Bear Down Wildcats

CalStateTempe wrote:The data is the data.

There is zero chance that the refs will be biased against UA on Saturday compared to any game at McKale for UA

PHXCATS wrote:

CalStateTempe wrote:The data is the data.

There is zero chance that the refs will be biased against UA on Saturday compared to any game at McKale for UA

Well...which is it?

There is zero chance the refs will be biased?

Or this is being compared to a home game at McKale, where, yes, refs are biased by the home crowd?

You just mixed the hell out of your message. And put upon it a qualifier that makes the initial statement pointless.

And there are no degrees you can apply to a moving score...a UA team in McKale may deserve to win by 18 but instead win by 26 due to crowd influence, then go to Oregon and deserve to win by 5 but lose by 2.

Then your mixed message is half right...on the "comparison". But damage is done.

How bout expecting refs to call what they see?

EVCat wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

CalStateTempe wrote:The data is the data.

There is zero chance that the refs will be biased against UA on Saturday compared to any game at McKale for UA

Well...which is it?

There is zero chance the refs will be biased?

Or this is being compared to a home game at McKale, where, yes, refs are biased by the home crowd?

You just mixed the hell out of your message. And put upon it a qualifier that makes the initial statement pointless.

And there are no degrees you can apply to a moving score...a UA team in McKale may deserve to win by 18 but instead win by 26 due to crowd influence, then go to Oregon and deserve to win by 5 but lose by 2.

Then your mixed message is half right...on the "comparison". But damage is done.

How bout expecting refs to call what they see?

I expect there to be zero bias. If there is, you must also at least look into the bias UA receives in its favor at McKale.

The refs dont hate Arizona. The refs dont hate Miller. Larry Scott is not out to get UA.

That the thing...I expect there to be bias among refs at McKale, just like expect there to be bias when watching duke, unc, Kansas, etc play at home. Frankly when you are that good for that long bias is a part of it, hence why people allude to mckale magic, Cameron indoor magic, phog magic is etc.

So give on that, and given that Knight arena is always a good crowd and at the seat of Nike, and then with data showing the refs ref less than standard at Eugene, how can. Not conclude that the cats might be looking at a hospital crowd and a ref crew that might be influenced in a way where we’ll play 5 on 8 for a stretch or two? Notice I’m not mentioned anything about anyone out to get Arizona, that’s something you bring to the discussion.

So using occasion razor which is more possible? That human fallible refs might have some bias in favor of Oregon in this weekends game or that a clean game will be called withholding”zero bias” in no way Jose? Especially when there is data indicating otherwise.

Kinda like that zero bias game Las Vegas where “he touched the ball” and needed a group called “ice Miller” to investigate and clear the sullied name of the PAC-12 from the big bad mean Arizona Coach, right?

Vegas never happened

Larry Scott does not care about money.

Tucson is an equal market to LA/SF/Seattle.

No bias. Never. None. How could there be?

LA games are never shown more on ESPN. The conference start times are not driven by the West Coast.

Nope. never.

Larry Scott's response to Vegas was decisive and impactful. No one ever would wonder where his mind was in that situation.

Vegas never happened...

EV, your answer is biased.

CalStateTempe wrote:That the thing...I expect there to be bias among refs at McKale, just like expect there to be bias when watching duke, unc, Kansas, etc play at home. Frankly when you are that good for that long bias is a part of it, hence why people allude to mckale magic, Cameron indoor magic, phog magic is etc.

So give on that, and given that Knight arena is always a good crowd and at the seat of Nike, and then with data showing the refs ref less than standard at Eugene, how can. Not conclude that the cats might be looking at a hospital crowd and a ref crew that might be influenced in a way where we’ll play 5 on 8 for a stretch or two? Notice I’m not mentioned anything about anyone out to get Arizona, that’s something you bring to the discussion.

So using occasion razor which is more possible? That human fallible refs might have some bias in favor of Oregon in this weekends game or that a clean game will be called withholding”zero bias” in no way Jose? Especially when there is data indicating otherwise.

Kinda like that zero bias game Las Vegas where “he touched the ball” and needed a group called “ice Miller” to investigate and clear the sullied name of the PAC-12 from the big bad mean Arizona Coach, right?

What data other than that YDF said that better refs ref games at Oregon?

IF you have data I would love to see it and I would gladly admit I was wrong.

Ice Miller is a legit law firm and yes that one ref had it out for Miller but he is gone and that is 5 freaking years ago. There is no bias against UA now, NONE.

EVCat wrote:Vegas never happened

Larry Scott does not care about money.

Tucson is an equal market to LA/SF/Seattle.

No bias. Never. None. How could there be?

LA games are never shown more on ESPN. The conference start times are not driven by the West Coast.

Nope. never.

Larry Scott's response to Vegas was decisive and impactful. No one ever would wonder where his mind was in that situation.

Vegas never happened...

Rush happened and was let go and was 5 years ago

Larry Scott cares about money for the conference, and I am glad he does

While the markets for other teams are bigger than Arizona, the best team, the best story nationally, the biggest national audience and the best outcome for the PAC-12 would be the help UA not hurt it.

ESPN chooses the games it wants based on their criteria, same with start times. Of course the teams being played in the MTZ and PTZ matters in that.

Again Rush is gone, what else should Larry have done besides step down which I wish he would have

I watch the games.

Sometimes twice when working out in the am before work.

You can agree that sample size for this data is small.

Clearly there was zero bias when jay will took a ride on Gardner’s back.

CalStateTempe wrote:I watch the games.

Sometimes twice when working out in the am before work.

You can agree that sample size for this data is small.

Clearly there was zero bias when jay will took a ride on Gardner’s back.

What about when Trier wasnt called for traveling?

You can make a bad call without being biased.

How did Rush happen?

What was the reason?

Do you think Miller stopped sending tapes? Do you think Scott was decisive in making sure it didn't happen again?

Keep on keepin' on...

Remember that time Steve Kerr double dribbled??? Huh...HUH!!!!!!????

EVCat wrote:How did Rush happen?

What was the reason?

Do you think Miller stopped sending tapes? Do you think Scott was decisive in making sure it didn't happen again?

Keep on keepin' on...

Remember that time Steve Kerr double dribbled??? Huh...HUH!!!!!!????

Rush was pissed Miller yelled or something at him after Rush gave Miller the Chen call was my understanding.

I haven't heard or seen anything to give me any concern that UA is treated unfairly since. Scott fired the guy. What else could he have possibly done besides step.down?

PHXCATS wrote:

CalStateTempe wrote:I watch the games.

Sometimes twice when working out in the am before work.

You can agree that sample size for this data is small.

Clearly there was zero bias when jay will took a ride on Gardner’s back.

What about when Trier wasnt called for traveling?

You can make a bad call without being biased.

Easy, He didn’t travel.

PHXCATS wrote:

EVCat wrote:How did Rush happen?

What was the reason?

Do you think Miller stopped sending tapes? Do you think Scott was decisive in making sure it didn't happen again?

Keep on keepin' on...

Remember that time Steve Kerr double dribbled??? Huh...HUH!!!!!!????

Rush was pissed Miller yelled or something at him after Rush gave Miller the Chen call was my understanding.

I haven't heard or seen anything to give me any concern that UA is treated unfairly since. Scott fired the guy. What else could he have possibly done besides step.down?

When there's a demonstrated instance of bias, subsequent incidents will be viewed through a different prism.

Analogy, if OJ Simpson's current girlfriend was discovered brutally stabbed to death, who would the prime suspect be?

CalStateTempe wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

CalStateTempe wrote:I watch the games.

Sometimes twice when working out in the am before work.

You can agree that sample size for this data is small.

Clearly there was zero bias when jay will took a ride on Gardner’s back.

What about when Trier wasnt called for traveling?

You can make a bad call without being biased.

Easy, He didn’t travel.

1:31:30 point. He clearly does

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

EVCat wrote:How did Rush happen?

What was the reason?

Do you think Miller stopped sending tapes? Do you think Scott was decisive in making sure it didn't happen again?

Keep on keepin' on...

Remember that time Steve Kerr double dribbled??? Huh...HUH!!!!!!????

Rush was pissed Miller yelled or something at him after Rush gave Miller the Chen call was my understanding.

I haven't heard or seen anything to give me any concern that UA is treated unfairly since. Scott fired the guy. What else could he have possibly done besides step.down?

When there's a demonstrated instance of bias, subsequent incidents will be viewed through a different prism.

Analogy, if OJ Simpson's current girlfriend was discovered brutally stabbed to death, who would the prime suspect be?

Ed Rush is gone. And please give me an example beyond a blown call here and there that Arizona is getting screwed by the conference

PHXCATS wrote:

CalStateTempe wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

CalStateTempe wrote:I watch the games.

Sometimes twice when working out in the am before work.

You can agree that sample size for this data is small.

Clearly there was zero bias when jay will took a ride on Gardner’s back.

What about when Trier wasnt called for traveling?

You can make a bad call without being biased.

Easy, He didn’t travel.

1:31:30 point. He clearly does

McKale magic. And Arizona’s pedigree deserves it for grey area calls or non calls.

CalStateTempe wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

CalStateTempe wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

CalStateTempe wrote:I watch the games.

Sometimes twice when working out in the am before work.

You can agree that sample size for this data is small.

Clearly there was zero bias when jay will took a ride on Gardner’s back.

What about when Trier wasnt called for traveling?

You can make a bad call without being biased.

Easy, He didn’t travel.

1:31:30 point. He clearly does

McKale magic. And Arizona’s pedigree deserves it for grey area calls or non calls.

McKale North magic?

So we want the bias for us but god forbid if anything goes against us, everyone is out to get us even if it is a simple blown call?

PHXCATS wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

EVCat wrote:How did Rush happen?

What was the reason?

Do you think Miller stopped sending tapes? Do you think Scott was decisive in making sure it didn't happen again?

Keep on keepin' on...

Remember that time Steve Kerr double dribbled??? Huh...HUH!!!!!!????

Rush was pissed Miller yelled or something at him after Rush gave Miller the Chen call was my understanding.

I haven't heard or seen anything to give me any concern that UA is treated unfairly since. Scott fired the guy. What else could he have possibly done besides step.down?

When there's a demonstrated instance of bias, subsequent incidents will be viewed through a different prism.

Analogy, if OJ Simpson's current girlfriend was discovered brutally stabbed to death, who would the prime suspect be?

Ed Rush is gone. And please give me an example beyond a blown call here and there that Arizona is getting screwed by the conference

YoDeFoe posted a statistical comparison on the previous page drawn from this entire season.

In addition to his stats, it's fairly easy to list off games where refs have played a major influence. I attended the Oregon game at McKale where I'd hope we were getting screwed, bc that level of incompetence being an accident is even scarier. Lonzo Ball's decisive foul being ignored vs UCLA. Utah getting crazy touch fouls this year.

Then add the scheduling, where we're clearly the consistent conference leader and don't get prime time slot priority.

When you have a demonstrated issue, subsequent actions look different. Add Yo's stats to the individual examples and where does that leave you?

And to bring it back, Yo provide at least some data and the response is “well that’s not good enough, what do you have”

Trying really hard not to make things political but as someone who uses data to guide decision making on a daily basis it is incredibly frustrating when people choose to throw out the data because it doesn’t fit their agenda/narrative.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

EVCat wrote:How did Rush happen?

What was the reason?

Do you think Miller stopped sending tapes? Do you think Scott was decisive in making sure it didn't happen again?

Keep on keepin' on...

Remember that time Steve Kerr double dribbled??? Huh...HUH!!!!!!????

Rush was pissed Miller yelled or something at him after Rush gave Miller the Chen call was my understanding.

I haven't heard or seen anything to give me any concern that UA is treated unfairly since. Scott fired the guy. What else could he have possibly done besides step.down?

When there's a demonstrated instance of bias, subsequent incidents will be viewed through a different prism.

Analogy, if OJ Simpson's current girlfriend was discovered brutally stabbed to death, who would the prime suspect be?

Ed Rush is gone. And please give me an example beyond a blown call here and there that Arizona is getting screwed by the conference

YoDeFoe posted a statistical comparison on the previous page drawn from this entire season.

In addition to his stats, it's fairly easy to list off games where refs have played a major influence. I attended the Oregon game at McKale where I'd hope we were getting screwed, bc that level of incompetence being an accident is even scarier. Lonzo Ball's decisive foul being ignored vs UCLA. Utah getting crazy touch fouls this year.

Then add the scheduling, where we're clearly the consistent conference leader and don't get prime time slot priority.

When you have a demonstrated issue, subsequent actions look different. Add Yo's stats to the individual examples and where does that leave you?

So that is just saying the refs that ref are better on a national grade than U of A. That isnt proof of wrong doing

Oregon there were bad calls for and against. The Ayton T was deserved 100%. One bad call for Ball is proof of wrong doing?

What is the problem with the scheduling?

CalStateTempe wrote:And to bring it back, Yo provide at least some data and the response is “well that’s not good enough, what do you have”

Trying really hard not to make things political but as someone who uses data to guide decision making on a daily basis it is incredibly frustrating when people choose to throw out the data because it doesn’t fit their agenda/narrative.

If you give me data that proves something I will gladly admit I was wrong. The data is just saying that Oregon has had better refs do their games on a national scale than Arizona. That is nothing to do with a bias against U of A. Unless you can tell me your line of thinking why it is, it only tells me that UA hasnt had better refs at their games and that could be due to travel concerns or a million other things.

No, YDF compared us to ASU, UCLA and Oregon. He limited it to conference olay.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:No, YDF compared us to ASU, UCLA and Oregon. He limited it to conference olay.

The scale is national ref rankings.

Bad refs rankings does not equal bias against U of A.

PHXCATS wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:No, YDF compared us to ASU, UCLA and Oregon. He limited it to conference olay.

The scale is national ref rankings.

Bad refs rankings does not equal bias against U of A.

The point is that we get refs that are significantly lower rated in our conference games. The fact the ratings are national...why does that matter?

Edit: It's like if one Pac team has the 20th best AdjO and another Pac team has the 85th best AdjO. They're national rankings, but one is obviously superior.

CalStateTempe wrote:EV, your answer is biased.

Damn straight it is.

I was also biased in favor (theoretically, due to not existing at the time) of the allies...but it didn't mean the axis didn't exist.

Or to modernize...just because you're paranoid don't mean they're not after you...

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:No, YDF compared us to ASU, UCLA and Oregon. He limited it to conference olay.

The scale is national ref rankings.

Bad refs rankings does not equal bias against U of A.

The point is that we get refs that are significantly lower rated in our conference games. The fact the ratings are national...why does that matter?

Edit: It's like if one Pac team has the 20th best AdjO and another Pac team has the 85th best AdjO. They're national rankings, but one is obviously superior.

So asu has had an average of 90 in national rankings of refs. UA has had 96. How many PAC-12 refs are ranked between 91-95?

PHXCATS wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:No, YDF compared us to ASU, UCLA and Oregon. He limited it to conference olay.

The scale is national ref rankings.

Bad refs rankings does not equal bias against U of A.

The point is that we get refs that are significantly lower rated in our conference games. The fact the ratings are national...why does that matter?

Edit: It's like if one Pac team has the 20th best AdjO and another Pac team has the 85th best AdjO. They're national rankings, but one is obviously superior.

So asu has had an average of 90 in national rankings of refs. UA has had 96. How many PAC-12 refs are ranked between 91-95?

Oregon is 50 and UCLA is 70. Stop cherry picking.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:No, YDF compared us to ASU, UCLA and Oregon. He limited it to conference olay.

The scale is national ref rankings.

Bad refs rankings does not equal bias against U of A.

The point is that we get refs that are significantly lower rated in our conference games. The fact the ratings are national...why does that matter?

Edit: It's like if one Pac team has the 20th best AdjO and another Pac team has the 85th best AdjO. They're national rankings, but one is obviously superior.

So asu has had an average of 90 in national rankings of refs. UA has had 96. How many PAC-12 refs are ranked between 91-95?

Oregon is 50 and UCLA is 70. Stop cherry picking.

How many are between 51-95? I bet not too many

PHXCATS wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:
The scale is national ref rankings.

Bad refs rankings does not equal bias against U of A.

The point is that we get refs that are significantly lower rated in our conference games. The fact the ratings are national...why does that matter?

Edit: It's like if one Pac team has the 20th best AdjO and another Pac team has the 85th best AdjO. They're national rankings, but one is obviously superior.

So asu has had an average of 90 in national rankings of refs. UA has had 96. How many PAC-12 refs are ranked between 91-95?

Oregon is 50 and UCLA is 70. Stop cherry picking.

How many are between 51-95? I bet not too many

Why would it matter? If you're not convinced that a 46 and 26 spot gap is a significant qualitative gap, you won't he convinced by additional evidence.

Here's a quick way to demonstrate the impact of a 26 or 46 point national gap. We are the #14 team in the nation in a poll. Are we better than the #40 or #60 team nationally?

When you try to parse data that bad, it's because you don't want to find the truth.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
Why would it matter? If you're not convinced that a 46 and 26 spot gap is a significant qualitative gap, you won't he convinced by additional evidence.

Here's a quick way to demonstrate the impact of a 26 or 46 point national gap. We are the #14 team in the nation in a poll. Are we better than the #40 or #60 team nationally?

When you try to parse data that bad, it's because you don't want to find the truth.

Because the PAC-12 has to use PAC-12 refs. Not any refs from anywhere in the country they want.

Lets say the PAC-12 has the top 5 refs ranked nationally at 8, 26, 55, 80 and 140. If in a two game span team a has refs 1,2,4 for game 1 and game 2 is 1, 3, 4. That is an average of 43. If team b has refs 1, 3, 4 in game 1 and 1, 2 and 5 in game 2 that is an average of 53. There is only 1 ref difference in the conference rankings in one of the two games but a difference of 10 spots in the national rankings. This can be easily changed by just one person in the rankings who is only one person different in conference.

PHXCATS wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
Why would it matter? If you're not convinced that a 46 and 26 spot gap is a significant qualitative gap, you won't he convinced by additional evidence.

Here's a quick way to demonstrate the impact of a 26 or 46 point national gap. We are the #14 team in the nation in a poll. Are we better than the #40 or #60 team nationally?

When you try to parse data that bad, it's because you don't want to find the truth.

Because the PAC-12 has to use PAC-12 refs. Not any refs from anywhere in the country they want.

Lets say the PAC-12 has the top 5 refs ranked nationally at 8, 26, 55, 80 and 140. If in a two game span team a has refs 1,2,4 for game 1 and game 2 is 1, 3, 4. That is an average of 43. If team b has refs 1, 3, 4 in game 1 and 1, 2 and 5 in game 2 that is an average of 53. There is only 1 ref difference in the conference rankings in one of the two games but a difference of 10 spots in the national rankings. This can be easily changed by just one person in the rankings who is only one person different in conference.

Jeez. First off, we're through 14 Pac games. Increased sample size decreases individual variability.

Then, you're picking numbers out of a hat.

Third, you're limiting refs to only 5. The Pac needs as many as 18 per week, not counting off weeks, alternates, etc. Increased sample size of refs also decreases variability significantly.

I'm not saying "Refs are out to get us!"

I'm definitely saying "we're not getting as good of refs at our conference home games as the other top programs in the conference."

I have no clue if that's a problem out of Arizona Athletics or out of the Pac-12 office. We can try to infer or deduce or just guess the reason, but we're getting the short end of the stick in terms of quality refs.

And my ultimate point is that bad refs make bad calls and they can make for really shitty games. We're getting worse refs than the rest of the conference, and no it's not just "one person" making all the difference in the calculations. There were 18 - 21 refs considered for each team across their six or seven conf home games.

Maybe I'll run this for the last three seasons and see if there is any correlation (then we can really bitch about it). Back to my real job for now.

Edit: yeah, what Spiff said.

PHXCATS also completely ignores all the abuse Ayton has taken, with no foul calls.

Again, doesn't support his narrative. COMPLETELY anecdotal, right?

catgrad97 wrote:PHXCATS also completely ignores all the abuse Ayton has taken, with no foul calls.

Again, doesn't support his narrative. COMPLETELY anecdotal, right?

I watch every game and I don't see this at all but feel free to show me up clips and I w illl gladly review further

PHXCATS wrote:

catgrad97 wrote:PHXCATS also completely ignores all the abuse Ayton has taken, with no foul calls.

Again, doesn't support his narrative. COMPLETELY anecdotal, right?

I watch every game and I don't see this at all but feel free to show me up clips and I w illl gladly review further

Yes, I am quite sure finding video clips to try and convert your opinion ranks very highly on the list of things he wants to prioritize at the moment.

Because we all are yearning for you to validate our opinions on Arizona Basketball.

You are certainly one of a kind if nothing else, Machina. Then again, so was Ben Lindsey.

PHXCATS wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
Why would it matter? If you're not convinced that a 46 and 26 spot gap is a significant qualitative gap, you won't he convinced by additional evidence.

Here's a quick way to demonstrate the impact of a 26 or 46 point national gap. We are the #14 team in the nation in a poll. Are we better than the #40 or #60 team nationally?

When you try to parse data that bad, it's because you don't want to find the truth.

Because the PAC-12 has to use PAC-12 refs. Not any refs from anywhere in the country they want.

Lets say the PAC-12 has the top 5 refs ranked nationally at 8, 26, 55, 80 and 140. If in a two game span team a has refs 1,2,4 for game 1 and game 2 is 1, 3, 4. That is an average of 43. If team b has refs 1, 3, 4 in game 1 and 1, 2 and 5 in game 2 that is an average of 53. There is only 1 ref difference in the conference rankings in one of the two games but a difference of 10 spots in the national rankings. This can be easily changed by just one person in the rankings who is only one person different in conference.

I just love your hypothetical examples... Do world a favor and if the GMAT or LSAT test writers ever contact you requesting your input - do not return their call.

PHXCATS wrote:

CalStateTempe wrote:And to bring it back, Yo provide at least some data and the response is “well that’s not good enough, what do you have”

Trying really hard not to make things political but as someone who uses data to guide decision making on a daily basis it is incredibly frustrating when people choose to throw out the data because it doesn’t fit their agenda/narrative.

If you give me data that proves something I will gladly admit I was wrong. The data is just saying that Oregon has had better refs do their games on a national scale than Arizona. That is nothing to do with a bias against U of A. Unless you can tell me your line of thinking why it is, it only tells me that UA hasnt had better refs at their games and that could be due to travel concerns or a million other things.

I agree with your general premise that "ref bias against UA" is overblown on this board, but your inability to draw coherent arguments supported by causation (or even correlation) is mind-boggling.

You need to take coursework in cause & effect, the differences between assumptions and facts, and variables vs constants.

YoDeFoe wrote:I'm not saying "Refs are out to get us!"

I'm definitely saying "we're not getting as good of refs at our conference home games as the other top programs in the conference."

I have no clue if that's a problem out of Arizona Athletics or out of the Pac-12 office. We can try to infer or deduce or just guess the reason, but we're getting the short end of the stick in terms of quality refs.

And my ultimate point is that bad refs make bad calls and they can make for really shitty games. We're getting worse refs than the rest of the conference, and no it's not just "one person" making all the difference in the calculations. There were 18 - 21 refs considered for each team across their six or seven conf home games.

Maybe I'll run this for the last three seasons and see if there is any correlation (then we can really bitch about it). Back to my real job for now.

Edit: yeah, what Spiff said.

What I'd add to that is when you view your data through the previous issue we had with Rush, the vacation bonus and Miller's fine, you can understand why fans are suspicious. When statistical data say we get worse refs, we see poor reffing consistently, calls go against us when they shouldn't and you look at all that through the prism of the previous scandal...

I think it's an embarassment to the conference that fans could reach that conclusion from a documented incident and statistical data. We should at least have to resort to wild conspiracy theories like #pizzagate, the Deep State or a vast right wing conspiracy. There shouldn't be actual cold evidence of bias and lasting disparity.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:I'm not saying "Refs are out to get us!"

I'm definitely saying "we're not getting as good of refs at our conference home games as the other top programs in the conference."

I have no clue if that's a problem out of Arizona Athletics or out of the Pac-12 office. We can try to infer or deduce or just guess the reason, but we're getting the short end of the stick in terms of quality refs.

And my ultimate point is that bad refs make bad calls and they can make for really shitty games. We're getting worse refs than the rest of the conference, and no it's not just "one person" making all the difference in the calculations. There were 18 - 21 refs considered for each team across their six or seven conf home games.

Maybe I'll run this for the last three seasons and see if there is any correlation (then we can really bitch about it). Back to my real job for now.

Edit: yeah, what Spiff said.

What I'd add to that is when you view your data through the previous issue we had with Rush, the vacation bonus and Miller's fine, you can understand why fans are suspicious. When statistical data say we get worse refs, we see poor reffing consistently, calls go against us when they shouldn't and you look at all that through the prism of the previous scandal...

I think it's an embarassment to the conference that fans could reach that conclusion from a documented incident and statistical data. We should at least have to resort to wild conspiracy theories like #pizzagate, the Deep State or a vast right wing conspiracy. There shouldn't be actual cold evidence of bias and lasting disparity.

Rush was fired. What else do you want? I bet you that if you gave me all the calls you feel went against UA that were bad calls I can find within 2 plus or minus bad calls that went for UA.

Now should the pac12 spread it's ranked in kenpom's rankings around better sure I can get behind that. I think every ref should ref X number and only X number of games for each team if that is possible.

Do you think the refs bias which isn't there has cost UA games? What seeding would UA get in the NCAA if the refs weren't out to get us?

Again there is nothing in any stats that prove UA is having bias against it that is hurting the team. Just because the refs aren't as ranked as high on Ken pom's rankings on a national scale does not mean bias. How do you know that per the PAC12's rankings of refs we aren't getting better ones?

PHXCATS wrote:
Ed Rush is gone. And please give me an example beyond a blown call here and there that Arizona is getting screwed by the conference

Just one? The offensive foul call on Trier at the end of the Stanford game....

But, then again...the entire end of the Stanford game.

About 25% of the fouls called on Ayton. About 50% of the fouls not called when Ayton is fouled.

Forget Ed T and the clear fact Larry Scott does not particularly care for our program and we let him know we do not care for him every chance we get. Forget the inherent bias of start times for west coast schools when playing mountain time schools, or the population thing. If you can...they can't, but OK...tabula rasa. Memory gone.

Do you really think the FBI thing does not play into the minds of officials who have not taken the time to really know what is going on here? Do you think that refs are robots that don't favor the style of some coaches, or some programs, or see Stanford as a shiny beacon of Student-Athleticism and possibly now view us as a cheating bunch of mercenaries? Do you REALLY think that doesn't play into ref's minds? If so, you have never reffed. I don't know about last year...I would suspect the people who were a part of Vegas still hold grudges, but that aside, fading over years...do you really think refs don't think like Tad Boyle?

I am loathe to blame officiating for losses. End game mistakes that cannot be overcome, and clear patterns of mistakes that lead to reduced personnel are the only times I go to that card. And we have seen it this year in ways I cannot ignore, and I can only think of one reason, because Miller really does not ride refs other than on singular mistakes.

Harvey Specter wrote:...but your inability to draw coherent arguments supported by causation (or even correlation) is mind-boggling.

You need to take coursework in cause & effect, the differences between assumptions and facts, and variables vs constants.

This is the single best wrap of of Mach/PhxC that I've ever read. He's a big fan & I honestly believe he means well but all of this above.

Are we going to have to rename this thread "2017-2018...The Final Year of Arizona Basketball"?

If the goes down, who is on the AD short list?

Also is this anything a national chipper can solve?

Trier out again wtf. Failed another test

Way to go Trier. Way to go everyone. Like Arizona I am hopefully Allonzo will regain his eligibility soon

CatHoops wrote:Trier out again wtf. Failed another test

Why are we always cursed ? Feel terrible for Trier. It’s the same shit that never left his system from 2016 obviously.

He can’t possibly be dumb enough to ingest same substance again. Especially trace amounts.

PennZona20 wrote:Why are we always cursed ? Feel terrible for Trier. It’s the same shit that never left his system from 2016 obviously.

He can’t possibly be dumb enough to ingest same substance again. Especially trace amounts.

Hopefully they will test every day again and when it is out of his system like before he can play again.