NCAA football, 2013-14

[Valmy]

Oh c'mon man!  They won 13 Big XII championships in all sports! 







I mean...Iowa State won more, but

And that is counting their freaking Big 12 north titles.  I mean seriously they were the biggest losers in the Big 12, the fact they are winning shit in the SEC just amuses and baffles me.  So much for the SEC being superior.

[MadBurgerMaker]

I think it was like 7 "real" championships.  Scrub bottomfeeders. 

A&M, on the other hand, has settled in in pretty much the exact same place they always seemed to be.

[alfred russel]

Here is a better article exploring referee bias than the first one that came up that I linked to before.

http://www.oregonlive.com/nba/index.ssf/2009/06/professors_nba_officating_stud.html

[Berkut]

Here is a better article exploring referee bias than the first one that came up that I linked to before.

http://www.oregonlive.com/nba/index.ssf/2009/06/professors_nba_officating_stud.html

I've read that one before. It is...interesting.

It is notable that it has never been published, did not survive any peer review, and its findings are rather tame. They pretty much amount to the fact that if we assume the study is 100% correct (a stretch to say the least), there is very, very mild bias amongst officials towards the team that is losing. Shrug. Not terribly surprising. In fact, I can state pretty unequivocally that there is very much a sense of "don't pile on" when it comes to blow out games, and certainly it is the case that if a team is getting creamed, I am probably not that inclined to calling a marginal travel on them.

I guess maybe that is "bias", I think it is more a matter of game management.

It speaks absolutely nothing to your claim that conference officials favor their own conference when officiating out of conference games though.

This is like accusing someone of habitual hit and run, and using as evidence a study that shows that every now and again the person drives faster than the speed limit.

[alfred russel]

I'm not aware of any studies examining bias in out of conference college football games.

I'm suspicious because:
a) there is a very obvious conflict of interest,
b) people in the sport have openly expressed concern about the conflict of interest to the extent that actions have been taken,
c) my sense watching the games is that there is sometimes bias,
d) During the past ~10 years, I can think of 3 cases where egregious officiating affected the end of really important games:
         -FSU-Florida in Gainesville from about 10 years ago
         -that Oklahoma - Oregon game
         -ASU - Wisconsin this year
In each case, it was an interconference game and the calls went in favor of the team with the officials. Maybe that is coincidence. I am probably forgetting a bunch of examples of horrible officiating anyway. But this is my impression.
e) I've never heard of a major team being indifferent to the conference of the officials showing up. Ie, lets just use conference x officials for all the games. It implicitly indicates that it matters, even though presumably a conference could save money by letting other conferences pick up all their games.

[MadImmortalMan]

Anyone here believe Ohio State could win against Auburn?

Flip a coin.

[Admiral Yi]

a) there is a very obvious conflict of interest,

How so?  Refs don't get paid more if "their" teams win. 

[Berkut]

I'm not aware of any studies examining bias in out of conference college football games.

I'm suspicious because:
a) there is a very obvious conflict of interest,

This is false. Refs get nothing more if the team from the conference that employes them wins, and lose a LOT if there is ever a perception among those who assign games that an official is not fair. Remember, officials usually work for more than one conference, and bowl games are assigned by the NCAA. There is a LOT to lose by any suggestion that an official is tryiing to throw things one way or another.

b) people in the sport have openly expressed concern about the conflict of interest to the extent that actions have been taken,

Unlike officials, almost everyone associated with college athletics has clear and obvious bias, and hence are largely not trustworthy arbiters of the issue. However, if you talk to the people who do not have said vested interest, I bet they would opine that the idea that officials make calls in favor of one conference over another is ludicrous. Talk to coordinators of officials, or Rogers Redding.

c) my sense watching the games is that there is sometimes bias,

You are a fan, and are incredibly biased, uninformed, and largely ignorant of how games are officiated from a mechanical and philosophical perspective. You would not no bias if someone beat you about the head and shoulders with it. Seriously, listening to fans say stuff like this is like being an astro-phycisist and listening to someone "prove" that the moon landings are a hoax.

d) During the past ~10 years, I can think of 3 cases where egregious officiating affected the end of really important games:

Only three? Really?

         -FSU-Florida in Gainesville from about 10 years ago
         -that Oklahoma - Oregon game
         -ASU - Wisconsin this year
In each case, it was an interconference game and the calls went in favor of the team with the officials. Maybe that is coincidence. I am probably forgetting a bunch of examples of horrible officiating anyway. But this is my impression.

I agree that this is your impression.

e) I've never heard of a major team being indifferent to the conference of the officials showing up. Ie, lets just use conference x officials for all the games. It implicitly indicates that it matters, even though presumably a conference could save money by letting other conferences pick up all their games.

And yet this is generally not a real bone of contention among conferences, and in fact is almost always agreed in a perfectly amicable manner, because the people who actually make the decisions (the ADs and conference coordinators) know that in fact this is simply a non-issue in actual reality.

To the extent that it is a legitimate concern, it is more about relationships, communication, and conference tendencies and how games are officiated than it is about any idea that some team is going to get screwed because the other conferences officials are going to job them in some way so secret even the officials involved won't know how they do it.

[sbr]

Pac-xx officials have been terrible for a long time.  Incompetence is a much easier explanation than corruption.

The real problem, as I see it, is that the Pac XX teams won't play unless with Pac XX officials.  When UCLA comes to play Michigan, Michigan has to hire Pac XX officials and pay to bring them to Ann Arbor.  I don't think that that applies to bowl games any more, but all the Rose Bowls for a long time were officiated by Pac 10 officials, reporting to the Pac 10 Head of officials, who worked for the conference commissioner.  You gotta wonder if that played on their minds.

This doesn't sound right to me.  Do you have any evidence or sources this is true?

[alfred russel]

a) there is a very obvious conflict of interest,

How so?  Refs don't get paid more if "their" teams win.

They are paid and evaluated by one of the two entities represented in the contest. Do you really not see a conflict of interest there?

[alfred russel]

Only three? Really?

I named 3 important interconference games that went for the conference with the officials in the last 10 years after egregious decisions.

Surely you can name some that went against the conference with the officials, and a huge number of intraconference games during that time period.

I'll wait for you to do this.

[Berkut]

Only three? Really?

I named 3 important interconference games that went for the conference with the officials in the last 10 years after egregious decisions.

Surely you can name some that went against the conference with the officials, and a huge number of intraconference games during that time period.

I'll wait for you to do this.

Why would I do that?

If the best you can come up with is 3 examples in ten years, and when pressed don't have any idea how they could actually be influenced in the manner you claim beyond some secret bias so secret even the officials involved aren't aware they are biased, I am pretty comfortable concluding you are just another fan who thinks they know anything about officiating, but of course does not.

So keep on waiting.

[Valmy]

Great AR comes into this thread finally but then ruins it with long and tedious ref discussions. 

[Berkut]

a) there is a very obvious conflict of interest,

How so?  Refs don't get paid more if "their" teams win.

They are paid and evaluated by one of the two entities represented in the contest. Do you really not see a conflict of interest there?

They are paid by the conference one of the enitities belongs to, and they are evaluated (and their livelihoo and ability to continue being paid) by many, many conferences, and people (NCAA) not associated with the conference.

Further, you've provided no reason to believe that the people who actually pay them and evaluate them within the conference would have any desire to have their officials cheat on their behalf - what incentive would the Pac-12 director of officials have to encourage their officials to cheat and try to influence the outcome of a game that could possibly be greater than the incredible negative perception that such cheating would certainly create?

How, in your mind, does this cheating occur? How does the Pac-12 let their officials know that they ought to be cheating on behalf of the conference? Do they send a memo? Do you think all the officials are in on it, or just a few? If in fact there is a perception amongst officials, and there must be SOME perception of SOME kind if it rises to the level of influencing calls as you are claiming, how is that perception reinforced do you think? When officials get their game evaluations, do you imagine the Pac-12 director of officials lets them know that calls against the Pac-12 teams are going to be more criticized as such?

What are the actual, practical means by which this conspiracy to cheat is executed, whether it be overt or not overt? Your claim is that the bias is so extreme that it actually effects the outcome of games enough to make a difference. There must be some actual means by which this is happening then, right?

[Berkut]

Great AR comes into this thread finally but then ruins it with long and tedious ref discussions. 

Ref discussions are never tedious!

OK, actually ref discussions with fans who think they know anything about officiating and don't want to actually learn are rather pointless...