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

[Brad]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The usage of BIG is often a internet usage to describe the Big 10 because of their logo. Sorry I forget I am dealing in mixed company.

That's what I thought at first, but was that change just a couple of years ago? Thought it was longer than that ... but I suppose you are right.

Maybe you should write it as B1G

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But the situation with the Big 12 also caused some controversy but that supervisor assigned 4 leagues. So there was some people rumbling when he took over. A lot more people were affected by that change than anywhere else I can think of.

I'm sure ... some negatively, some positively.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Brad

That's what I thought at first, but was that change just a couple of years ago? Thought it was longer than that ... but I suppose you are right.

Maybe you should write it as B1G



I'm sure ... some negatively, some positively.

Well people in this part of the country use it often and it is known. So maybe, but probably not.

And yes positively for some. But usually you hear from the people that are slighted more than anything.

Peace

[zebraman]

I just heard that Ed Rush resigned as coordinator of officials for the Pac-12.

http://seattletimes.com/html/sports/...stigation.html

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by zebraman

I just heard that Ed Rush resigned as coordinator of officials for the Pac-12.

Ed Rush resigns as Pac-12's head of officials | College Sports | The Seattle Times

True. It just hit ESPN. It is fully appropriate that he not hold that position anymore after his unprofessional behavior.

[JRutledge]

It still does not change the fact it does not appear anyone took him seriously. It also does not change the fact that supervisors will still instruct their officials to do things they were unwilling to do on their own. And if this was over the top, then any time a supervisor tells his/her staff to do something then we better have articles on those instructions when something is called based on those instructions. It makes little difference to me if this was Rush or some other no named guy, but there will be similar comments like this in the future and like everything the public will over react when they hear something behind the closed door. It is like people like sausage until they find out how it is made.

Peace

[Judtech]

No one took him seriously. Even though the coach in question got a T. Some would argue a weak T. And wasn't it the first one of the year? I agree no one took him seriously about Cancun or 5k

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Judtech

No one took him seriously. Even though the coach in question got a T. Some would argue a weak T. And wasn't it the first one of the year? I agree no one took him seriously about Cancun or 5k

The only people saying it is weak are those that do not officiate after they heard these comments. I am not sure I have ever heard why he got the T but from the coach trying to say he did not curse. Now how many times have we all heard that line before?

Peace

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It still does not change the fact it does not appear anyone took him seriously. It also does not change the fact that supervisors will still instruct their officials to do things they were unwilling to do on their own. And if this was over the top, then any time a supervisor tells his/her staff to do something then we better have articles on those instructions when something is called based on those instructions. It makes little difference to me if this was Rush or some other no named guy, but there will be similar comments like this in the future and like everything the public will over react when they hear something behind the closed door. It is like people like sausage until they find out how it is made.

Peace

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.

[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

[Brad]

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.

From Fischer: Separating facts from perception in the Ed Rush controversy - Pac-12 Post:

“He didn’t think the officials were doing the job of containing the coaches, that coach decorum was getting out of control – not solely focused on Coach Miller, but several coaches. As part of that banter this discussion was had about, ‘What do I have to do to get you guys to enforce the rules? To ‘T’ a coach up if he won’t listen to the warning? Do I got to give you a trip? Money?’

“Our investigator asked very, very pointed questions and it was clear that no one thought that there was a real bounty. Ed was trying to shock them into being more firm in order to make a point.”

This is exactly the context that this story has been lacking. Instead, sports writers have run with the "Targeting Arizona / Miller" idea ... and the "Bounties on Coaches" ... completely misrepresenting the comments and turning them into something they were not.

Originally Posted by VaTerp

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

It is a complete overreaction, but you are right that it is par for the course.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

True. It just hit ESPN. It is fully appropriate that he not hold that position anymore after his unprofessional behavior.

Could not disagree more. The sports media has taken this story and made it into something it wasn't. It completely lacks any kind of context ... and the only sources the sports media has cited are an anonymous (most likely disgruntled) official and Tim Donaghy. It's shameful.