I do declare, Christopher H, you sound like a Conspiracy Theorist.
Uh, yeah, Pawlawski and Justin, as well as the oh-so-in-the-bag-for-Cal Fleming and Osweiler, all noted that Burrell's facemasking call at Pitt was as Burrell, himself, being facemasked.
Let's us not forget that it was an ACC crew that called the Immaculate Encroachment at our Norte Dame game.
I know, I was wondering if I was going to get into trouble for those remarks. Of course I haven't forgotten that ND game (I was there!), but I assumed ND was getting the USC/blue chip treatment, where the conference/TV network has to protect its moneymakers (like, say, Miami this year). All those big name programs get favorable calls. This wasn't a comment on the Pitt game, either; I really am talking about minor ACC matchups that most people probably aren't watching. When I watched Pac-12 games, there were plenty of bad calls, but they were sporadic and without rhyme or reason. When I watch ACC games, all the bad calls seem to fit a particular pattern. And I have no dog in this fight either, I don't care that Wake Forest was getting favorable treatment while Washington State was not. I'm not invested in these teams, it's just my observations.
Put another way, let's say we're placing bets on coin flips. I flip a coin 100 times and it comes out heads 80% of the time. Is that within the realm of statistically probability? Sure. But when you keep losing, how many coin flips are you going to let me make before you ask to inspect the coin? I'm even willing to overlook refs on the field making mistakes as human error... but how is the replay booth, with all the time and replay angles in the world, so consistently 100% wrong?
Yes, trick coins and loaded dice have a tell. 80% "heads" is more of a improbable possibility than probability.
In the 2002 NBA playoffs, the Kings were hot, but got "reffed" to death with foul calls. At the time, we Kings fans were incredulous and suspected the refs were favoring the Lakers, but, of course, how? I mean could the NBA officiating be corrupt? Such corruption would shake the foundation of the sport. But, as facts came out later, it turns out that gambling interests had, in fact, affected the NBA and one or more refs have since admitted to calling in favor of the Lakers the 2002 playoff game. One rationale was that the broader and larger viewing audience of LA was better for the league (and advertising) than "cowtown" Sacramento. But here's some reference to back up the "conspiracy theory":
"Tim Donaghy also says the NBA routinely encouraged referees to ring up bogus fouls to manipulate results but ignore calls against star players."
Officiating for any sport should ethically be as Caesar's wife, giving off not even the appearance of impropriety. That we can even suspect the impropriety of any officiating is, in itself, an undermining of the sport. Even if we are not invested with a team, we should be vigilant of the officiating for the sake of the sport- all sports. We can't ask smart Cal students to invest or re-invest in Cal football, basketball, or other sports, if we can't count on honest, fair officiating.
So, I 100% agree with your observation. One can tolerate a margin of error in officiating within a given range, but when improbabilities keep manifesting and favoring a certain profile of teams, then we move from from conspiracy theory to a tell of trick coins and loaded dice.
And rigged outcomes are not good for us or the sport, as smart people can figure these things out, even at risk of being portrayed as, *gasp, conspiracy theorist nut jobs.
Interesting having all these different teams to learn and care about. All the comments are fun to read; I especially enjoy Christopher's comments. I have a few as well. This Saturday Cal needs to win the game by 21 points, no pussy footing around if we get ahead, no trying to run the ball where there is no space and burn the clock, forget that. It has not worked for eight damn years, just keep doing whatever we were doing during the game to get points in the first place. And that Offensive Line play crap needs to end, all those penalties are killers. It is disgustingly bad coaching and play. Teach them to block, when they do that, everything else will work. We can do better, I know it. And no more two-point conversion tries after the first damn touchdown of the game. Do you see now how stupid that is Coach and why nobody in their right mind does that? Cals defense is great, thank you very much. But prevent defense really doesn't prevent anything toward the end of a game, it just prevents us from winning. This whole 4Q pucker behavior has got to stop. Anyway, looks like nice weather for the game this Saturday and we better win. Go Bears. While I am at it, I don't really care who plays those Miami punks, just as long as they beat them really good.
Florida State lost to Duke, but not by much.
I do declare, Christopher H, you sound like a Conspiracy Theorist.
Uh, yeah, Pawlawski and Justin, as well as the oh-so-in-the-bag-for-Cal Fleming and Osweiler, all noted that Burrell's facemasking call at Pitt was as Burrell, himself, being facemasked.
Let's us not forget that it was an ACC crew that called the Immaculate Encroachment at our Norte Dame game.
Forget it, Chris.
It's ACCTown.
I know, I was wondering if I was going to get into trouble for those remarks. Of course I haven't forgotten that ND game (I was there!), but I assumed ND was getting the USC/blue chip treatment, where the conference/TV network has to protect its moneymakers (like, say, Miami this year). All those big name programs get favorable calls. This wasn't a comment on the Pitt game, either; I really am talking about minor ACC matchups that most people probably aren't watching. When I watched Pac-12 games, there were plenty of bad calls, but they were sporadic and without rhyme or reason. When I watch ACC games, all the bad calls seem to fit a particular pattern. And I have no dog in this fight either, I don't care that Wake Forest was getting favorable treatment while Washington State was not. I'm not invested in these teams, it's just my observations.
Put another way, let's say we're placing bets on coin flips. I flip a coin 100 times and it comes out heads 80% of the time. Is that within the realm of statistically probability? Sure. But when you keep losing, how many coin flips are you going to let me make before you ask to inspect the coin? I'm even willing to overlook refs on the field making mistakes as human error... but how is the replay booth, with all the time and replay angles in the world, so consistently 100% wrong?
Yes, trick coins and loaded dice have a tell. 80% "heads" is more of a improbable possibility than probability.
In the 2002 NBA playoffs, the Kings were hot, but got "reffed" to death with foul calls. At the time, we Kings fans were incredulous and suspected the refs were favoring the Lakers, but, of course, how? I mean could the NBA officiating be corrupt? Such corruption would shake the foundation of the sport. But, as facts came out later, it turns out that gambling interests had, in fact, affected the NBA and one or more refs have since admitted to calling in favor of the Lakers the 2002 playoff game. One rationale was that the broader and larger viewing audience of LA was better for the league (and advertising) than "cowtown" Sacramento. But here's some reference to back up the "conspiracy theory":
"Tim Donaghy also says the NBA routinely encouraged referees to ring up bogus fouls to manipulate results but ignore calls against star players."
https://www.npr.org/2008/06/12/91415111/ex-referee-says-2002-nba-playoff-was-rigged
Officiating for any sport should ethically be as Caesar's wife, giving off not even the appearance of impropriety. That we can even suspect the impropriety of any officiating is, in itself, an undermining of the sport. Even if we are not invested with a team, we should be vigilant of the officiating for the sake of the sport- all sports. We can't ask smart Cal students to invest or re-invest in Cal football, basketball, or other sports, if we can't count on honest, fair officiating.
So, I 100% agree with your observation. One can tolerate a margin of error in officiating within a given range, but when improbabilities keep manifesting and favoring a certain profile of teams, then we move from from conspiracy theory to a tell of trick coins and loaded dice.
And rigged outcomes are not good for us or the sport, as smart people can figure these things out, even at risk of being portrayed as, *gasp, conspiracy theorist nut jobs.
Interesting having all these different teams to learn and care about. All the comments are fun to read; I especially enjoy Christopher's comments. I have a few as well. This Saturday Cal needs to win the game by 21 points, no pussy footing around if we get ahead, no trying to run the ball where there is no space and burn the clock, forget that. It has not worked for eight damn years, just keep doing whatever we were doing during the game to get points in the first place. And that Offensive Line play crap needs to end, all those penalties are killers. It is disgustingly bad coaching and play. Teach them to block, when they do that, everything else will work. We can do better, I know it. And no more two-point conversion tries after the first damn touchdown of the game. Do you see now how stupid that is Coach and why nobody in their right mind does that? Cals defense is great, thank you very much. But prevent defense really doesn't prevent anything toward the end of a game, it just prevents us from winning. This whole 4Q pucker behavior has got to stop. Anyway, looks like nice weather for the game this Saturday and we better win. Go Bears. While I am at it, I don't really care who plays those Miami punks, just as long as they beat them really good.