Do people really believe...

[chipdouglas]

...that the P12 conspires to steer/fix outcomes for the good of the conference, including through officiating?

I am seeing a mix of posters espousing this idea, including some of the more levelheaded ones which is surprising.

For the record, I increasingly find this to be credible in football. I believe the NFL, for instance, changes rules and officiating enforcement every year to maximize viewership; the year after Seattle won the Super Bowl there was a highly statistically significant tendency to call fewer penalties on Seattle’s opponents than were called on that opponent before or after their Seattle game. I believe they did this in the interest of keeping league parity. I also feel that in NCAAF and elsewhere there is a human - if not explicit - tendency to make 50/50 calls in service of the favored team.

 

[Observer11]

There is a bias. No doubt.

“Fix”, maybe not. But preferential treatment and latitude - absolutely.

 

[dgibbons]

...that the P12 conspires to steer/fix outcomes for the good of the conference, including through officiating?

I am seeing a mix of posters espousing this idea, including some of the more levelheaded ones which is surprising.

For the record, I increasingly find this to be credible in football. I believe the NFL, for instance, changes rules and officiating enforcement every year to maximize viewership; the year after Seattle won the Super Bowl there was a highly statistically significant tendency to call fewer penalties on Seattle’s opponents than were called on that opponent before or after their Seattle game. I believe they did this in the interest of keeping league parity. I also feel that in NCAAF and elsewhere there is a human - if not explicit - tendency to make 50/50 calls in service of the favored team.

When someone calls into the replay command center to override calls, who the hell knows what’s going on. Taylor made situation for corruption.

 

[GrayOnGray]

I'm not into conspiracies, but when it comes to some of the people running this conference, who knows? So really, it's a question of are they dishonest, or inept? Either way...

 

[COCoug]

I believe that at some level the Refs feel the need to protect what they view as the top teams in the conference. I think we saw this against USC, and I think we saw it Saturday against Stanford. This is maybe the same mentality as the NBA protecting its stars, or maybe just sucking up to the traditional powers. It would be nice if at some point they realize that we are the team that has a chance of representing the conference, and that Leach is among the biggest name coach in the conference, and that they need to start protecting us!

I can't speculate if this is conscious or unconscious, but given what we know about the USC game, one does wonder...
It would be interesting to do a little background check on some of these guys just to see what ties they have to various schools, such as attending or playing, having kids attending, living nearby, or petty feuds over the years.

 

[OrangeGravy]

I don't think they "fix" things for the benefit of the conference. Nothing they do outwardly helps put the Pac in a better position to compete nationally in football. They may fiddle with stuff to benefit one team or another, but it's not for the benefit of the conference and it's perception. It's for some other reason. I don't think the Pac leadership cares one bit about how the conference fairs nationally. They (Larry Scott) do nothing but bend over to the other conferences at every turn. We got to this place in college football because nobody checked the big bully Mike Slive, the head of the SEC, horns-waggled the BCS system to replace the perfectly good bowl system. It's been a rigged Shite show ever since.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

For all of the talk about the Pac-12 conspiring to fix games against WSU......the controversial call into the booth in the USC game by Dixon BENEFITED the Cougs. If he hadn't called in, we would have lost Tago for the remainder of that game and the first half of the next game. If the conference really had a beef with WSU, why would they protect us from losing a player?

 

[BiggsCoug]

To protect Michigan? Yes

 

[moxeecoug]

I don’t know about conspiracies but I would say incompetent and maybe some bias towards the USC’s. Too many years of calls blatantly going against us.

 

[Coug90]

There is a bias. No doubt.

“Fix”, maybe not. But preferential treatment and latitude - absolutely.

This. Go back and watch the Stanford game from 2015 knowing what we know now about Woody Dixon and tell me the conference isn’t pushing an agenda. The conference already had no integrity based on recent facts that have come out, and its fair to say it never has under Scott’s leadership.

 

[Lollapalousa]

Get a week better

 

[kougkurt]

For all of the talk about the Pac-12 conspiring to fix games against WSU......the controversial call into the booth in the USC game by Dixon BENEFITED the Cougs. If he hadn't called in, we would have lost Tago for the remainder of that game and the first half of the next game. If the conference really had a beef with WSU, why would they protect us from losing a player?

I can’t get inside the decision. But my thought is the one call effected the other. No targeting on Tago. No targeting on the USC LB for hit on GODNER.
IMO one call would have had a greater impact on the outcome of the game then the other.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

I can’t get inside the decision. But my thought is the one call effected the other. No targeting on Tago. No targeting on the USC LB for hit on GODNER.
IMO one call would have had a greater impact on the outcome of the game then the other.

I agree with the thoughts that there is an inherent, subconscious bias when referees are calling a game. When Arcega-Whiteside is going down the field against Molton, the referees are already expecting Molton to commit a PI and are leaning that way the whole way. It's not necessarily an anti-Coug thing so much as a reputation bias for particular players. FWIW, our players are just as prone to commit those little offensive PI shove-offs on opposing DB's as Stanford's receivers are. We've gotten away with those at least a dozen times this year. That's because our wide receivers have a good reputation with the officials. We get away with an occasional "block" on passing plays where our receivers inhibit the movement of defenders. Again...good reputation for generally clean play.

There's a bit of incompetence in the Pac-12 that they can't seem to shake, although it's not as bad as people perceive. I think the refs (and replay people) blow at least one call a game that an objective observer wouldn't agree with. I also agree that having Dixon call in about Tago may have influenced the booth decision not to review the hit by Porter Gustin. There's always plays where our inherent biases determine how we view the call, but some are just flat out bad.

I don't believe that there is a specific conspiracy though.

 

[dgibbons]

For all of the talk about the Pac-12 conspiring to fix games against WSU......the controversial call into the booth in the USC game by Dixon BENEFITED the Cougs. If he hadn't called in, we would have lost Tago for the remainder of that game and the first half of the next game. If the conference really had a beef with WSU, why would they protect us from losing a player?

That particular play did. But the obvious question is what and/or did that no-call affect other calls in the game.

The fact that a third party is calling into the command center is a major problem and undermines the integrity of the officiating.

 

[avabob1]

There is an old study on education that has been replicated many times. Teachers are given 2 groups of students that have been evenly divided academically. However, they are told that one group is superior intellectually. Invariably the "superior" group was graded higher.

Referees may attempt to be totally neutral, but they always know who the better team is.

 

[425cougfan]

99% of the time, I think it's just a mix of incompetence, us looking at things through a WSU lens, and my sense that if refs are biased at all, it's usually in favor of the better athlete/player, with those frequently on the other team. I don't think refs necessarily are biased against a particular school as much as they are fallible and are biased in favor of the the home team, the better athlete, and the team that has their coaches in their ear all day. But then I think back to things like that uncalled PI against Oregon a few years ago and wonder how any official, at any level, could miss that if even attempting to call the game fairly.

 

[Cougatron]

I believe it because we just had a scandal where the Pac 12 office was not only involved in the calls of the game, but over ruling them.

That is a fact. The Pac 12 had executives involved in the officiating of games. While the games are going on.

This is such a big deal that the NCAA itself had to step in and issue a statement

"Steve Shaw, NCAA football rules committee secretary-editor, and Rogers Redding, national coordinator of football officials, have notified game officials that the replay official is the final authority in upholding or overruling a call on the field."

http://www.footballzebras.com/2018/...ocols-after-pac-12-vp-usurps-replay-official/

The game is played between players. The officials over see the rules as the game is played. The fans sit in the seats. The coaches are on the sidelines and the conference executives are in the office.

Everyone has a job to do, but what we had was the conference executives involved in the game and outcome of a game.

So the question that comes next is... Why?.

Why is an executive involved in calls that effect the game?

And the answer is. To have an effect on the game. And that is wrong. The game is compromised the moment someone outside the officials and players at the game is involved in the rulings.

The game is supposed to be fair. The game has rules. The officials have rules to follow. You hope they do things right. You have replay to be a check to validate rulings. You don’t have outside forces supersede that.

The only thing the league should do is review the officials. Report on the quality of calls. Issue reprimands for mistakes and continually improve the officiating.

And make more revenue etc.

So why was the office having a single guy rule and over rule calls? Because I honestly believe they wanted to control and manipulate outcomes. It's the only reason they would do such a thing.

This wasn't the executives Bill Richardson (replay coordinator) and David Coleman (Executive in charge of officials) working as a committee with with the booth. This was Woodie Dixon the head of Business & Legal Affairs playing supreme ruler.

Some people mention the Stanford game from a few years ago, but there was a game that I thought something fishy was going on in 2014. We were playing Oregon and were driving to tie the game and there was an obvious pass interference that wasn't called.

Couldn't have the precious Phil Knight machine and Mariotta heisman lose to WSU. That would ruin the season/CFP chances. (They lost the next week at home in undeniably to Arizona and still made the playoffs), but that 2014 game was odd at the end.

 

[roses04]

I don't think they are trying to "fix" anything, maybe some bias towards some teams. The biggest problem is they are inept, and the review system is broken. So because the refs do a poor job, like PI calls in the Stanford game when the player with the hyphenated name is pushing off, and they call us our DBs for PI, it appears the fix is in. When in reality the refs just aren't very good.

 

[Brent H.]

Bias for sure, but I think you can see that around the country. But the problem is that every school thinks the officials are bias against them, even the Blue Bloods. In the end the schools that bring the most money in the conference will be more protected.

 

[Brent H.]

For all of the talk about the Pac-12 conspiring to fix games against WSU......the controversial call into the booth in the USC game by Dixon BENEFITED the Cougs. If he hadn't called in, we would have lost Tago for the remainder of that game and the first half of the next game. If the conference really had a beef with WSU, why would they protect us from losing a player?

We don't know what goes on behind the scenes unless something comes out like that Yahoo report. I think the refs just suck overall in the conference. They have no clue what PI is. I've seen it in other games where the ref just anticipates contact and throws the flag. They were terrible in the Utah UW game a month ago. They've been terrible all year. And by Dixon calling in probably made them reluctant to review the hit on Minshew because you got people calling into the booth and telling them how to do their jobs. It's a crap show and they need to clean house entirely.

 

[Fab5Coug]

I try to keep in mind that officiating is frickin hard. That doesn't exactly excuse the replay officials, but I try not to get too bent out of shape regarding on field calls like PI & holding. Those guys can't see everything. I'd love to see any one of us try to do it. Sure, that push off was super easy to see on your 65 inch, HD TV, after you watched it 4 times in slow motion from 4 different angles. Try making that call from 15 yards away, from behind the play, with a 250 lb guy in your way, in a quarter of a second.

It's why I've never understood why the replay booth needs "indisputable evidence" to overturn a play. Why are we giving the benefit of the doubt to the guy on the field, who had a worse vantage point than anyone save for the fans in the bleachers. The dude in the booth is the one who can synch up multiple angles and slow it down frame by frame. Just have him decide if it was a catch or not, and don't worry what the guy on the field said it was. You're the expert with the technology booth guy.

 

[dgibbons]

I try to keep in mind that officiating is frickin hard. That doesn't exactly excuse the replay officials, but I try not to get too bent out of shape regarding on field calls like PI & holding. Those guys can't see everything. I'd love to see any one of us try to do it. Sure, that push off was super easy to see on your 65 inch, HD TV, after you watched it 4 times in slow motion from 4 different angles. Try making that call from 15 yards away, from behind the play, with a 250 lb guy in your way, in a quarter of a second.

It's why I've never understood why the replay booth needs "indisputable evidence" to overturn a play. Why are we giving the benefit of the doubt to the guy on the field, who had a worse vantage point than anyone save for the fans in the bleachers. The dude in the booth is the one who can synch up multiple angles and slow it down frame by frame. Just have him decide if it was a catch or not, and don't worry what the guy on the field said it was. You're the expert with the technology booth guy.

The inconsistency is infuriating. Strong gets called for a personal foul for throwing Furd's receiver on the ground while the whistle is blowing. Later, no call when Patmon is thrown out of bounds while the whistle is blowing.

Add in Woodie making phone calls to the command center, and it's quite easy to conclude that someone is trying to influence games, or at least the system is wide open to the possibility of it occurring and it would be very difficult for anyone to ever know. A good example is the 2015 Stanford game. If Woodie really did call the WSU coaching booth, how do you know he didn't call the replay command center during the review of McCaffrey's fumble?

 

[wazzubruce]

Fire Scott & Dixon.

 

[OrangeGravy]

I try to keep in mind that officiating is frickin hard. That doesn't exactly excuse the replay officials, but I try not to get too bent out of shape regarding on field calls like PI & holding. Those guys can't see everything. I'd love to see any one of us try to do it. Sure, that push off was super easy to see on your 65 inch, HD TV, after you watched it 4 times in slow motion from 4 different angles. Try making that call from 15 yards away, from behind the play, with a 250 lb guy in your way, in a quarter of a second.

It's why I've never understood why the replay booth needs "indisputable evidence" to overturn a play. Why are we giving the benefit of the doubt to the guy on the field, who had a worse vantage point than anyone save for the fans in the bleachers. The dude in the booth is the one who can synch up multiple angles and slow it down frame by frame. Just have him decide if it was a catch or not, and don't worry what the guy on the field said it was. You're the expert with the technology booth guy.

You make a good point. One thing I think we as fans lose sight of is the massive difference in viewing angles between fans being elevated in stadium seats or watching from elevated views on tv vs. the officials being at field level. You can see everything from up high. You get blocked out a lot by bodies on the field. The same issue causes fans to often times judge QB's much harsher for missing open receivers that are plain as day from the tv view, but at field level angles, traffic, and speed interfere massively with a QB's ability to see things all the time.

People keep saying Dixon called in to the review booth. I thought I read that he was in the room and made his comments on the play. Is that not true?

 

[random soul]

I believe that at some level the Refs feel the need to protect what they view as the top teams in the conference. I think we saw this against USC, and I think we saw it Saturday against Stanford. This is maybe the same mentality as the NBA protecting its stars, or maybe just sucking up to the traditional powers. It would be nice if at some point they realize that we are the team that has a chance of representing the conference, and that Leach is among the biggest name coach in the conference, and that they need to start protecting us!

I can't speculate if this is conscious or unconscious, but given what we know about the USC game, one does wonder...
It would be interesting to do a little background check on some of these guys just to see what ties they have to various schools, such as attending or playing, having kids attending, living nearby, or petty feuds over the years.

Not sure it's 'need to protect.' I think a lot of calls that end up being wrong on penalties are what a ref expects to see and the flag comes out prematurely. This is a huge problem with PI, for instance. Holding is hard too because it's a total judgement call. Holding happens on almost every play, so it's a question of how close you call it, who you call it on, and do you focus on it to the exclusion of other things that might be happening. Field calls and targeting are replayable and usually (except when Woody Dixon gets involved) reasonable even if I don't agree with every single one. Many plays like false starts, too many men, facemasks, that stuff is cut and dry. May get missed sometimes but if they're called they're almost always correct. PI and holding (offensive and defensive) are the big ones, and any conference that devises a set of guidelines that produce consistent, predictable results will become the gold standard of officiating. Then everyone will know what counts as holding or PI and what doesn't. I remember back in the 90s and early 00s Pac refs were notoriously ticky tack on PI, and when league teams played noncon games (thinking specifically of the '02 trip to Columbus) receivers would cry for a flag on every incompletion rather than fight for the ball. It was bad for the league because everyone else had a different standard

 

[OrangeGravy]

Not sure it's 'need to protect.' I think a lot of calls that end up being wrong on penalties are what a ref expects to see and the flag comes out prematurely. This is a huge problem with PI, for instance. Holding is hard too because it's a total judgement call. Holding happens on almost every play, so it's a question of how close you call it, who you call it on, and do you focus on it to the exclusion of other things that might be happening. Field calls and targeting are replayable and usually (except when Woody Dixon gets involved) reasonable even if I don't agree with every single one. Many plays like false starts, too many men, facemasks, that stuff is cut and dry. May get missed sometimes but if they're called they're almost always correct. PI and holding (offensive and defensive) are the big ones, and any conference that devises a set of guidelines that produce consistent, predictable results will become the gold standard of officiating. Then everyone will know what counts as holding or PI and what doesn't. I remember back in the 90s and early 00s Pac refs were notoriously ticky tack on PI, and when league teams played noncon games (thinking specifically of the '02 trip to Columbus) receivers would cry for a flag on every incompletion rather than fight for the ball. It was bad for the league because everyone else had a different standard

With regards to holding and other judgement calls, the test should be whether or not it gives the player an advantage or not unless it's extremely egregious. A hold at the point of attack on a running play, throw the flag. Holding way across the field from the ball on a receiver is a stupid penalty to call. It doesn't affect the play, but they still call it sometimes. The hold that bothers me the most is the blatant hold on a rusher who breaks through and the white hat is right there looking at it and doesn't throw the flag. That happens so much in college it drives me nuts. PI is a bit different because it's always where the ball is. Refs should get better at that with each level of football.