Okay, very well then. What do you think is the primary reason we see the “officiating”, we observe, not only pro/ con UK, but across sports in general?
Example Given- Rams/ Saints
Texas Tech, Foul Rate, and how Gonzaga got Higginsed
- Thread starter Aike
- Start date
Okay, very well then. What do you think is the primary reason we see the “officiating”, we observe, not only pro/ con UK, but across sports in general?
Example Given- Rams/ Saints
That's the thing. U can make a narrative either way tho right depending on the outcome.
Texas Tech goes through and it's like they gave Duke an easier game (which it won't be easy)
Gonzaga goes through and OMG the NCAA did this on purpose to set up the rematch from the beginning of the year.
From a ratings standpoint........Zags/Duke is prob more of what they would have wanted.
And I'm 100% sure they are sitting there just praying for a Duke UK final. If anything we should get a favorable whistle lol
Texas Tech goes through and it's like they gave Duke an easier game (which it won't be easy)
Gonzaga goes through and OMG the NCAA did this on purpose to set up the rematch from the beginning of the year.
From a ratings standpoint........Zags/Duke is prob more of what they would have wanted.
And I'm 100% sure they are sitting there just praying for a Duke UK final. If anything we should get a favorable whistle lol
Yeah, who knows. Maybe it was the hidden hand of the NCAA, or maybe Higgins was just taking care of his Big 12 buddies.
Maybe I am. I just don't believe the whole conspiracy theory about the NCAA and refs are out to get us.
You're entitled to your opinion and I am mine
Higgins missed the TT player well out of bounds after the block, but the announcers praised him for calling the obvious technical on the Gonzaga player slapping the inbounder. You can bet your ass that Ayers and Higgins will do the final game. The conflict of interest should we make the finals will be ignored.
I think that’s a complicated question. Many officials are clean. Others aren’t very good at their jobs. Others have personal vendettas - axes to grind. Still others are dirty and involved with gambling.
Then you have officials who are following orders. They have learned to get along well by grinding someone else’s axe for them. Agendas can be personal, political, or financial.
I don’t think there’s one wizard behind the curtain that we can point to. Officiating is an occupation that is suspectible to corruption, and the people in charge of these sports have every reason to pretend like the corruption doesn’t exist. Or to use that corruption to their own ends.
What are your thoughts?
I never understood why tho lol
I guess form of entertainment.......but to me that isn't "sports".
I'll say this.........if it ever came out that the NCAA controlled the outcome of games, I'd be done.
I go into every year thinking UK has a good shot as long as we put together a good team.
There's other things to watch if I wanna watch something where the outcome was determined.
Right. I mean wouldn't they be chopping at the bits to put us in a final with Duke right now.
But that narrative will be "no they wouldn't because UK could beat Duke and they don't want anyone to beat Duke".
That’s just it. I don’t think it’s determined. I think there are negative influences that are hard to overcome. But I don’t believe they are insurmountable, or I wouldn’t watch either.
I understand where you are coming from.
Man I wouldn't wanna watch even thinking like that but I respect your opinion on this.
It's hard enough to win games against good teams anyways........if I had in my mind that we'd have to beat the team on the court AND the refs each game.......i mean that's just extremely difficult to overcome.
He probably had money on it.
But at least it was a “let them play” game instead of changing the game with the whistle
Did it make more sense to cheat us against Wisconsin, or should they have waited until the championship game when everyone would be watching us try to go 40-0? Even casual fans who don’t follow the sport?
Just a thought. I don’t know the answer. Other than that when John Higgins shows up, bad things happen.
But if you have the number one defense who fouls a lot, isn’t swallowing your whistle the way to influence the outcome?
Ive come to the conclusion the main reason I still watch and pay attention is because I enjoy talking about it.
I have many of the same skepticisms as Aike though. I think Espn and the NCAA feel they have to get creative to maximize revenue in college basketball because it doesn’t generate nearly the same level of interest naturally as college football. That’s my theory at least.
I have many of the same skepticisms as Aike though. I think Espn and the NCAA feel they have to get creative to maximize revenue in college basketball because it doesn’t generate nearly the same level of interest naturally as college football. That’s my theory at least.
Oh it absolutely is. But in regards to how it’s influenced, as a player, I’d rather still be in somewhat controlled and have the ability to “play through” than have 4 starters on the bench after 6 min of play (circa 2017 UNC)
Wasn’t disagreeing. Just saying out of the 2. It’s the lesser of evils
Just because there’s a wink and a nod doesn’t mean we can’t come out on fire and stop it all from happening.
Some people are just blind.
From Yahoo sports article….
" In crunch time, the game got intensely physical – almost too physical for the refs to call every foul. So they decided to call next to none.
Their leniency was an advantage for Texas Tech – the instigators of the physicality. Clarke and Hachimura would get mauled as they tried to bulldoze their way to the rim. Whistles, though, were often non-existent.
Gonzaga only scored one field goal between the 8:49 and 1:33 marks of the second half – and three over a 12-minute span. Yet it didn’t reach the bonus until there were three seconds remaining. Tech was only called for seven second-half fouls. Mark Few and Zags fans will likely be livid with the refereeing."
" In crunch time, the game got intensely physical – almost too physical for the refs to call every foul. So they decided to call next to none.
Their leniency was an advantage for Texas Tech – the instigators of the physicality. Clarke and Hachimura would get mauled as they tried to bulldoze their way to the rim. Whistles, though, were often non-existent.
Gonzaga only scored one field goal between the 8:49 and 1:33 marks of the second half – and three over a 12-minute span. Yet it didn’t reach the bonus until there were three seconds remaining. Tech was only called for seven second-half fouls. Mark Few and Zags fans will likely be livid with the refereeing."
Yes I agree. And losing to St marys in the conference final as bad as they did showed their weaknesses. Many TO's tonight for the Zags as TT closed open holes and played great passing lane defense.
Just to put some numbers with the percentages, a “normal” whistle for TT would have meant about 4 more fouls called.
Depending on where you call those fouls, that’s probably 5-6 more free throws for Gonzaga. Or maybe a moving screen wipes out a TT basket.
Whatever. A “normal” whistle probably means 4-5 more points for Gonzaga, in a game that was 2 points with 11 seconds left. Do 4 more fouls also put key players on the bench? Loosen the D? Wasn’t hard to stay super aggressive when you weren’t in the bonus until the last minute of the game.
It’s just too easy for refs to very subtly influence the outcome. But yeah, maybe they just make mistakes. They’re only human.
Depending on where you call those fouls, that’s probably 5-6 more free throws for Gonzaga. Or maybe a moving screen wipes out a TT basket.
Whatever. A “normal” whistle probably means 4-5 more points for Gonzaga, in a game that was 2 points with 11 seconds left. Do 4 more fouls also put key players on the bench? Loosen the D? Wasn’t hard to stay super aggressive when you weren’t in the bonus until the last minute of the game.
It’s just too easy for refs to very subtly influence the outcome. But yeah, maybe they just make mistakes. They’re only human.
So what's the motive here in your opinion?
What would be the reason a ref would want Texas Tech to win a game over Gonzaga?
Is it individual basis.......like they had money on the game?
Did they have "orders from the NCAA office"?
Does Higgins have ties to Duke?
How do I know? I don’t know Higgins, but I’ve watched him appear to cheat repeatedly. I’ve watched him appear to cheat and then get named ref of the year.
So he looks like a crook to me, but the NCAA likes what he’s doing.
As far as reasons...Big 12 ref who wants to keep the league that cuts most of his checks happy. Personal bias. Gambling problem. Instructions to (wink wink) “let ‘em play” because someone higher up was hoping Gonzaga would get knocked out?
I would only be guessing. I just know that the guy shows up in a lot of poorly officiated games, and he seems to be rewarded for the effort.
I just think he sucks.
And he's done enough of our big games to think that HE prob has a bias against us/Cal.
But mostly, I just think he sucks at his job.
If I'm the NCAA, I would think a Duke/Gonzaga final four matchup is great........and a Duke/UK final even better.
And he's done enough of our big games to think that HE prob has a bias against us/Cal.
But mostly, I just think he sucks at his job.
If I'm the NCAA, I would think a Duke/Gonzaga final four matchup is great........and a Duke/UK final even better.
I don’t know about Aike but I believe it’s pure entertainment value. I believe whether it’s purposeful or subconsciously, refs try to keep big games close.
Basketball is a game of runs. Momentum can change in an instant. So many times runs are cut by mystery foul calls or extended by blatantly swallowed whistles. The only thing is the players still have to make shots and make free throws. Refs absolutely dictate the way every game is played. It can be called tight or lose to give a team an advantage based on their style. I don’t believe the refs actually try to garuntee a win for a particular team unless it’s just someone with an axe to grind. I just think they make sure TVs are tuned in whether it’s for networks or for themselves to get more jobs.
So why keep giving that guy plum assignments? Does that make sense to the logical side of your brain, unless there is an agenda at play?
Bad coaches get fired. Quickly. Bad refs get promoted. Something doesn’t geehaw.
Now this I can get behind.
Refs have their own styles of calling games and those styles could be beneficial to specific teams.
Some refs call more fouls.........others let them play. Depending on what kind of team you have, one could be a lot more beneficial than the other.
I can now, the fraud is gone. Sorry man, I just can't stand the credit they get for beating no one.
I think that’s sometimes the case. Maybe often. I’ve always said that the point spread is a score card, even for an honest ref. Keeping it close to the spread means the game went how it was supposed to.
So whether consciously or subconsciously, I think refs adjust calls as the game score hovers around the spread. I don’t think they’re all cheating, but I think some of them are.
I wish I had an answer for that one Aike.
Not just with Higgins, but refs in general tend to be protected.
If a team losses, they are accountable. The coach has to face the media afterwards and face the questioning.
A ref makes a horrible call, and they rarely even have to answer it.
There is zero accountability there.
And maybe that's why they suck so much.
But it might not be they have an agenda. It could just be the NCAA doesn't know how to rate their officiating properly. Or maybe while he continues to screw up in big game moments (or does so intentionally) maybe in the normal Big 12 games, he does well.
https://kenpom.com/blog/roger-ayers-is-the-best-ref/
They do get the big games tho...........
Similar threads
