First, at least in court proof of common design or conspiracy is accomplished through proving a chain of circumstances that lead to a specific conclusion of guilt or the lack of guilt. Please let me know if you had some other meaning of "proof".
Had I the energy I would walk you down a 40 year memory lane of circumstances, and not by any means confined to Iowa. I'll use an example from football. Maybe two or possibly three seasons ago in football there was a moment on 4th and 1. I think I converts they win. Iowa executes perfectly on the line. No visible motion on the Iowa. Not a single move by anyone on the Purdue line but one Purdue lineman who very clearly jumps offside. The call was Motion on Iowa. Reviewed, motion on Iowa. No one, especially the guys looking down the line, could have possibly seen Iowa move because no one did or even appeared to do. It was glaringly obvious because no one else from Purdue moved either. Dead ball, on super slow replay with an unimpeded view down the line of scrimmage. That is the reality of what the officials saw. The replay guy could see it unfold in slo mo.
No where else in life can a person perform their job by pretending to not see things happening before their own eyes. Any explanation would require the reader to ignore the actual reality the reader saw with his own eyes.
Since we really do not operate on multiple planes of existence and there really aren't many coincidences only two explanations are possible. Either the Big Ten officials and the replay official did not recognize an obvious defensive offside or they recognized it but did throw a flag, and then confirmed the call. The former is grossly negligent since that's probably the easiest call in football. The B!G retains the same officials, especially for the BBall refs, for decades. So the B!G must must approve the results of the nationally ridiculed Big Ten officiating because they do nothing to fix the obviously bad officiating. Schools like Iowa that rocked the boat got a generation of colo-rectal surgery from the officials. Kind of mixed sports since the football officiating is more professional and competent than BBall counterparts. But the point is the same. One simply cannot see something that did not happen.
Or, if you're more darkly cynical, like me, you also see a league willing to indulge gamblers as long as the standings are more or less preferred by the league. Maybe find a couple games to work in an official that knows how the season is supposed to finish. After a couple of decades the gambling and a few stooge officials willing to reliably maintain the long term Big Ten order without the necessity of being expressly told to do so becomes the company's cultural norm. It self replicates as Big Ten leadership changes. The older officials identify new guys that will sing whatever you want, for money. Nobody is rocking the boat as long as the revenue continues at the pace and amount it has been increasingly providing.
How much money changes hands every college Saturday from just gambling? Billions, right? As for your rule followers statement, I think you'll find the virtuous demo, never a common personality trait, always shrinks in linear relationship to the amount of money in play. Big time college athletics wets many beaks, providing a powerful incentive to sit down and avoid boat rocking for those involved.
So the existence of excellent, faithful and honest officials in no way negates the simultaneous existence of a different set of the vindictive assholes and gamblers. Both groups exist. Always have, always will. That is the nature of life as I think you inadvertently conceded when you wrote "there are still people" "that follow the rules". You are right, there are still "some" (unknown number/%) people that follow the rules, leaving space for a very great many who do not. You don't need the full circus just a few gamblers and stooges to execute the corporate revenue model.
A common endeavor to fix outcomes would be provable if anyone ever actually wanted to find a way to sue and get discovery. I cannot think of a theory by which anyone could actually obtain standing but the discovery would be fun. Decades of game tape you'd get paid to watch.
Had I the energy I would walk you down a 40 year memory lane of circumstances, and not by any means confined to Iowa. I'll use an example from football. Maybe two or possibly three seasons ago in football there was a moment on 4th and 1. I think I converts they win. Iowa executes perfectly on the line. No visible motion on the Iowa. Not a single move by anyone on the Purdue line but one Purdue lineman who very clearly jumps offside. The call was Motion on Iowa. Reviewed, motion on Iowa. No one, especially the guys looking down the line, could have possibly seen Iowa move because no one did or even appeared to do. It was glaringly obvious because no one else from Purdue moved either. Dead ball, on super slow replay with an unimpeded view down the line of scrimmage. That is the reality of what the officials saw. The replay guy could see it unfold in slo mo.
No where else in life can a person perform their job by pretending to not see things happening before their own eyes. Any explanation would require the reader to ignore the actual reality the reader saw with his own eyes.
Since we really do not operate on multiple planes of existence and there really aren't many coincidences only two explanations are possible. Either the Big Ten officials and the replay official did not recognize an obvious defensive offside or they recognized it but did throw a flag, and then confirmed the call. The former is grossly negligent since that's probably the easiest call in football. The B!G retains the same officials, especially for the BBall refs, for decades. So the B!G must must approve the results of the nationally ridiculed Big Ten officiating because they do nothing to fix the obviously bad officiating. Schools like Iowa that rocked the boat got a generation of colo-rectal surgery from the officials. Kind of mixed sports since the football officiating is more professional and competent than BBall counterparts. But the point is the same. One simply cannot see something that did not happen.
Or, if you're more darkly cynical, like me, you also see a league willing to indulge gamblers as long as the standings are more or less preferred by the league. Maybe find a couple games to work in an official that knows how the season is supposed to finish. After a couple of decades the gambling and a few stooge officials willing to reliably maintain the long term Big Ten order without the necessity of being expressly told to do so becomes the company's cultural norm. It self replicates as Big Ten leadership changes. The older officials identify new guys that will sing whatever you want, for money. Nobody is rocking the boat as long as the revenue continues at the pace and amount it has been increasingly providing.
How much money changes hands every college Saturday from just gambling? Billions, right? As for your rule followers statement, I think you'll find the virtuous demo, never a common personality trait, always shrinks in linear relationship to the amount of money in play. Big time college athletics wets many beaks, providing a powerful incentive to sit down and avoid boat rocking for those involved.
So the existence of excellent, faithful and honest officials in no way negates the simultaneous existence of a different set of the vindictive assholes and gamblers. Both groups exist. Always have, always will. That is the nature of life as I think you inadvertently conceded when you wrote "there are still people" "that follow the rules". You are right, there are still "some" (unknown number/%) people that follow the rules, leaving space for a very great many who do not. You don't need the full circus just a few gamblers and stooges to execute the corporate revenue model.
A common endeavor to fix outcomes would be provable if anyone ever actually wanted to find a way to sue and get discovery. I cannot think of a theory by which anyone could actually obtain standing but the discovery would be fun. Decades of game tape you'd get paid to watch.
Last edited:
