Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
The point about conspiricy is that if the teams were reversed, they wouldn't be pitching such a fit. Just like the media has a favored political party, there are "favored" conferences/teams. When a BCS conference team gets the short end of a controversial decision, it's a outrage. When a non-BCS conference team gets the same, it gets mentioned (maybe) and passes.  Or they'be be saying...but look how high he threw it....you simply can't ignore that. The refs are neutral, the media has favorites. |
I do not think it has anything to do with the media picking favorites. I think it has to do with the media is ignorant about how officials make decisions and the possible consequences to those decisions. I was watching 1st and 10 on ESPN just a few minutes ago and one of the individuals suggested that the officials ignore the rule and eat the flag. Now what people like that do not know, if an official ignores this call that has been beat into their head all summer and during meetings, then they might not have a job for a few games and could lead to being released at the end of the season. Just like in politics, when people do not understand all the elements of a group of people, you have sports commentators that run off at the mouth about things they do not understand. It is a lot harder to go find out the facts than just spout off about it. The same applies in this situation and the same applies in this political campaign. And it also does not help when you have people talking about these things that have no background in those areas. And the last I checked I have not seen a commentator in sports have an officiating background. I also do not see many political commentators have the background of the people or issues they are trying to cover either. Saying they have favorites is too simplistic.
Peace