorly

That said I don’t like the targeting in this case and I think they got it right by not calling it. He didn’t launch or lead with the crown if the helmet. I’d have to go back and watch again but if memory serves I think they made face to face helmet contact. I know we want to eliminate any head contact but damn we all have heads and sometimes there’s just no place to hide them. Helmets will contact helmets.

100% correct. They bumped helmets, he did not lead with the helmet, they simply collided. INTENT is the determining factor in targeting calls. Actually the ASU non target call was worse. The ASU player lead with his forearm and struck the WR in the neck. Anything hit above the shoulders intentional is targeting. He gave the Texas player a shot leading with the forearm to the neck / facemask. There was another play a guy hit Ewers in the facemask (I think on the play he threw the pick with 5 minutes to go up 8), COULD have been called targeting. It was not like the play where the Texas and ASU players collided helmet to helmet, the DL lead with his helmet hitting Ewers after he threw.

 

[NoDef]

It looked like a defenseless player targeting call at least. If you block a player like that it's targeting. This was a typical hit that led to the targeting rule in the first place. Forcible contact to receivers that didn't have time to protect themselves.

 

[Myotis]

Been a lot of discussion on here about whether or not the hit in question was targeting, and whether or not you think sports is general, and college football in particular, is rigged, but almost no one in the rigged camp has answered my opening question.

For those who think it is rigged, why are you watching? What entertainment value are you getting from watching two teams compete only to believe that crooked officials will call/not call penalties to ensure a pre-ordained outcome?

To be truly "rigged" every single player on the field would have to be in on the gig and would have to basically choreograph the entire game in such a way that no one could tell it was all an act. So no, it isn't rigged in a traditional sense.

Addressing this somewhat separately, if you wanted to rig a game and there be essentially no evidence, then yes you're right, but two things. (1) That clearly isn't the case because many people watching the game(s) think they do see blatant evidence of corruption/fixing/cheating, so they're not doing a very good job of hiding if everyone is in on it, and (2) Your scenario is almost impossible to produce because it suffers from the same flaw as most conspiracy theories - too many people have to be in on it and keep quiet forever. It's like the moon hoax. You could never pull that off and keep every one of 100,000+ NASA mission people, contractors, astronauts, etc, etc, etc from talking. Far less people involved in college football, but enough that you could never fix even a single game with all the players, coaches and officials in on it and expect that nobody would ever cough it up. You *can* fix one by bribing a select few, which could be the case, but as you correctly point out, you can't do that AND keep it from looking fishy.

 

[Catfanlou]

I was for Texas because of SEC. Blatantly bad call . Had to be intentional on part of the replay official. He should be investigated .

This call puts a whole taint on this playoff series if Texas wins out. They did not win this game BUT FOR a gift from the replay official.
It’s bad enough that a lawsuit should be filed to overturn the result of the game . If refs are going to cheat they need to do it on a less obvious call.
Replay official should never be allowed a college program again . Smells of dead fish.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

The good thing about the targeting no-calls (although the media avoids one and only focuses on the other) is more discussion about the awful rule. The Texas player made a typical football play. He had his hands wide ready to wrap, his chest forward, he saw his tackle (was not looking at the ground), and did not launch or crouch.

That tackle is made hundreds of times on Saturdays, except for the helmet to helmet contact. The word “targeting” infers an intent. We see those tackles that display an intent that include a launch and the face to the ground, leading with the crown of the helmet. This was not that.

This was a typical tackle, but for the helmet to helmet contact. If targeting has no intent and suggests strict liability for any helmet to helmet contact on tackles, there would be no associated suspension. But, that is not the rule.

A tackle that looks like 100s of others absent helmet contact cannot show intent. It was a dramatic play. I am glad it was not targeting.

And for the bozos out there, I don’t gamble, except for the rare trip to the track and neither Texas nor ASU is my team. I just love college football.

 

[kats23]

There are so many variables to consider when people say games are fixed. You have to have the teams and refs both in agreement. I think if games were truly fixed somebody would have spoken out. There are just too many factors at play especially in football to truly fix a game.

However, it isn't completely out of the realm of possibility that leagues and officials try to control a game so that it plays out a certain way on the field or how it should play out on paper. Too much money and too many backroom deals to rule it out completely.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Maybe a good record holding kicker missing 2 field goals in the same game is a sign of foul play. 😱

 

[Catfanlou]

There are so many variables to consider when people say games are fixed. You have to have the teams and refs both in agreement. I think if games were truly fixed somebody would have spoken out. There are just too many factors at play especially in football to truly fix a game.

However, it isn't completely out of the realm of possibility that leagues and officials try to control a game so that it plays out a certain way on the field or how it should play out on paper. Too much money and too many backroom deals to rule it out completely.

Vegas is incredible with their point spread picks . What if a big gambler knows that a ref will intentionally make three bad calls in a game . Just three . What an advantage that bettor would have . Coaches making millions, players now making hundreds of thousands a few over a million, and refs a few grand a game .its a recipe for a scandal.

 

[Cobb4uk]

Don't worry, if they keep changing the rules Flag Football will be here sooner than later. Hell, you can't touch a QB except in the middle of his body or it's roughing. The officials call the game the way the league says, period.

 

[Catfanlou]

Maybe a good record holding kicker missing 2 field goals in the same game is a sign of foul play. 😱

He didn’t do it intentionally . The replay official did .

 

[canebreak]

The replay must confirm targeting to be targeting. Therefore, the replay must be clear that the defender left his feet to launch at the opponent or crouched before making a tackle to create maximum force or lowered his head and made forcible contact with the crown of the helmet or something else’s that could be defined as targeting. The WR had the ball and was making his turn. The defender did not crouch, lead with the crown, and had his hands out wide with his head up ( classic tacking technique). The top of their face masks collided, not the circle defined by a six inch radius from the top of the helmet. The call was reasonable.

But, if you think it was clearly targeting, you must believe the refs rigged the call in favor of Texas, but let the possible call for targeting early against ASU go. Rigged for Texas on one call, not the other.

To each his own.

I am in the minority Caveman but I agree that I was not surprised they left it a no call. The defender seemed to do everything text book. It was all timing that made it so violent. And it is super difficult to define a "defenseless" player. As for the fix theory, I have never believed it. It is to difficult to collude on such things. I mean, where do we have the meeting to decide who wins. And why do we pick a certain team? TV ratings.....really? Certainly an individual can be on the take, but that is very different.

 

[TopCatCal]

In the Texas-Arizona thread, there is a clear opinion by several posters that the game was fixed - that the referees did not make a targeting call to ensure that Texas won. And that not only is football rigged, that college basketball is and what's more, has been for far longer.

For those of you who do believe this, I have just one question.

Why do you even bother to watch?

I'm not convinced that the games are fixed, although with all the legalized sports gambling, the motive is clearly there and it wouldn't take much hard evidence to convince me, but I haven't see it yet. But if I was, I'd never watch again. Why would I even care, since the outcome wouldn't have anything to do with the actual competition? Why get excited about a team when their season is basically scripted?

No I don't think college football or basketball is rigged. Occasionally we have a low class ref with an ax to grind against a coach and/or a team and he will intentionally cheat that team to make it almost impossible for them to win. But to have an entire officiating crew decide before a game that they're going to rig the game in favor of one of the teams, NO I DON'T BELIVE THAT'S HAPPENING.

 

[TeoJ]

In the Texas-Arizona thread, there is a clear opinion by several posters that the game was fixed - that the referees did not make a targeting call to ensure that Texas won. And that not only is football rigged, that college basketball is and what's more, has been for far longer.

For those of you who do believe this, I have just one question.

Why do you even bother to watch?

I'm not convinced that the games are fixed, although with all the legalized sports gambling, the motive is clearly there and it wouldn't take much hard evidence to convince me, but I haven't see it yet. But if I was, I'd never watch again. Why would I even care, since the outcome wouldn't have anything to do with the actual competition? Why get excited about a team when their season is basically scripted?

The kickers could have put game away earlier but probably missed both late kicks in regulation to add suspense.