For those that hate Fran's rants...
- Thread starter slipHawk
- Start date
Add a few more layers to that tinfoil hat dude.
What does that mean? Are you saying it wasn't serious? He had a malignant tumor removed from his brain and as a result of his treatment he had lymph nodes and his thyroid removed. Yea, it was pretty serious.
If you're saying this will be a huge media talking point, thats probably true. But the sports media beats talking points to death for every single college team. (See any Randy Peterson article about cyclone players)
Last edited:
He didn’t have a brain tumor. He had thyroid cancer, and it thankfully had not spread.
My mistake. He still had a cancerous tumor removed from his body at 14, along with other important organs. Serious stuff. And it makes his high school athletic achievements all the more incredible. Don't really see how you can crap on this kid.
I will always remember kf losing his $hit on the refs vs MSU..i think it was 2012 right before half time for missing calls...first 2 plays of second half msu had two straight holding calls...That's how you do it
Given the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars at stake in college basketball only childlike naivete would explain your remark.
Since you're a Clown fan I'm surprised you don't find the officiating in let's say your games with Kansas to be consistently one sided. If not you are certainly a minority in Clown Town. Now I love it. Watching Kansas score on a dead ball between the two ends of a two shot foul might have been the funniest thing I've ever seen in sports. Not at all fair to the Clowns but absolutely fabulous good fun nonetheless.
Why you think nothing happened to MSU when they had a doctor on staff giving the girl gymnasts gynos for a sprained ankle? You really think those girls, and their other female athletes weren't talking about that around the boy athletes? Of course Sparty's entire sports management, including their head coaches in every sport, had inquiry knowledge. Who'd have thought Joe Paterno was covering up the most vile scandal in the history of college athletics?
In the real world of big business the bottom line is the bottom line. Texas is a profit center. Iowa State is a necessary expense. That's why Texas gets a disproportionate share of your conference profit. That is also why your conference will never ever do anything to change the pecking order.
any proof of large scale corruption in officiating beyond someones opinion ? i am calling bullshit .
Well, you can have that opinion. Watch Larry Scriotto (I think that's how its spelled) sometime. He's a example of a gambler. He's the king of just raping Iowa, and other unimportant programs, and then evens it up a little with a blurry of calls at the end of an already decided game. In close games, the barrage of calls always benefits the more important media team. Watch that guy next year, and not just in Iowa games.
Bad officiating runs both ways. It happens because, of course, not every official is outstanding or necessarily even above average, just like poor and mediocre coaches and players. Dishonest officiating features bad calls or bad and obvious no calls that benefit only one team.
Here's a good test, easy and somewhat reliable. Watch every Iowa televised game and track the number of times the TV analysts criticize a call or no call. By the end of the Big Ten season your will find that ratio grossly disproportionate; and Iowa won't be on the top side. I'm guessing you do the same thing for Nebraska, Penn St. and Rutgers, probably Minnesota and Illinois. Then break that down by games with the important media programs and you will be stunned by the results. Those TV announcers have no skin in the game and their commentary is usually spontaneous.
When I was younger, in the days of VCR, I used to tape all the Iowa games and quite a few others. When people would take your opinion I'd bust out the tapes and play a few highlights of guys like Phil Bova and Jim Bain. Modern officiating isn't nearly as dishonest as it was back in 90s and before. The officiating became clearly more objective but its swinging back hard in a result oriented, and frequently result dispositive, direction.
"Analysts" not play by play. The color commentary guys are all ex players or coaches or both. Don't you think they have an informed opinion of officiating? Indeed, isn't the broadcast audience being frauded if the ex players or coaches or both that constitute the commentariat are unable to render opinions that are more informed than the audience watching them?
Judging from what we've seen for decades many officials (through the years) may study the hell out of the "rule book" but choose to ignore or disregard it while actually officiating. Larry Scriotto=Exhibit A
Last edited:
i think they have an opinion . i find them wrong at least 50% of the time when it comes to rules knowledge . it is also unfair for them to berate an official after a commercial and they have been reviewing it for the whole commercial . so you think larry is wrong a lot , does that mean you are a basketball official or study the rule book on a consistent basis ?
Well, please allow me to respond.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion and it certainly can differ from anyone else's. Not knowing your background, and assuming you are not a former B1G player or coach, I would find the opinions of guys like Crispin, Dakich and Bardo better informed than yours or mine. They would not only know the literal rule but also how the rules are typically enforced.
For example, if the officials wanted to literally enforce the rules a personal foul would be called at least once at each end of the court on every possession. Michigan State would DQ each game because their entire roster would foul out. So there are norms in officiating that represent a departure from the literal rule as well.
Think of it like the difference between driving 10 over and 1 over the speed limit. Unless you're driving in Windsor Heights Iowa pretty much every cop in pretty much every where else in Iowa will give you 5-9 (depending on location and circumstances) over as a kind of privilege. But they could nail you for 1 over the limit. The ex coaches and players understand those norms.
Continuing the same analogy, I'm not an electrical engineer but I can tell you if the traffic light at which the camera shows me to be looking is red, yellow or green. I'm not an accident reconstructionist but I can tell you whose at fault if I see one vehicle run through a red light and hit a vehicle that had a green light and hence the right of way. College officiating seems to be the only human endeavor in which one can avoid responsibility for some failure by claiming not to have seen what video recordings show you to be watching at the time you claimed you didn't see it. "C'mon judge, I know the traffic cam shows me looking directly at the red light when I ran through the intersection but it happened really fast so don't blame me for the T-Bone" is not a scenario you will encounter often in life.
Having said that there is a pretty broad range of discretion, just like the traffic cops, in calling the games. As I've said many times before, good officials just blend into the background-only the most fanatical of fans even learn the names unless its just from seeing the same faces over the years. Even good officials make some bad or controversial calls, but not very often and the mistakes are quickly forgotten because they won't happen again for another long while. Dishonest officials' bad calls or bad no calls go in the same direction and benefit one team. When its a foul at one end and a no call at the other, and that same double standard applies for an entire game or years of games the answer isn't incompetence, its dishonesty.
Now I may not know the exact phraseology of the NCAA rules by paragraph and subparagraph but I'm confident that there is no rule that says one player can grab another player's jersey and hold them. That is not even legal in football. I'm equally sure there's no rule that says one player can put two hands in another player's back and push them, especially like 25 feet from the basket where contact is more strictly limited. Similarly, and this is an oldie but goodie from Phil Bova, there's no rule that gives Indiana 9 seconds to inbound the ball once the count starts. When the replay shows a player holding the ball with his foot OB and the official is looking directly at that foot at that moment its a turnover not "play on".
Most of the commentary about calls is spontaneous as the events happen. Those guys might watch reruns during a commercial but you're kidding yourself if you think the commentariat's criticisms are voiced only after a leisurely review of the questionable play.
A man's wife catches him in bed with her best friend. His explanation is much like your argument: who're you going to believe, me or your lying eyes. Sometimes you have to believe what you see even if its disconcerting.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion and it certainly can differ from anyone else's. Not knowing your background, and assuming you are not a former B1G player or coach, I would find the opinions of guys like Crispin, Dakich and Bardo better informed than yours or mine. They would not only know the literal rule but also how the rules are typically enforced.
For example, if the officials wanted to literally enforce the rules a personal foul would be called at least once at each end of the court on every possession. Michigan State would DQ each game because their entire roster would foul out. So there are norms in officiating that represent a departure from the literal rule as well.
Think of it like the difference between driving 10 over and 1 over the speed limit. Unless you're driving in Windsor Heights Iowa pretty much every cop in pretty much every where else in Iowa will give you 5-9 (depending on location and circumstances) over as a kind of privilege. But they could nail you for 1 over the limit. The ex coaches and players understand those norms.
Continuing the same analogy, I'm not an electrical engineer but I can tell you if the traffic light at which the camera shows me to be looking is red, yellow or green. I'm not an accident reconstructionist but I can tell you whose at fault if I see one vehicle run through a red light and hit a vehicle that had a green light and hence the right of way. College officiating seems to be the only human endeavor in which one can avoid responsibility for some failure by claiming not to have seen what video recordings show you to be watching at the time you claimed you didn't see it. "C'mon judge, I know the traffic cam shows me looking directly at the red light when I ran through the intersection but it happened really fast so don't blame me for the T-Bone" is not a scenario you will encounter often in life.
Having said that there is a pretty broad range of discretion, just like the traffic cops, in calling the games. As I've said many times before, good officials just blend into the background-only the most fanatical of fans even learn the names unless its just from seeing the same faces over the years. Even good officials make some bad or controversial calls, but not very often and the mistakes are quickly forgotten because they won't happen again for another long while. Dishonest officials' bad calls or bad no calls go in the same direction and benefit one team. When its a foul at one end and a no call at the other, and that same double standard applies for an entire game or years of games the answer isn't incompetence, its dishonesty.
Now I may not know the exact phraseology of the NCAA rules by paragraph and subparagraph but I'm confident that there is no rule that says one player can grab another player's jersey and hold them. That is not even legal in football. I'm equally sure there's no rule that says one player can put two hands in another player's back and push them, especially like 25 feet from the basket where contact is more strictly limited. Similarly, and this is an oldie but goodie from Phil Bova, there's no rule that gives Indiana 9 seconds to inbound the ball once the count starts. When the replay shows a player holding the ball with his foot OB and the official is looking directly at that foot at that moment its a turnover not "play on".
Most of the commentary about calls is spontaneous as the events happen. Those guys might watch reruns during a commercial but you're kidding yourself if you think the commentariat's criticisms are voiced only after a leisurely review of the questionable play.
A man's wife catches him in bed with her best friend. His explanation is much like your argument: who're you going to believe, me or your lying eyes. Sometimes you have to believe what you see even if its disconcerting.
No offense but you are an idiot or a liar if you don't think there are cheating officials out there.
great response . very well said and no those 3 are not more rules knowledgeable then me .
So you're a former player or coach at the Big Ten level then? Who are you because otherwise I'm thinking a plebiscite of members would probably admit their knowledge as fans, maybe former HS players and the like is probably not quite as top shelf as the actual guys that played, coached and study the game for their jobs. The commentariat, unlike you and me, actually know the officials involved and probably their tendencies.
At the very least you outta have a BTN gig as a rules or game analyst instead of posting on a website for a few dozen guys to read if you know more than the guys they use in those positions. The guys I mentioned, well, they actually do have those jobs and that playing and/or coaching experience to inform their opinions.
You think the officiating is always upright and fair, fine. So in college basketball the coaches cheat, the players cheat, the universities cheat, the apparel companies cheat, the AAU coaches cheat but the officials universally stand alone as untouchables? That seems highly unrealistic to me, and I think most other readers and posters.
Last edited:
yes i should have a gig as a rules person . you give players and coaches way to much credit for knowing the rules . i seriously doubt the announcers know anything about the tendencies of the officials . they do probably 2 games a week and see a certain official 3 or 4 times a year . i doubt they are writing down their tendencies , big lol . i think officials make mistakes and i get frustrated just like the rest of you but i am still waiting for proof that a lot of officials cheat and by the way not everyone cheats . there are way to many people on here that think iowa gets screwed on purpose on a consistent basis , again no proof .
So you admit being serious so you are dumber than I was giving you credit for. That takes some serious talent.
I don't give players that much credit for knowing the rules. You should do a podcast from the Big Steer in Altoona, "Papa Beef, By the Pound".
I do give people engaged in a complex profession more credibility about that profession than someone not engaged in the same profession.
What would you consider proof? Most cases in all areas of the law are proven through circumstantial evidence. Are you waiting for some official, ref or executive to admit there's a game fixing scheme in the Big Ten? That will only happen if someone really is cutting a deal to escape criminal exposure for gambling.
The proof is where you see shit like MSU play 80% of a game being called for no fouls while actually committing dozens of fouls. When two Sparty defenders hit a Hawk shooting a layup and there's a ref looking right at the play, eyes on the play, and no call....that is the evidence. When an official starts the five count but holds his arm up for five more seconds after the 4th stroke, that is evidence. When an official, the gambling vermin Larry Scriotto, is looking at an Iowa player holding the ball signaling the TO and doesn't give the TO... that's evidence. As for the last play, the video also shows the Gophers fouling the hell out of Ellingson and Larry didn't see that either. The vid also shows Larry's eyes are open and directly specifically at the play so what did he see that wasn't happening?
No everyone doesn't cheat but many people and institutions do. Louisville did. That Miller guy in Arizona did. My point is cheaters exist among every other element of college sports hence it is reasonable to assume that there are also some cheaters among the refs-in part because it would be easy to do and make a ton of money while doing it.
Let's say papa beef had a frat brother who we'll call papa snake. papa beef has a plausible reason to talk to the old frat brother cuz they're still friends. six or seven of the those calls a year involve telling papa snake to put $100K on Sparty over Iowa getting 4, etc... Sparty will cover come hell or high water. Now papa beef knows that short of leaving the court before the game is over (which actually wouldn't get you fired as an official from B!G games since the B!G hired the crew the Big East fired for leaving the court before the game was over) absolutely nothing will happen when he launches the blitzkrieg on Iowa. The conference is thrilled cuz Sparty=ratings=$ and isn't particularly concerned with the gift horse's dental health. So papa beef and papa snake hook up in Cabo for the annual vacation with wives and papa beef heads el norte with $500K in big bills as his cut for rigging only ten games per year.
More eloquently put by the great Glen Frey
There's lots of shady characters, lots of dirty deals
Ev'ry name's an alias, in case somebody squeals
It's the lure of easy money, it's got a very strong appeal
Last edited:
It's easy for them to be subtle about it also. Call some ticky tack fouls on Tyler Smith or any teams top player at the start of the game. If there is money involved there will be cheating that follows the money. The officials are no different.
I was laughing at your naive ass, but now realize you are so stupid I feel sorry for you.
Don't bother hoy. Anyone that believes: (1) there are no dishonest officials and (2) the NCAA and its constituent institutions have no interest in doing anything to damage their brand in an industry in which billions of dollars change hands is easily frustrated.
There is one very simple question that is amenable to only one intelligent answer: would the NCAA and Big Ten brands gain or lose value if Iowa and Nebraska basketball permanently switched places with MSU and Michigan, the later having millions of viewers, apparel buyers, and advertisers?
never said there were no dishonest officials . i just dont think it is at the level you think it is , not even close . nice try at trying to put words in my mouth .
