Trouble Bruin in the Pac-12 - & it Ain't UCLA!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

There's a big distinction between instructing your staff to take certain actions and what Rush said, joking or not. It was over the top.

Again, I personally don't have a problem with what Rush said but once it became public, he had to go.

I'm going to assume that most other supervisors are not going to put themselves in the same position. Rush could have gotten his point across in a much better way. Sucks that there was a rat in the room but that's life.

And I don't think the public is really overreacting here. Sometimes perception is reality and it's a bitch.

If he wanted to resign then I am OK with that. It is not like he had been there long to warrant him staying. I am just saying that right or wrong supervisors make points and often make points in different ways. Some use humor. Some are vague and some are very specific. I have been to many camps where supervisors and clinicians are very direct and use language the public would be "outraged" by if they heard in or out of a college conference. And I think what tells it all is that someone went to the media which appears because he was upset of his standing. A loyal person would not have done that or would have kept his issues in-house. Because if the Pac-12 was about transparency, they would give the public the reports on why Miller was T'd and the correspondence as well. But they are not going to do that anytime soon, because it is easy to scapegoat the officials and not the coach that may have acted inappropriately.

Peace

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If he wanted to resign then I am OK with that. It is not like he had been there long to warrant him staying. I am just saying that right or wrong supervisors make points and often make points in different ways. Some use humor. Some are vague and some are very specific. I have been to many camps where supervisors and clinicians are very direct and use language the public would be "outraged" by if they heard in or out of a college conference. And I think what tells it all is that someone went to the media which appears because he was upset of his standing. A loyal person would not have done that or would have kept his issues in-house. Because if the Pac-12 was about transparency, they would give the public the reports on why Miller was T'd and the correspondence as well. But they are not going to do that anytime soon, because it is easy to scapegoat the officials and not the coach that may have acted inappropriately.

Peace

I don't disagree with any of that.

I've heard all kinds of colorful comments behind closed doors as well. And I'm the type of person who enjoys them.

But sometimes colorful comments can go wrong when they fall on the wrong ears. Unfortunately for Rush, he had a rat in the room.

The bottom line is that Rush repeatedly targeted a coach in his comments repeatedly and then that coach gets his first T of the year and only the 2nd T for any coach in the BCS conference tournys and rightly or wrongly, that T is going to be scrutinized.

And when that scrutiny publicly leads to calling into question the integrity and impartiality of the officials then I think there was no other result but for Rush to go.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I don't disagree with any of that.

I've heard all kinds of colorful comments behind closed doors as well. And I'm the type of person who enjoys them.

But sometimes colorful comments can go wrong when they fall on the wrong ears. Unfortunately for Rush, he had a rat in the room.

The bottom line is that Rush repeatedly targeted a coach in his comments repeatedly and then that coach gets his first T of the year and only the 2nd T for any coach in the BCS conference tournys and rightly or wrongly, that T is going to be scrutinized.

And when that scrutiny publicly leads to calling into question the integrity and impartiality of the officials then I think there was no other result but for Rush to go.

All true and someone will find out who that "rat" is and people will not trust that person either. Even doing what you feel is right can have consequence. It would be one thing is the comment was taken seriously and the T was totally unwarranted, but there is a way to prove that and the Pac-12 did not see much to the claim as I am sure Miller was told why he got the T. You notice he is not talking about that much? Maybe he is not talking because he would be exposed for what he really did and said and the other events in the game.

Also keep in mind that it is very possible that other coaches and programs complained about the treatment of other coaches. Arizona most of the year was highly ranked and I would not be surprised that other coaches that did get Ts or were reprimanded might have pointed to the top program's leader as an example. I would not be surprised if Rush's comments about Miller were a culmination of other correspondence to Rush and he tried to get a point across in another way. I guess I am a realist, I just never think a supervisor makes these comments without some provocation in their role. Rush had a boss to listen to as well.

Peace

[dahoopref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You notice he is not talking about that much? Maybe he is not talking because he would be exposed for what he really did and said and the other events in the game.

Peace

I know for a fact that Miller was fined for what he did & said to someone as he stepped off the podium after the press conference.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

I know for a fact that Miller was fined for what he did & said to someone as he stepped off the podium after the press conference.

Are you saying he was not fined (only) for his comments about the T in the press conference?

Peace

[dahoopref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Are you saying he was not fined (only) for his comments about the T in the press conference?

Peace

From what I was told, he was fined not for his comments but what he did & said to a person after the press conference in front of some higher-ups from the conference office. It might be the reason why Miller hasn't said much about being fined.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

From what I was told, he was fined not for his comments but what he did & said to a person after the press conference in front of some higher-ups from the conference office. It might be the reason why Miller hasn't said much about being fined.

Gotcha.

Peace

[Blindolbat]

Seems like Rush is taking all the heat and in my opinion he deserves it. I wonder why the ref that called the T isn't receiving just as much. Is he? I mean essentially people are saying that he called a T to get $5k. Does he make it through this unscathed?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Blindolbat

Seems like Rush is taking all the heat and in my opinion he deserves it. I wonder why the ref that called the T isn't receiving just as much. Is he? I mean essentially people are saying that he called a T to get $5k. Does he make it through this unscathed?

People who claim they want integrity really do not know what that means. They are outraged, but only focus on a comment, but not the other complicated elements of this or any issue. I have said this before, Sports Journalism is probably the laziest of all Journalism on the planet.

Peace

[OKREF]

Never mind.

[whistlemania]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

People who claim they want integrity really do not know what that means. They are outraged, but only focus on a comment, but not the other complicated elements of this or any issue. I have said this before, Sports Journalism is probably the laziest of all Journalism on the planet.

Peace

You've hit on an important issue to this whole debacle of 'integrity'. The Ed Rush saga isn't just about what was said in a room to a group of officials and then having those comments misappropriated by an overzealous official--that happens in every association across America hundreds of times a year, if not more. This whole outburst was about power within the conference--specifically coaches power and how that power translates to who works games and how they work games. Under Rush me thinks the coaches had lost that power and that leads to scary times for a fraternity that has long enjoyed such power. That is why the whole issue of integrity as it pertains to officials based on these comments by Ed Rush laughable in context to a much larger problem of the integrity of officiating programs that are influenced by Coaches that TARGET (to use the hot word of the debate) officials via scratch lists either explicitly (associations or conferences that still allow literal scratch lists) or implicitly through the very real power that coaches throw around behind closed doors. If anyone doesn't think that Coach K, Bobby Knight, Digger Phelps, Dean Smith, Roy Williams, Bill Self, etc etc etc don't have weight that they throw around behind closed doors about officials that they don't like and therefore conveniently don't get due to the weakness of conferences they or you are either naive or complicit. Ed Rush's background as an NBA official, where assignments are made based on a much different systematic approach, came with concerns from the get go amongst coaches and 'veteran officials' alike. A whole generation of officials had finally made it on the old system of not rankling feathers just in time to reap the rewards and in comes a Supervisor that wants you to 'take care of bench Coaches!!!!!!', referee the defense, work on your rules and mechanics. Perish the thought. And when you didn't or couldn't based on your make up you were one or two, or maybe even three steps closer to the door. A year of rumbling had to lead up to this moment on both sides of the fence, coaches and veteran officials alike. And if your conference integrity is based on a system such as one that Coaches have say in who works and who doesn't then you don't have integrity to begin with because by its very nature that compromises the officials ability to handle situations with disregard to punitive measures on the backside. Which leads us to JRuts comments on lazy sports journalism whose members covet access to the coaches like Sportscenter anchors covet hair dye. So when a reporter hears a spiteful referee talk in the same manner/vein about a supervisor they have already been hearing rumblings about its easy to throw around terms like Bully and control freak. For a reporter this had to be the motherlode....Butter my apple with the coaches of the conference I cover, get collaboration of an anonymous referee and lead a witch hunt all in one story. For me this is a sad day for officiating. For once we as a community had a commissioner willing to stand by its officiating community, much more so than many on this board to be honest, and willing to see what happened for what it was...a misuse of language, a joke that missed its mark, admittedly badly so.

Careful folks, glass houses and all. Think long and hard next time that snappy little quotes floats its way to the top of your noggin when dealing with an all powerful coach lest you receive the very punishment that many of you called for here in your comments, namely the exact punishment that befell a coach that physically, mentally and verbally abused his players for multiple years. If that doesn't show how the two groups are viewed and treated I don't know what does. And the most hurtful thing of all is that we as a community can't or won't stand up for ourselves and support one another when one of us is in the crosshairs for something that deserved reprimanding but most certainly didn't warrant losing a job over.

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

All true and someone will find out who that "rat" is and people will not trust that person either. Even doing what you feel is right can have consequence. It would be one thing is the comment was taken seriously and the T was totally unwarranted, but there is a way to prove that and the Pac-12 did not see much to the claim as I am sure Miller was told why he got the T. You notice he is not talking about that much? Maybe he is not talking because he would be exposed for what he really did and said and the other events in the game.

Also keep in mind that it is very possible that other coaches and programs complained about the treatment of other coaches. Arizona most of the year was highly ranked and I would not be surprised that other coaches that did get Ts or were reprimanded might have pointed to the top program's leader as an example. I would not be surprised if Rush's comments about Miller were a culmination of other correspondence to Rush and he tried to get a point across in another way. I guess I am a realist, I just never think a supervisor makes these comments without some provocation in their role. Rush had a boss to listen to as well.

Peace

Jeff, you are the smartest and most articulate guy in here, but you are way to narrow on this. In this instance, it's hard to defend the official or Rush. Miller does not have a reputation for being difficult to deal with, or profane on he bench. From what I have been told by folks who worked his games at Xavier, he is high-energy who asks questions--exactly what officials should want. You have to take him at his word when he feels he got screwed getting T'd for trying to get Irving to ask a partner if the ball was touched or not. Second, Rush got upset with Miller earlier this year, because when a crew of Rush's favorites made a mess of the ASU-UA game this year, Miller was cryptically critical of the officials, to where mockery was evident. His ego is too big,always has been, and he got pinched.

There were 13 (10 edit) guys in the room. Several of the conferences' top officials were not working the tournament--some by their own decision. It is probably known who went to the media, and I'd bet several of the 13 (10) are just fine with it. Many of them are now commenting and mentioning "mutiny" if Rush stayed. Life goes on.

The higher you go, the quicker the fall is if you are unprofessional towards coaches or ADs and you get pinched for it. No Pac-12 guys working this weekend. They'll be better for Rush resigning.

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by whistlemania

You've hit on an important issue to this whole debacle of 'integrity'. The Ed Rush saga isn't just about what was said in a room to a group of officials and then having those comments misappropriated by an overzealous official--that happens in every association across America hundreds of times a year, if not more. This whole outburst was about power within the conference--specifically coaches power and how that power translates to who works games and how they work games. Under Rush me thinks the coaches had lost that power and that leads to scary times for a fraternity that has long enjoyed such power. That is why the whole issue of integrity as it pertains to officials based on these comments by Ed Rush laughable in context to a much larger problem of the integrity of officiating programs that are influenced by Coaches that TARGET (to use the hot word of the debate) officials via scratch lists either explicitly (associations or conferences that still allow literal scratch lists) or implicitly through the very real power that coaches throw around behind closed doors. If anyone doesn't think that Coach K, Bobby Knight, Digger Phelps, Dean Smith, Roy Williams, Bill Self, etc etc etc don't have weight that they throw around behind closed doors about officials that they don't like and therefore conveniently don't get due to the weakness of conferences they or you are either naive or complicit. Ed Rush's background as an NBA official, where assignments are made based on a much different systematic approach, came with concerns from the get go amongst coaches and 'veteran officials' alike. A whole generation of officials had finally made it on the old system of not rankling feathers just in time to reap the rewards and in comes a Supervisor that wants you to 'take care of bench Coaches!!!!!!', referee the defense, work on your rules and mechanics. Perish the thought. And when you didn't or couldn't based on your make up you were one or two, or maybe even three steps closer to the door. A year of rumbling had to lead up to this moment on both sides of the fence, coaches and veteran officials alike. And if your conference integrity is based on a system such as one that Coaches have say in who works and who doesn't then you don't have integrity to begin with because by its very nature that compromises the officials ability to handle situations with disregard to punitive measures on the backside. Which leads us to JRuts comments on lazy sports journalism whose members covet access to the coaches like Sportscenter anchors covet hair dye. So when a reporter hears a spiteful referee talk in the same manner/vein about a supervisor they have already been hearing rumblings about its easy to throw around terms like Bully and control freak. For a reporter this had to be the motherlode....Butter my apple with the coaches of the conference I cover, get collaboration of an anonymous referee and lead a witch hunt all in one story. For me this is a sad day for officiating. For once we as a community had a commissioner willing to stand by its officiating community, much more so than many on this board to be honest, and willing to see what happened for what it was...a misuse of language, a joke that missed its mark, admittedly badly so.

Careful folks, glass houses and all. Think long and hard next time that snappy little quotes floats its way to the top of your noggin when dealing with an all powerful coach lest you receive the very punishment that many of you called for here in your comments, namely the exact punishment that befell a coach that physically, mentally and verbally abused his players for multiple years. If that doesn't show how the two groups are viewed and treated I don't know what does. And the most hurtful thing of all is that we as a community can't or won't stand up for ourselves and support one another when one of us is in the crosshairs for something that deserved reprimanding but most certainly didn't warrant losing a job over.

Read what's out there tonight. Still feel this way?

[JRutledge]

I have no idea what Miller's background is or actual reputation in the officiating community. So I would not take his word for anything without knowing him in detail. I just know coaches say things that are not true. On the baseball board there was a situation where a coach apparently misrepresented a conversation with an umpire to the media. So forgive me if I am a little skeptical of a coach telling the entire truth in a press conference. And I really am skeptical when the person says, "All I did was say...he hit the ball....he hit the ball....he hit the ball..." I am sure more went on in that conversation. And we also know coaches that ask questions that are unreasonable or silly. Now maybe he is a great guy, but that also does not mean that someone was not happy with his behavior. Again jealousy is just as much of a problem in the coaching ranks as it is with fellow officials. I just think there is a lot to this and Rush was made to be the fall guy for what might have been going on with many other levels.

Peace

[Raymond]

The person who got me into officiating told me Wednesday that an extremely high profile official said this story will get worse. Now I just heard on late night radio that more officials are coming out against Rush and that he was not joking.