PDA

View Full Version : College v Pros (officiating)



pacerDU
02-23-2009, 05:42 PM
I was watching the Arizona v Arizona State game last night and I got to thinking - I really like the officiating in the college game a lot more than the pro version.

I've been watching college ball a bit more than I used to over the last couple of years. I'm from Australia but moved to Canada a few years ago, so I have a lot more opportunities to see college games now. The games are called much more true to the rules (no one gets away with traveling for example), but the action still flows a lot better.

I'm a pro-ball guy before a college-guy. This isn't a rant about how college-ball is better than the pros or anything like that. It's just an observation.

I think the biggest difference is that there's no "star treatment" - the biggest problem with NBA officiating. As a result there are (or at least seem to be) less whistles. With less interruptions, the game seems to move at a better pace.

I can't stand it that when I see Kobe Bryant or Lebron James drive into the lane, I know they will either score or will go to the foul-line. You just know the refs will bail them out whether it's a foul or not. I never got that feeling when Jordan Hill had the ball during the game last night. I knew he'd have to earn his points like everyone else.

How many times do you hear about a rookie having to "gain respect from the officials"? Why does he have to gain the respect of the officials? He either fouls or he doesn't, he either travels or he doesn't. There's no "well he's a rookie so it's a foul/he's Lebron James so it's not a walk". Or at least there shouldn't be.

People are always complaining about NBA officiating, but you don't hear the same criticism for the college game.

My question is; why can't the pro game be officiated in the same manner as college - true to the rules and the same for everyone? Which begs the other question, why is it different in the first place? It can't just be to improve player marketability can it?

duke dynamite
02-23-2009, 05:43 PM
They all are terrible all-over this year. Whether it is pro or academically-based leagues.

To answer your last question, Pro games are officiated differently because of the stature of the players. This all goes back to the last second of the Cleveland game two weeks ago.

Midcoasted
02-23-2009, 05:48 PM
I was watching the Arizona v Arizona State game last night and I got to thinking - I really like the officiating in the college game a lot more than the pro version.

I've been watching college ball a bit more than I used to over the last couple of years. I'm from Australia but moved to Canada a few years ago, so I have a lot more opportunities to see college games now. The games are called much more true to the rules (no one gets away with traveling for example), but the action still flows a lot better.

I'm a pro-ball guy before a college-guy. This isn't a rant about how college-ball is better than the pros or anything like that. It's just an observation.

I think the biggest difference is that there's no "star treatment" - the biggest problem with NBA officiating. As a result there are (or at least seem to be) less whistles. With less interruptions, the game seems to move at a better pace.

I can't stand it that when I see Kobe Bryant or Lebron James drive into the lane, I know they will either score or will go to the foul-line. You just know the refs will bail them out whether it's a foul or not. I never got that feeling when Jordan Hill had the ball during the game last night. I knew he'd have to earn his points like everyone else.

How many times do you hear about a rookie having to "gain respect from the officials"? Why does he have to gain the respect of the officials? He either fouls or he doesn't, he either travels or he doesn't. There's no "well he's a rookie so it's a foul/he's Lebron James so it's not a walk". Or at least there shouldn't be.

People are always complaining about NBA officiating, but you don't hear the same criticism for the college game.

My question is; why can't the pro game be officiated in the same manner as college - true to the rules and the same for everyone? Which begs the other question, why is it different in the first place? It can't just be to improve player marketability can it?

For the regular season I agree 100 percent. It seems to do a 180 come playoffs/March Madness time. NBA officiating actually improves slightly, though there still is super star treatment. College actually becomes more biased it seems. It's almost like the refs pick numbers out of a hat and decide who they are going to be blowing the whistle for.

Shade
02-23-2009, 06:05 PM
It kind of depends on the conference.

In the Big Ten, for example, the officiating is heavily biased in favor of the home team.

In the tourney, you have "name" programs like Duke getting the calls. This is the NCAA equivalent of "superstar" calls, except they go to an entire team rather than a single player. In fact, the '92 IU/Duke game was the most biased game I've ever seen in any sport at any level.

pacerDU
02-23-2009, 06:31 PM
Gotcha. I probably haven't seen anywhere near the amount of college games you guys have. Maybe 100 in my life? From what I've seen however, I've liked the officiating much more on the college level.

I'll have to watch a bit more. We get a lot of Big Ten coverage on my cable provider for whatever reason so I'll keep an eye out for the "homer" calls you mentioned Shade.

I'll be watching March Madness pretty closely this year as well...

ilive4sports
02-23-2009, 06:33 PM
It kind of depends on the conference.

In the Big Ten, for example, the officiating is heavily biased in favor of the home team.

In the tourney, you have "name" programs like Duke getting the calls. This is the NCAA equivalent of "superstar" calls, except they go to an entire team rather than a single player. In fact, the '92 IU/Duke game was the most biased game I've ever seen in any sport at any level.

Don't get me started on Big Ten refs... They suck in every sport.

DisplacedKnick
02-23-2009, 06:38 PM
I used to feel the same way but I've noticed more poorly officiated games in college than ever this year. Don't know what's going on but the random whistles (by random I mean not calling something a foul all game, then suddenly deciding to) have really increased.

Bball
02-23-2009, 06:44 PM
It kind of depends on the conference.

In the Big Ten, for example, the officiating is heavily biased in favor of the home team.

In the tourney, you have "name" programs like Duke getting the calls. This is the NCAA equivalent of "superstar" calls, except they go to an entire team rather than a single player. In fact, the '92 IU/Duke game was the most biased game I've ever seen in any sport at any level.


That was arguably due to Ted Valentine and Bob Knight's lack of mutual respect if we're going to go there... and Valentine's 'opportunity'...

I believe the college game is officiated better than the pro game as well. I believe there's a lot of WWF (WWE.... whatever) in the pro game.

I think NBA officials take 'entertainment' too much into the equation.

Let me rephrase what I said.... Whether the college game is officiated 'better' than the pro game or not I personally believe the attempt is there to call it fairly.

Pros or college there will be certain players who get the benefit of the doubt due to their reputation. If you get the reputation as a defensive ballhawk then you stand a better chance of getting the benefit of the doubt. But we're not talking benefit of the doubt, we're talking refs swallowing their whistles in order to let a star travel or make some play that wasn't possible without allowing him something 'extra'.

Earning the respect of the officials is another thing entirely and I don't think it's the same as what I was just mentioning. ...And it's wrong. A foul is a foul. Call it the same both ways.

The college game has a lot going for it as far as fan excitement. Some of it is kids rooting for their schools, alumni rooting for their alma mater, and people rooting for their area college. But I think the shorter schedule makes each game more important. ...And I think the more balanced officiating doesn't turn fans and (importantly) basketball purists off like the 'star rules' of the NBA does.

Dr. Awesome
02-23-2009, 06:46 PM
I like how they let things go in college. It really has to be a foul for it to be called. If you breathe on a guy in the NBA you get called for a foul.

pacerDU
02-23-2009, 07:53 PM
..I believe there's a lot of WWF (WWE.... whatever) in the pro game.

I think NBA officials take 'entertainment' too much into the equation.



I agree totally with this. There seems to be a concerted effort on the part of NBA officials to make a call that will help the entertainment value of the game. "It was a travel, but I won't call it because the dunk was awesome" or "he played good defense, but he was defending a star and he's *meant* to score, so it must've been a foul".

There should be none of that thought process from the refs. Their role should be as robotic as possible.

jhondog28
02-23-2009, 08:02 PM
I will say this much about the college game vs the pro game. The college stadiums are usually crazy loud. The student bodies make tons of noise and I think it facilitates how games are called a lot of the time. Agreed 100% that come March madness a lot of the "big" time programs get most of the calls. I remember the Duke 2001 run when they played Maryland and then Arizona and to be honest it did seem very biased and I was ruiting for Duke that year. Fan involvement does facilitate calls. So the louder the environment the more favoritism the officials will show.

travmil
02-23-2009, 09:35 PM
I agree that superstar treatment is the single worst thing about NBA officiating. The second worst thing is that there are a select group of refs who feel like they are part of the show, and need to get their share of "look at me" moments into every game.

Unclebuck
02-23-2009, 11:43 PM
When I used to watch college ball (about 10 years ago) I used to think NBA refs were much, much better than college. who knows today

Thesterovic
02-23-2009, 11:43 PM
I agree that superstar treatment is the single worst thing about NBA officiating. The second worst thing is that there are a select group of refs who feel like they are part of the show, and need to get their share of "look at me" moments into every game.

Nate did a backflip while shooting the 3 ball and got the call. Goodness, he is a flop master. 19 ft attempts.

pwee31
02-24-2009, 05:11 AM
I think the college officials are much better when it comes to charge/block calls then the NBA

Not sure if the Divac's of the world ruined the NBA game, but the charge is way too uncertain in the NBA

Not only is there that dreaded half circle of death, but players don't even have to be set any longer.

Players are unable to use there size anymore. If they make contact the opposing player can just flop and so much for that advantage.

There's a difference between overpowering someone, and bulldozing someone.

There's also a difference between being set and moving

In college I think these rules are more universal, and this makes for better parody and allows cinderella schools a chance , in the NBA, it depends on the ref, the player and the team. And more likely then not, the teams you expect to win, are usually there towards the end

count55
02-24-2009, 08:32 AM
When I used to watch college ball (about 10 years ago) I used to think NBA refs were much, much better than college. who knows today

When I was younger, I used to say that NBA refs were crooked, while college refs were incompetent.

While I do think NBA refs do have too keen of a sense of who is actually playing (ie...there is star treatment), overall I've decided they aren't crooked, per se (except for Donaghy).

College refs, however, are still incompetent. It never ceased to amaze me when I watch some 60-something, overweight ref crew trying to chug up and down the court and see the game. I remember when the NBA went from two- to three-man crews, and how much it helped the officiating. College officials are so often out of position, it's ridiculous with three-man crews. Hell, they labor so much, I often wonder if they just shouldn't have six-man crews, three for each end of the court.

Unclebuck
02-24-2009, 09:27 AM
I think the college officials are much better when it comes to charge/block calls then the NBA

Not sure if the Divac's of the world ruined the NBA game, but the charge is way too uncertain in the NBA

Not only is there that dreaded half circle of death, but players don't even have to be set any longer.

Players are unable to use there size anymore. If they make contact the opposing player can just flop and so much for that advantage.

There's a difference between overpowering someone, and bulldozing someone.

There's also a difference between being set and moving

In college I think these rules are more universal, and this makes for better parody and allows cinderella schools a chance , in the NBA, it depends on the ref, the player and the team. And more likely then not, the teams you expect to win, are usually there towards the end

In NBA the refs look at the offensive player to determine whether it is a charge or not. In college they mainly look at the defensive player. In college you have to be set. In the NBA you don't have to be set, just must have position.

DisplacedKnick
02-24-2009, 09:39 AM
In NBA the refs look at the offensive player to determine whether it is a charge or not. In college they mainly look at the defensive player. In college you have to be set. In the NBA you don't have to be set, just must have position.

Not really.

In the pros if a player's moving and someone like a Paul Pierce or Iverson throws a shoulder into him and intiates the contact, the foul goes on the defender. In college that foul usually is called on the offensive player or it's a no-call.

count55
02-24-2009, 09:42 AM
In NBA the refs look at the offensive player to determine whether it is a charge or not. In college they mainly look at the defensive player. In college you have to be set. In the NBA you don't have to be set, just must have position.

I think there's been some unintended consequences from the arc under the basket in this regards. I've mentioned before that they are calling blocks that should be no-calls (and would have before the circle), but I also think that the defender is getting a little unexpected advantage.

In Sunday's game, Roy Hibbert drew a charge on one of the Bulls. He jumped out of the circle, then kind of leaned his shoulder to the right to catch the driver. It should have been a block, but the official pointed at the floor, then signaled offensive foul. To me, it was obvious that the ref was focused on making sure Roy's feet had cleared the circle, and he missed the upper body action that was the foul.

count55
02-24-2009, 09:43 AM
Not really.

In the pros if a player's moving and someone like a Paul Pierce or Iverson throws a shoulder into him and intiates the contact, the foul goes on the defender. In college that foul usually is called on the offensive player or it's a no-call.

I've seen plenty of offensive fouls called on this in the NBA, including one (correctly) on Jarrett Jack in the fourth last night.

However, when it's Pierce or Iverson, that's when you get the star treatment factor that may override what I think is a pretty consistent call in the NBA.

Unclebuck
02-24-2009, 10:00 AM
Not really.

In the pros if a player's moving and someone like a Paul Pierce or Iverson throws a shoulder into him and intiates the contact, the foul goes on the defender. In college that foul usually is called on the offensive player or it's a no-call.

Not true - I mean I understand your point - but it really doesn't happen as often as it seems

rock747
02-24-2009, 10:54 AM
NBA officiating caters to Star players and teams. It's been that way for awhile.

Kstat
02-24-2009, 10:55 AM
NBA refs are inherently better than college refs, just as NBA players are better than college players.

If the college refs were better, they'd be in the NBA.

Unclebuck
02-24-2009, 11:59 AM
NBA refs are inherently better than college refs, just as NBA players are better than college players.

If the college refs were better, they'd be in the NBA.

agree 100%. I do think the NBA game is much more difficult to officiate


In the good old days charging was rarely if ever called, so much so that defenses rarely if ever tried to get a charge. You never saw big guys try to take charges, instead they tried to block shots. I miss the old days.

Jeff probably shouldn't have played, but he is the only player we have that is equiped to guard Al. Troy cannot, Rasho and Roy are too slow. maybe Baston might have done a decent job, but I inderstand JOB's quandry.

pacerDU
02-24-2009, 01:56 PM
NBA refs are inherently better than college refs, just as NBA players are better than college players.

If the college refs were better, they'd be in the NBA.

My argument isn't necessarily that college refs are better than NBA refs. I'm referring more to the style of reffing and the interpretation of the rules.

In brief, what it seems to me is that the NBA game is officiated to cater towards players, whereas the college game appears to be catered more towards teams.

Now that could simply be a by-product of the style of the college game which is much more team-based. However, I just don't see the star-treatment and lack of strict loyalty to the basic rules regarding traveling that I do in the NBA.

I think my biggest gripe is the star treatment. You just don't see one player go to the line 15 times in one game in college, but you do all the time in the pros. I just wish NBA officiating was more impartial.

ChicagoJ
02-24-2009, 02:24 PM
It kind of depends on the conference.

In the Big Ten, for example, the officiating is heavily biased in favor of the home team.

In the tourney, you have "name" programs like Duke getting the calls. This is the NCAA equivalent of "superstar" calls, except they go to an entire team rather than a single player. In fact, the '92 IU/Duke game was the most biased game I've ever seen in any sport at any level.

Exactly, what happened in that game was deplorable, and Billy Packer's explanation of the bizarre officiating only made it more obvious. Don't forget his laughable, "I think the officiating is remarkably consistent! Every time Indiana drives to the basket its an offensive foul!" comment. Uh, Billy, did you notice that Duke players were never set, except once, and that in some cases there was no contact made between the players? Every one of those calls was pre-determined to be an offensive foul on Indiana regarless of what actually happened. (Not much different than the situation at the end of the Pacers-Cavs game that got Mike Brown so worked up.)

In the NBA, superstar players get preferential treatment. In the NCAA, superstar coaches/ programs get preferential treatment.

Pick your poison.

ChicagoJ
02-24-2009, 02:31 PM
NBA refs are inherently better than college refs, just as NBA players are better than college players.

If the college refs were better, they'd be in the NBA.

And if you go back and look at old Final Four games, a number of those referrees also got the chance to "go pro".

count55
02-24-2009, 02:34 PM
Exactly, what happened in that game was deplorable, and Billy Packer's explanation of the bizarre officiating only made it more obvious. Don't forget his laughable, "I think the officiating is remarkably consistent! Every time Indiana drives to the basket its an offensive foul!" comment. Uh, Billy, did you notice that Duke players were never set, except once, and that in some cases there was no contact made between the players? Every one of those calls was pre-determined to be an offensive foul on Indiana regarless of what actually happened. (Not much different than the situation at the end of the Pacers-Cavs game that got Mike Brown so worked up.)

In the NBA, superstar players get preferential treatment. In the NCAA, superstar coaches/ programs get preferential treatment.

Pick your poison.

If I could go back in time and erase one person from existence, it would probably be Billy Packer.

Maybe Hitler...but probably Packer.

(Also, as a huge IU fan, I must have a singularly odd memory of that game. I remember not being thrilled with the officiating, but I don't recall it being the monstrous travesty that most other IU fans do. For example, I more sharply recall the Mathis call in '94 (intentional foul) and the continuation in '99. Eh.)

ChicagoJ
02-24-2009, 03:02 PM
If I could go back in time and erase one person from existence, it would probably be Billy Packer.

Maybe Hitler...but probably Packer.

John Madden needs to be pretty high on that list. He's amazingly incompetent - especially when it comes to explaining anything related to football during a broadcast.

count55
02-24-2009, 03:13 PM
John Madden needs to be pretty high on that list. He's amazingly incompetent - especially when it comes to explaining anything related to football during a broadcast.

I think it's possible that this is the first time we've agreed on something.

It's an omen...we need to make it happen.

;)

Kstat
02-24-2009, 03:16 PM
players, whereas the college game appears to be catered more towards teams.

...and "superstar" calls go both ways. I'll take the big name player getting some calls over the big name school getting a slew of them.

ChicagoJ
02-24-2009, 03:39 PM
I think it's possible that this is the first time we've agreed on something.

It's an omen...we need to make it happen.

;)

I doubt that its the first time - I pretty much only post my opinions that seem to be in the minority any more. I generally don't feel up to "me too" posts but that doesn't mean we don't happen to agree on a large number of other things.

pwee31
02-24-2009, 03:42 PM
I don't really believe the big name schools get as many calls in college, as big name players and teams in the NBA

I agree the NBA officiating is better b/c it a more difficult league to ref, but I think the college game is ref better and more fairly

I always remember the Bulls/Pacers game 7 in Chicago when the Pacers were up about 6 with a handful of minutes left in the game. The refs/league was not going to let Indiana win that game.

The college games allow for those major upsets to take place.... and that's why you have cinderellas, and why March Madness and brackets are so fun and exciting, b/c teams actually have a chance.

In the NBA a lot of teams don't stand a chance come playoff time. The Wiz against the Cavs is teh recent memory that comes to mind

count55
02-24-2009, 03:47 PM
I doubt that its the first time - I pretty much only post my opinions that seem to be in the minority any more. I generally don't feel up to "me too" posts but that doesn't mean we don't happen to agree on a large number of other things.

It's just that generally, when we interact, it's usually oppositional (but not, I think, adversarial).

count55
02-24-2009, 03:47 PM
It's just that generally, when we interact, it's usually oppositional (but not, I think, adversarial).

Plus, the thought of erasing Billy Packer and John Madden from history reaaaaallly excites me.

Kstat
02-24-2009, 04:17 PM
I always remember the Bulls/Pacers game 7 in Chicago when the Pacers were up about 6 with a handful of minutes left in the game. The refs/league was not going to let Indiana win that game.

I can remember David stern, just leaping over rik smits for offensive rebound after offensive rebound. And the way the referees literally tackled Travis Best, rendering him totally incapable of locating Jud Bucheler and Steve Kerr, whose only job was to stand behind the 3-point line and shoot.

If only that darn league and their corrupt refs would have stayed out of the way....shame :rolleyes:

Country Boy
02-24-2009, 04:27 PM
I can remember David stern, just leaping over rik smits for offensive rebound after offensive rebound. And the way the referees literally tackled Travis Best, rendering him totally incapable of locating Jud Bucheler and Steve Kerr, whose only job was to stand behind the 3-point line and shoot.

If only that darn league and their corrupt refs would have stayed out of the way....shame :rolleyes:

Smits did have a tough time rebounding as he was sitting on the bench for bogus phantom fouls called on him.

Kstat
02-24-2009, 04:29 PM
oh, right. Dale Davis, Rik Smits and Antonio Davis were ALL on the bench with foul trouble, and therefore unable to secure a single defensive rebound for an entire quarter.

Stern's minions are even more devious than i thought!

I love ghost stories. Tell another?

pacerDU
02-24-2009, 05:10 PM
...and "superstar" calls go both ways. I'll take the big name player getting some calls over the big name school getting a slew of them.

I don't think the level of those are close to comparable. The superstar call in the NBA is almost common knowledge.

ChicagoJ
02-24-2009, 05:11 PM
It's just that generally, when we interact, it's usually oppositional (but not, I think, adversarial).

That might be true, but somewhat by design. If two people always agree, then one of them might not be necessary.

When the season ends, I want to be the "Count55 for Forum MVP" campaign manager. But that does not eliminate the liklihood that we'll have differing opinions of a number of subjects.

Kstat
02-24-2009, 05:13 PM
I don't think the level of those are close to comparable. The superstar call in the NBA is almost common knowledge.

so is Duke, Indiana, UCLA and a dozen other historical universities with reputations for getting insanely beneficial home cooking. Anytime anybody loses to a historical powerhouse, that's always the first thing they point to. "Oh they're _____ university, so they always get the calls."

ChicagoJ
02-24-2009, 05:13 PM
Smits did have a tough time rebounding as he was sitting on the bench for bogus phantom fouls called on him.

The bogus fouls didn't bother me as much as when he did bring the one rebound he controlled down to his waist and let Jordan pry it away from him (cleanly).

:mad:

YOU'RE 7'4"!! KEEP THE DAMN BALL UP WHERE THEY CAN'T REACH IT!!

Kstat
02-24-2009, 05:16 PM
The bogus fouls didn't bother me as much as when he did bring the one rebound he controlled down to his waist and let Jordan pry it away from him (cleanly).

:mad:

YOU'RE 7'4"!! KEEP THE DAMN BALL UP WHERE THEY CAN'T REACH IT!!

but...but...if he brought the ball down and allowed himself to lose the ball, we don't have a boogyman to blame everything on! What fun is that?

Since86
02-24-2009, 05:19 PM
so is Duke, Indiana, UCLA and a dozen other historical universities with reputations for getting insanely beneficial home cooking. Anytime anybody loses to a historical powerhouse, that's always the first thing they point to. "Oh they're _____ university, so they always get the calls."

Which is exactly why teams like George Mason get bounced after the second round in the NCAA tourney. Those types of no name schools never make it to the Final Four, or even the Sweet 16.

Yet you have players like DWade that get looked at during the Finals and there's a whistle, so he shoots 20FTs a game.

Kstat
02-24-2009, 05:20 PM
Which is exactly why teams like George Mason get bounced after the second round in the NCAA tourney. Those types of no name schools never make it to the Final Four, or even the Sweet 16.

Yet you have players like DWade that get looked at during the Finals and there's a whistle, so he shoots 20FTs a game.

...which is exactly why no-star teams like detroit NEVER win championships. Heck, they never even make it to the finals!

count55
02-24-2009, 05:36 PM
The two things that always bothered me about the Game 7 in Chicago were the fact that we couldn't get a damn rebound to save our lives, and I thought that Bird should have stayed with Jalen longer in the fourth, instead of going back to Mullin. Certainly a judgment call, but I think just a few minutes longer could have made the difference.

To this day, I think that was the best Pacer team, ever.

(Is there a smilie for thread hijacking?)

Since86
02-24-2009, 05:36 PM
No stars? You really don't think that All Star players constitute as non-stars? Please.

The Spurs and Pistons are looked at the same way in the media. Anytime either team was in the Finals it was talked about how boring they were. It was even louder when they were in together.

But get real if you don't think that players like Rip and Chauncey aren't considered stars.

Kstat
02-24-2009, 05:37 PM
by that logic, %90 of the nba has "star power," and therefore no team gets preferential treatment above another because they are all on roughly equal footing.

You just checkmated yourself. Congratulations.

Country Boy
02-24-2009, 06:43 PM
The bogus fouls didn't bother me as much as when he did bring the one rebound he controlled down to his waist and let Jordan pry it away from him (cleanly).

:mad:

YOU'RE 7'4"!! KEEP THE DAMN BALL UP WHERE THEY CAN'T REACH IT!!

That one may have been clean, however Jordan made a living out of fouling while stripping the ball from defenders. Maybe we should prorate his steals like someone suggested that we do with Murphy's rebounds.

Kstat
02-24-2009, 07:20 PM
That one may have been clean, however Jordan made a living out of fouling while stripping the ball from defenders. Maybe we should prorate his steals like someone suggested that we do with Murphy's rebounds.

does that mean we should pro-rate reggie's threes, since a good majority came from a push-off?

ChicagoJ
02-24-2009, 07:25 PM
That one may have been clean, however Jordan made a living out of fouling while stripping the ball from defenders. Maybe we should prorate his steals like someone suggested that we do with Murphy's rebounds.

:laugh:

I actually agree with every part of this.

Part of Jordan's reputation for defensive prowess was certainly attributed to the fact that he was rarely called for mugging the players that he mugged.

Not that particular play - Jordan had studied enough film of Rik to know he'd bring the ball down low where it was easy to pry it away.

Country Boy
02-24-2009, 07:58 PM
does that mean we should pro-rate reggie's threes, since a good majority came from a push-off?

Nope. Pacer's play by the rules.;)

MyFavMartin
02-24-2009, 11:09 PM
Few years back, Purdue was in the Big10 Tourney (in Chicago, I believe) and could not set a pick without being called for a moving screen and their guys WEREN'T MOVING.

This has to be one of the worst games I've ever seen in regards to officiating.

clownskull
02-25-2009, 02:38 AM
I was watching the Arizona v Arizona State game last night and I got to thinking - I really like the officiating in the college game a lot more than the pro version.

I've been watching college ball a bit more than I used to over the last couple of years. I'm from Australia but moved to Canada a few years ago, so I have a lot more opportunities to see college games now. The games are called much more true to the rules (no one gets away with traveling for example), but the action still flows a lot better.

I'm a pro-ball guy before a college-guy. This isn't a rant about how college-ball is better than the pros or anything like that. It's just an observation.

I think the biggest difference is that there's no "star treatment" - the biggest problem with NBA officiating. As a result there are (or at least seem to be) less whistles. With less interruptions, the game seems to move at a better pace.

I can't stand it that when I see Kobe Bryant or Lebron James drive into the lane, I know they will either score or will go to the foul-line. You just know the refs will bail them out whether it's a foul or not. I never got that feeling when Jordan Hill had the ball during the game last night. I knew he'd have to earn his points like everyone else.

How many times do you hear about a rookie having to "gain respect from the officials"? Why does he have to gain the respect of the officials? He either fouls or he doesn't, he either travels or he doesn't. There's no "well he's a rookie so it's a foul/he's Lebron James so it's not a walk". Or at least there shouldn't be.

People are always complaining about NBA officiating, but you don't hear the same criticism for the college game.

My question is; why can't the pro game be officiated in the same manner as college - true to the rules and the same for everyone? Which begs the other question, why is it different in the first place? It can't just be to improve player marketability can it?

in the nba it isn't so much as to what you do as to WHO you are while you are doing it.

SycamoreKen
02-25-2009, 08:38 AM
After watching part of the Nebraska/A&M game last night and seeing an A&M player get a tech for hanging on the rim when a guy was under him, I'll go with the NBA refs. How one of the other 2 refs in that game couldn't come over and tell the guy that called the tech that they had a better angle and there was a guy under the dunker was amazing.

In the NBA game I was watching at the same time, one ref overrulled another on an offensive foul/def. foul call because he had the better angle. The call went against the star player not the scrub, by the way. I say all this after complaining about the NBA refs the whole game. Ask my wife.

Since86
02-25-2009, 02:12 PM
by that logic, %90 of the nba has "star power," and therefore no team gets preferential treatment above another because they are all on roughly equal footing.

You just checkmated yourself. Congratulations.

And do those players on the team get calls that others on the squad dont? Most certainly.

Reggie was never pumped up as a star, but he definately received the benefit of the doubt. Between his leg kicks, pushing people off of him, and his flopping in general.

Did you happen to watch the Providence/Pitt game last night? If that was an NBA game, Blair wouldn't have been whistled for 3 out of his 5 fouls. It was the exact opposite for him last night, he was put under a microscope, and that NEVER happens in the league.

Sollozzo
02-25-2009, 02:37 PM
...which is exactly why no-star teams like detroit NEVER win championships.

Basically

Detroit is the exception to the rule. Basically every championship team outside of Detroit had a huge "star" that led them to victory.

But I don't attribute it to officiating. I attribute it to a select few players being able to elevate to levels that few others in the league could (Jordan, Bird, Magic, Duncan, Hakeem, etc)

Kstat
02-25-2009, 04:16 PM
Did you happen to watch the Providence/Pitt game last night? If that was an NBA game, Blair wouldn't have been whistled for 3 out of his 5 fouls. It was the exact opposite for him last night, he was put under a microscope, and that NEVER happens in the league.

Uh huh.

Being that Pittsburgh is not and will never be a national name in basketball, that has nothing to do with this conversation.

Let me know when a kid from UCLA or Duke gets an unfair whistle.

Since86
02-25-2009, 04:31 PM
The #1 team in the country isn't a national name in basketball? Yeah, okay.

EDIT: I guess you didn't see the end of the WF/Duke game a couple weeks ago (their first match up)?

Kstat
02-25-2009, 04:33 PM
The #1 team in the country isn't a national name in basketball? Yeah, okay.

No, they aren't. If you don't understand the difference between a team that is good this year versus a team that is good every year, it's not my problem.

Since86
02-25-2009, 04:41 PM
You mean a team that has been in the Big East Championship game 6 times, won it twice, won the regular season Big East three times, been in the Sweet Sixteen 4 times, and 7 NCAA tournament appearances in the last 7 years (along with almost continuous national ranking) is good just this year?

Please, they've been just as successful as ANY college program in the past decade.

When Howland was the coach, you know the actual coach at UCLA now, they were continually within the top 10, and he was there from 99-03.

Kstat
02-25-2009, 04:42 PM
they are not and never have been a historical powerhouse. They aren't a national name brand like Duke, UCLA, IU, Arizona, etc which is the basis for this argument.

Since86
02-25-2009, 04:51 PM
How do you become a national powerhouse? You build a program with continuous winning, being the best in your conference.

They've done that for the past ten years. It's not their fault they didn't win championships in the '80s like IU did. It's not their fault they didn't win one in the '90s like Arizona did.

You put Pitt next to either one of those programs and they are the hands down favorites by a mile. They are the powerhouse today. What happened 15yrs ago, when the players weren't even in kindergarten doesn't matter.

You have the #1 team in the country, playing an unranked team, and the best team (or atleast their best player) gets hosed by the whistle. That's directly against what would happen in the NBA. You know it, I know it, everyone reading this knows it.

Pitt is a national powerhouse this decade. They have proven it since Howland took over in '99. They have at the top of the Big East since then, and in a conference game against Providence, they got shafted multiple times.

There is no spinning it.

Kstat
02-25-2009, 05:01 PM
fine. maybe pitt will be a national name in the distant future after decades of winning, final fours and national title. They are not anywhere near that right now.

ChicagoJ
02-25-2009, 05:10 PM
College basketball national powerhouses:

Duke
UNC
Kansas
UCLA
Kentucky
(maybe) Georgetown
(maybe) Indiana
(maybe) Michigan State

That's it.

Kstat
02-25-2009, 05:11 PM
College basketball national powerhouses:

Duke
UNC
Kansas
UCLA
Kentucky
(maybe) Georgetown
(maybe) Indiana
(maybe) Michigan State

That's it.

I would add Arizona, UCONN and Syracuse to that list.

Since86
02-25-2009, 05:17 PM
Add in historical and you have a good list.

Current? Not even close.

Kstat
02-25-2009, 05:18 PM
...except nobody claimed current elite teams got superstar calls. They aren't that fickle.

Duke and UNC have years where they fall off the map, bounce right back and there they are in the spotlight. That's a powerhouse. You see to be having difficulty with the distinction.

Since86
02-25-2009, 05:23 PM
Then what in the world are we discussing? The merits of teams that won titles in the '60s?

Games are officiated today. What transpired 40yrs ago doesn't hold any merit on whether it was an offensive or defensive foul.

Current national powerhouses, like Pitt, get the benefit of the doubt a helluva lot more than teams like IU.

With that said, current national powerhouses, like Pitt, still get horrible calls against them because they are the big dog on the block. Which is the exact opposite in the NBA.

If you are a superstar in the NBA, you get calls home or away. If you are a superstar team in the NCAA, there is high chance that when you are on the road you are going to get screwed over.

ChicagoJ
02-25-2009, 05:27 PM
I would add Arizona, UCONN and Syracuse to that list.

One per conference, except for the NC/ Duke rivalry.

I can't imagine dropping UCLA or Georgtown for teams with one decade of success. (Although one could argue that Georgetown only had one decade of success, that's why they were on my maybe list. I'm not sure who the right delegate from the Big East's list should be.

Kstat
02-25-2009, 05:27 PM
you're twisting your own logic to create an argument where there wasn't one and declare yourself the victor.

try getting on the same page as chicagoJ and myself.

rexnom
02-25-2009, 05:28 PM
:laugh:

I actually agree with every part of this.

Part of Jordan's reputation for defensive prowess was certainly attributed to the fact that he was rarely called for mugging the players that he mugged.

Not that particular play - Jordan had studied enough film of Rik to know he'd bring the ball down low where it was easy to pry it away.
In MJ's defense, it's not like there were many calls on defenders handchecking him. Guys like John Starks could have punched him and not been called for a foul in the 90s.

ChicagoJ
02-25-2009, 05:31 PM
Current national powerhouses, like Pitt, get the benefit of the doubt a helluva lot more than teams like IU.

Not a good example with the current state of the Hoosiers, but if Crean gets them turned around, it won't be long until Michigan State fans are complaining again that the Hoosiers get all of the calls. Something that I think is perfectly acceptable, of course. ;)


With that said, current national powerhouses, like Pitt, still get horrible calls against them because they are the big dog on the block. Which is the exact opposite in the NBA.

Yeah, at the college game, to get to the next level of respectibility, you've got to overcome the reputation of the elite powerhouses. One could argue in the ACC that the system helps ensure that Duke and NC stay 1 - 2 year after year in spite of the fact that nearly every season/ every other season one other conference team appears to be ready to pry the top spot away from them.

Since86
02-25-2009, 05:34 PM
you're twisting your own logic to create an argument where there wasn't one and declare yourself the victor.

try getting on the same page as chicagoJ and myself.

And what page is that?

That IU is a national powerhouse, because they have been winners historically, but not recently, so they get whistles (or get away with more) other teams don't?

That is what I'm reading about your argument, and I completely disagree with it.

IU does not get those calls anymore.

Does Duke? Yes
Does UNC? Yes
Does UCLA? Yes
Does Kentucky? Sometimes, depending on who they're playing.
Does Georgetown? Yes
Does Michigan State? Yes
Does Kansas? Yes

Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL WINNING.

Does Pitt? YES!

Teams that have been winning consistantly for years, are considered national powerhouses. Pitt is a national powerhouse.

I'm not twisting anything. I'm not the one saying reputation from 20yrs ago gets teams calls today.

Kstat
02-25-2009, 05:37 PM
I recall IU being accused of getting plenty of calls as recently as last year becfore they took the nosedive when their coach got canned.

They flat out stink this year but they will be back, because they are IU, and they will be back to business as usual, no different than UNC or UCLA when they have a down cycle. That's the difference between a powerhouse and a school that's just good for the time being.

Again, you don't get it. I can't explain it any better than that.

Since86
02-25-2009, 05:39 PM
Not a good example with the current state of the Hoosiers, but if Crean gets them turned around, it won't be long until Michigan State fans are complaining again that the Hoosiers get all of the calls. Something that I think is perfectly acceptable, of course. ;)

Because winners get more calls than losers. It's a way of life in any sport, at any level. The better team gets those calls. The home team, gets those calls. IU doesn't get those calls in Lansing. At Northwestern? Most certainly.




Yeah, at the college game, to get to the next level of respectibility, you've got to overcome the reputation of the elite powerhouses. One could argue in the ACC that the system helps ensure that Duke and NC stay 1 - 2 year after year in spite of the fact that nearly every season/ every other season one other conference team appears to be ready to pry the top spot away from them.

Just like Wake Forest this year. And what happened when Duke played WF at WF?

WF got the homer call with less than 2secs to play that put them on the FT line, instead of going to OT. Duke, a historical and current national powerhouse, got the short end of the stick against a highly touted conference opponent who was playing at home.

Kstat
02-25-2009, 05:44 PM
uh, wake forest has a ton of national cache. They are every close to powerhouse status.

Since86
02-25-2009, 05:44 PM
I recall IU being accused of getting plenty of calls as recently as last year becfore they took the nosedive when their coach got canned.

They flat out stink this year but they will be back, because they are IU, and they will be back to business as usual, no different than UNC or UCLA when they have a down cycle. That's the difference between a powerhouse and a school that's just good for the time being.

Again, you don't get it. I can't explain it any better than that.

You mean when they had the Big 10 player of the year?
You mean the year when they went 22-4, before Sampson was outed as coach?

The point of the matter is, they will start getting those types of calls again is when they become good again.

Good teams, like Pitt, get those calls. Bad teams, like IU, don't get those calls.

I can't explain it any better than that.

Your argument is that they still get those calls because they are IU and have history as a powerhouse. When reality is, they are not getting those calls this year because they suck. And suck teams don't get those calls, no matter if it says Indiana on the front of the jersey or Moorehead State.

Kstat
02-25-2009, 05:46 PM
you do realize that the "winners get calls" argument is pretty much the same thing as your "superstars get calls" argument....

when UNC isn't good, they don't get the same calls, as you said.

....just like when Wade is out, miami doesn't get calls.

....but UNC always comes back, just like guys like wade always come back, and when they do the conspiracy theorists come right back out of the woodwork.

A winning Pittburgh team does not get the same treatment as a winning UNC team. That's the point, just as a danny granger does not get the same calls as dewayne wade because one guy is dewayne wade and the other isn't, even though he scores a similar amount of points per game. Al Jefferson does not get the same treatment KG does, even though his production is almost equal.

Since86
02-25-2009, 05:46 PM
uh, wake forest has a ton of national cache. They are every close to powerhouse status.

And yet you argue that Pitt doesn't? This is getting good.

duke dynamite
02-25-2009, 05:46 PM
This is going nowhere.

Since86
02-25-2009, 05:48 PM
you do realize that the "winners get calls" argument is pretty much the same thing as your "superstars get calls" argument....

Yes, I do. I have never said different.

My original point was that in the NCAA there are times, a lot of times actually, that because you are a powerhouse you have to overcome officiating going against you.

Good teams, like Pitt, get screwed over by the stripes. That NEVER happens in the league. LeBron gets his calls whether he's at home or on the road.

I'm not saying NCAA officials are better, just that they are not like NBA refs, that kiss the ground of superstars 100% of the time.

Kstat
02-25-2009, 05:51 PM
Yes, I do. I have never said different.

My original point was that in the NCAA there are times, a lot of times actually, that because you are a powerhouse you have to overcome officiating going against you.

Good teams, like Pitt, get screwed over by the stripes. That NEVER happens in the league. LeBron gets his calls whether he's at home or on the road.

I'm not saying NCAA officials are better, just that they are not like NBA refs, that kiss the ground of superstars 100% of the time.

....but there are times when wade is hurting and miami is down, like last year, he stops getting the same stuff. Paul Pierce was the same way in boston for years.

So yes, it does happen, a lot.

ChicagoJ
02-25-2009, 05:55 PM
Because winners get more calls than losers. It's a way of life in any sport, at any level. The better team gets those calls. The home team, gets those calls. IU doesn't get those calls in Lansing. At Northwestern? Most certainly.

Throughout the nineties, even when MSU had replaced IU as the Big Ten's #1 hope in the tourney, IU would still get plenty of calls whenever they played.

In the college (or as I've borrowed from Mark Boyle many times over the years, the semi-pro game) the superstars are the coaches and the teams with traditions. They do get the calls, period.

That's probably why the IU/ Duke Final Four game, where IU was clearly on the disadvantage of playing 8-on-5, touches such a nerve. Those were calls "we" expected to get, not to have to overcome.

But-for a matchup with other powerhouses, I would still expect IU to get more than its fair share of calls next season when they start to approach respectibility again.

Kstat
02-25-2009, 05:57 PM
exactly.

ChicagoJ
02-25-2009, 06:01 PM
exactly.

And that's why, when I get frustrated with NBA players or officiating, I don't turn to D-I basketball. It has plenty of "baggage" as well. If I'm looking for real student-athletes playing because they love the game and reasonably fair (although sometimes incompetent) officiating, you can find me at a D-III game. In fact, that's where I hope to be Saturday night, assuming our local team wins its conference semi-final game on Friday.

Kstat
02-25-2009, 06:03 PM
I don't think you need to go quite that far. The Ivy league is as pure as it gets.

pacerDU
02-25-2009, 06:13 PM
KStat, you mentioned Arizona as a powerhouse and rightfully so. Arizona is one of the teams I referred to in this post. Jordan Hill didn't get any gimme calls or benefits even though he is the star of a powerhouse.

Like Since86 said, in the NBA, if that was Lebron, Kobe, DWade etc, they ALWAYS get the calls, no matter where they're playing. I didn't see any bias in the way the Arizona - Arizona State game was reffed.

Just so I'm clear, you do agree that there are superstar calls in the NBA right?

ChicagoJ
02-25-2009, 06:57 PM
I don't think you need to go quite that far. The Ivy league is as pure as it gets.

Maybe so, but I don't go to church with any Ivy League coaches, or go out to post-game dinners with his family.

Besides, as a former small-college athlete myself, I'm quite alright with that bias.

Kstat
02-25-2009, 07:02 PM
KStat, you mentioned Arizona as a powerhouse and rightfully so. Arizona is one of the teams I referred to in this post. Jordan Hill didn't get any gimme calls or benefits even though he is the star of a powerhouse.

Like Since86 said, in the NBA, if that was Lebron, Kobe, DWade etc, they ALWAYS get the calls, no matter where they're playing. I didn't see any bias in the way the Arizona - Arizona State game was reffed.

Just so I'm clear, you do agree that there are superstar calls in the NBA right?

ok, first off I'm not going to comment on a game I didn't see.

Second, Wade wan't getting superstar calls when Miami was in the toilet last year.Same goes with pierce in Boston or KG in Minnesota. That argument is false.

third, while I do agree they do exist, I do not and will never accept the referees as an excuse for failure.

pacerDU
02-25-2009, 07:24 PM
third, while I do agree they do exist, I do not and will never accept the referees as an excuse for failure.

Totally agree there. My post wasn't meant as an excuse for losing.

I just think that it's a shame superstar calls exist and I don't understand why they do.

Maybe I haven't seen enough college games to have noticed any favoritism. From what I have seen however, I didn't notice any. That's enough for me to feel that favoritism isn't as rampant in college as in the NBA, because you only need to see 1 quarter of a NBA game with a star in it, to notice that. I find it refreshing to see a top player have to work just as hard for their opportunities as anyone else.

I want to see the game officiated where the ref doesn't give a damn, or even take notice of who's involved in a play. He just calls what he sees.

Kstat
02-25-2009, 07:26 PM
a lot of college refs do not reach the NBA because they allow themselves to get intimidated by the high profile head coaches and eventually keel under. Bob knight and john thompson were were infamous for that.

I suppose a better term would be "superstar head coaches."

Of course, it didn't work as well for knight in Texas Tech, so I'd still put it on the school.