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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The person who got me into officiating told me Wednesday that an extremely high profile official said this story will get worse.

Yeah, well, my best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with a girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night, soooo....

[Brad]

Originally Posted by TheOracle

In this instance, it's hard to defend the official or Rush.

Maybe based on what has been written by the sports media. What you are not considering is how badly that story has been spun for their own purposes —*it does not represent the truth. There is no video, no recording, no corroborating witnesses.

They quote a single anonymous official who they say was in the room, but who knows for sure, plus Tim Donaghy. Not exactly solid proof.

Originally Posted by TheOracle

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.

Why do I have to take him at his word? Are you kidding me???

Coaches LIE. All the time. To serve their own purposes. Not all coaches, but plenty of them —*especially when it comes to interaction with officials.

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by Brad

Maybe based on what has been written by the sports media. What you are not considering is how badly that story has been spun for their own purposes —*it does not represent the truth. There is no video, no recording, no corroborating witnesses.

They quote a single anonymous official who they say was in the room, but who knows for sure, plus Tim Donaghy. Not exactly solid proof.



Why do I have to take him at his word? Are you kidding me???

Coaches LIE. All the time. To serve their own purposes. Not all coaches, but plenty of them —*especially when it comes to interaction with officials.

Coaches lie, players lie, and officials lie. It happens. We can disagree. I will believe Sean Miller over Ed Rush. You kick a call, you have to give the coach a little leeway. Not middle of court F-bomb leeway, but Miller was not completely out of line. An evaluator is giving Irving a double minus on that T, and dinging the crew for missing that call.

You sound bitter about your T deal. It happens. Keep doing what you do, and if it is meant to be, you'll ascend and prove the coach wrong.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

The bottom line is that Rush repeatedly targeted a coach in his comments repeatedly

No. That is not the bottom line. That is what was reported in the sports media, with zero proof, through hearsay.

The Pac-12 made it clear that Rush did NOT target Miller in his comments.

Also, the notion reported in the media that his comment was repeated on two days is highly disputed.

[Adam]

His resignation is probably of the "I don't need this garbage" variety. Happy retirement, Ed.