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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

I don't watch any PAC12 ball, but if Miller was such a PIA, and such a problem, why was this his first tech of the year? What has he done to be targeted? Did he complain about officiating in the press or something?

Easy. There are coaches in conferences that act up and officials let is slide because they feel that giving a T would hurt them professionally because of who he is and the school he comes from. I did see Arizona games several times this year and Miller does rant a lot and probably after several situations officials were asked about his behavior. I bet this was just a long line of stuff where Rush felt officials were giving him a pass. Remember NBA guys were never afraid to T up a coach and even a player. I am not going to say Miller was worse than other coaches in that league, but I can understand why Rush would feel that the officials were not doing their job.

Peace

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am not going to say Miller was worse than other coaches in that league, but I can understand why Rush would feel that the officials were not doing their job.

Then he needs to learn how to communicate. First, the conference championship is not the time to suddenly get religion. Second, words matter.

I had a high school assignor tell me before a game a couple of years ago that if there were any problems we were to deal with it and he would back us completely. My take from what he said (this was at halftime of the the JV game, when I had just arrived for the varsity game) was that he had complaints that some officials were not taking care of business and he wanted to say it loud and clear that he had our back. There was nothing in his statement, tone or mannerism that anyone could take as anything against any coach or player.

This year, I heard of an assignor tell an AD that he had complaints about a coach from several officials. The AD said if the coach is such a problem, then how come he has not received one technical foul? When I shared this story with some officials who work that league, at least one said that was accurate: that he had not issued a T in one game where it was probably warranted. Now...there was never a conversation, memo or anything else to officials that said: this coach is a problem, deal with it. But if the assignor is hearing these reports (and maybe even observing the behavior himself), then he should be making clear to his officials of his expectations. If that is all Ed Rush was doing, that is correct. But timing, location, tone and words matter. From what I have read (and I will accept that it was supposed to be a "joke"), he still failed on virtually every one of those counts.

The memos I saw this season from the NCAA and from my college assignors about bench decorum and dealing with coaches were not echoed by any high school assignor. I know some officials say they are proud they have not called a T in many years; others almost brag about how many they call. If there is a level of expectation from our assignors, then I say they need to be able to tell us that.

[JRutledge]

So you are telling me you have never been with a group of officials and no one in that meeting ever made a comment about a coach or player or school?

I know I have been in that situation and never took those situations that seriously. And he could have communicated this better, but obviously someone went to the press (and did not want to be identified) by telling what happened in the room.

No one prior to this incident was claiming Arizona was targeted in any way or that there was some conspiracy about a T or the actions in that game. The press conference after the game in the Pac-12 Tournament was a typical coach complaining what happened in the game like you saw with the Baylor Coach. Miller tried to act like he did not curse so that was the reason he should not have gotten the T. And if no money or trips were included in the comments I seriously doubt we would know this even took place.

Peace

[BayStateRef]

Of course I have been with that group of officials. Some coaches are "known" to be problems and officials do talk about them...and what the coach, said, did, etc. and how that was dealt with. I find this helpful in my preparation for any game.

But there is a big difference between talk amongst officials and a talk (some would say "instruction") from a supervisor/assignor.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

Of course I have been with that group of officials. Some coaches are "known" to be problems and officials do talk about them...and what the coach, said, did, etc. and how that was dealt with. I find this helpful in my preparation for any game.

But there is a big difference between talk amongst officials and a talk (some would say "instruction") from a supervisor/assignor.

Not if the supervisor has seen behavior over and over again and officials were allowing this coach more leeway than anyone else. We must remember that Arizona was probably on national TV more than anyone else in that league and unlike many of our games, ever game probably has an evaluator or someone that reviews the games, so it is possible that Rush was tired of how officials were not doing their jobs. How often do we talk on this site about how we cannot believe an coach was not T'd or player's action were not penalized? Rush unlike us is the supervisor and he has the right to tell his staff to do their job. That does not mean that the way he communicated that was not over the top, but it does appear to me he was joking. Unless we have some evidence he paid that official any money or trip then it obviously was hyperbole to make a point. I have no problem if that point had the message sent. And we still do not know what Miller did or did not do in that situation.

Peace

[zebraman]

Perception is reality. I think twocentsworth is dead-on when he ties everything together. That is how a lot of the public will see it and how ESPN will portray it. Ed Rush has backed himself into a corner.

It was a dumb comment. In this day and age, dumb comments don't die. This is going to be fun to watch.

On a related note, this wouldn't have happened if officials (at all levels, not just the NCAA) would learn to penalize inappropriate bench conduct.

"I didn't see it..." "my partner was closer..." "It didn't fit the game...." "It wouldn't have made the game better..." "The coach was on the other end of the floor when he was berating us...." "I've seen worse..." "He didn't say any swear words..." "I prefer to manage the situation instead of giving a T...."

All excuses to not have the guts to take care of business.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by zebraman

Perception is reality. I think twocentsworth is dead-on when he ties everything together. That is how a lot of the public will see it and how ESPN will portray it. Ed Rush has backed himself into a corner.

It was a dumb comment. In this day and age, dumb comments don't die. This is going to be fun to watch.

On a related note, this wouldn't have happened if officials (at all levels, not just the NCAA) would learn to penalize inappropriate bench conduct.

"I didn't see it..." "my partner was closer..." "It didn't fit the game...." "It wouldn't have made the game better..." "The coach was on the other end of the floor when he was berating us...." "I've seen worse..." "He didn't say any swear words..." "I prefer to manage the situation instead of giving a T...."

All excuses to not have the guts to take care of business.

Or my favorite: Man, that coach is getting on my nerves. Someone should T him.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by zebraman

This is going to be fun to watch.

I will use the term "interesting," vice "fun" for how I will watch in unfold. I will take no pleasure in it, regardless of how it turns out. Makes me answer more questions at work......hey, what do you think of.........

[twocentsworth]

Fellas - the facts are simple:

- Ed Rush, in a meeting on Thr. of the conference tournament, told game officials he would pay $5,000 or give them a trip to Cancun to anyone who "rang him up" or "ran him".
- Ed Rush said the same thing in a meeting the next day, Friday.
- On Friday, one official (who was present in BOTH meetings) assessed a T to the very same coach (AFTER an incorrect call went against Arizona).
- Per a PAC-12 official, the game official who assessed the T doesn't normally give people a T (in fact he worked only 11 games this yr w/ a T; which ranks him tied for 144th nationally).
- The ONLY T that Miller got during the year was in this game.

When you think about it, here's where it gets even more suspicious.

During conference tournaments, aren't players and coaches even more emotional than during the regular season? The officials that are selected to work these games not only get plays right, but more importantly, have the ability to manage players/coaches during incredibly tense situations.

During the BCS conference tournaments this year (PAC 12, Big 12, Big 10, SEC, ACC, & Big East), do you know how many times a coach was assessed a T?.....

TWICE: Arizona's Miller and UCLA's Howland (vs Oregon in the Champ. Game).

During the 68 total tournament games played, some of the most volatile and boisterous coaches in America weren't penalized...yet a guy who had not received 1 T all season gets one AFTER the Supervisor specifically targets him in a meeting - not once but TWICE?

You're right....it WAS a joke after all.

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

Fellas - the facts are simple:

- Ed Rush, in a meeting on Thr. of the conference tournament, told game officials he would pay $5,000 or give them a trip to Cancun to anyone who "rang him up" or "ran him".
- Ed Rush said the same thing in a meeting the next day, Friday.

Regardless of the bad timing and wrong environment to make such a "joke", wouldn't a SUPERVISOR need to have a better sense of how his "joke" was going to be interpreted? I can understand a couple staff officials kidding around about collecting a reward...but the SUPERVISOR??? Pretty astounding to me.

[Judtech]

I predict the first T in the PAC-10 will go like this:
Coach sees a call he feels is questionable
Coach asks official if Rush paid him to make that call
Coach gets T
Coach asks how much Rush paid him to give the T
Assistant Coach takes over coaching duties the rest of the night.

Every close or 'controversial' play made by officials supervised by Rush will now be endlessly, and some would argue appropriately, by everyone. How does that not harm officiating?

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

Fellas - the facts are simple:

- Ed Rush, in a meeting on Thr. of the conference tournament, told game officials he would pay $5,000 or give them a trip to Cancun to anyone who "rang him up" or "ran him".
- Ed Rush said the same thing in a meeting the next day, Friday.
- On Friday, one official (who was present in BOTH meetings) assessed a T to the very same coach (AFTER an incorrect call went against Arizona).
- Per a PAC-12 official, the game official who assessed the T doesn't normally give people a T (in fact he worked only 11 games this yr w/ a T; which ranks him tied for 144th nationally).
- The ONLY T that Miller got during the year was in this game.

When you think about it, here's where it gets even more suspicious.

During conference tournaments, aren't players and coaches even more emotional than during the regular season? The officials that are selected to work these games not only get plays right, but more importantly, have the ability to manage players/coaches during incredibly tense situations.

During the BCS conference tournaments this year (PAC 12, Big 12, Big 10, SEC, ACC, & Big East), do you know how many times a coach was assessed a T?.....

TWICE: Arizona's Miller and UCLA's Howland (vs Oregon in the Champ. Game).

During the 68 total tournament games played, some of the most volatile and boisterous coaches in America weren't penalized...yet a guy who had not received 1 T all season gets one AFTER the Supervisor specifically targets him in a meeting - not once but TWICE?

You're right....it WAS a joke after all.

These are exactly my thoughts. Rush should be fired by the conference. We already aren't trusted by the public in general, and this just makes it worse. And like JRut, you can talk all day about how you "Don't care what the public thinks", but in this situation, it does matter.

[Adam]

I don't think he should be fired, but I'll be surprised if he isn't. I also think the idiot who leaked the joke should be let go by the conference. This isn't whistle blowing, it's spite.

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by Adam

I don't think he should be fired, but I'll be surprised if he isn't. I also think the idiot who leaked the joke should be let go by the conference. This isn't whistle blowing, it's spite.

Slippery slope. One guy quit before the tournament who worked the last 9 consecutive championship games. Two former Final Four officials opted to work smaller conference tournament games rather than the Pac-12. You cannot have that much internal strife with that many accomplished veterans without very serious problems with the entire organization. Larry Scott thought the organization was sick/weak, and brought in Rush to fix it. Rush made it worse, whether these comments came out or not. Bad hire that needs to be rectified regardless.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by TheOracle

One guy quit before the tournament who worked the last 9 consecutive championship games. Two former Final Four officials opted to work smaller conference tournament games rather than the Pac-12. You cannot have that much internal strife with that many accomplished veterans without very serious problems with the entire organization.

You must not have been around college basketball officiating very much. There is ALWAYS that much strife with a change in coordinators. New coordinator means changes, different game assignments, some get less, some get more ... and some get disgruntled.

Same thing has happened over and over in different leagues as new coordinators have taken over in the last 5 years. Completely standard.

Originally Posted by TheOracle

Larry Scott thought the organization was sick/weak, and brought in Rush to fix it. Rush made it worse, whether these comments came out or not. Bad hire that needs to be rectified regardless.

I don't know that your assessment of why Rush was brought in is all to on target either. Seems like you are just conjecturing ... unless you have some kind of insider info.