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

[Brad]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

We shouldn't be surprised because anything we do that even hints of being unfair is considered a capital offense, especially by anyone in the sports media.

Which is why I would love to see a stronger response to the media. When you issue a statement and try to let it blow over it implies that you did something wrong. It perpetuates the belief that what was reported is true. If it is not true, or if it is being spun in a way that makes it much, much worse than what actually happened, it needs to be addressed.

That's what happened here — by not categorically denying that Miller was targeted (he wasn't), the sports media was allowed to keep that narrative going ... which the fans took and ran with.

What's unfortunate is that the fans, especially Arizona, now actually think they are better off. They didn't even know Ed Rush's name before last week, but believe they are capable of passing judgement on his character and integrity based off of a few quotes from an anonymous official in a sports article.

Why? Because it fits what they already believe.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Adam

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

Perhaps or perhaps there is more substance and truth to the accusations than several here wish to admit.

Originally Posted by Brad

This is so true.

Fans are outraged at the implied conflict of interest of being rewarded for giving a technical foul to a coach — what about the flipside?

Do you think that officials never consider the consequences of a technical foul? That they have the same team coming up in a few weeks ... and who knows how many times for the rest of the season? That they don't want to be taken off of those games? Giving a technical foul might cost you thousands of dollars.

I was personally taken off of a game because I whacked a coach. He clearly deserved it — was on the floor, yelling at my partner across the floor about a call. It was not even close. My partner was gutless and did nothing. But it was a clear tech — so clear that I was calling it without even thinking — just automatic.

Never gave it another thought until I was called a few days later and taken off a future game for that team. So sorry, but we don't have a replacement game for you—too bad you already booked your flight. You can lose that money in addition to the game fee that you won't be getting.

That is complete and utter bullshit. And that happened at the small D1 conference level — you think it doesn't happen in the big leagues??? Don't kid yourself.

I agree with your point of view on situations such as that and am sorry to hear that you had a spineless conference supervisor who wouldn't back you for taking care of business. Hopefully, that person is no longer in that position.

Originally Posted by Brad

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....

Funny response, but let's see if the info posted by Badnews turns out to be accurate, and if so, you will be the one looking for BBQ sauce that goes well with shoe leather.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

"So in an effort just to lighten the mood, I said to them, 'Hey, guys. What's it going to take? Do you think we could give you a trip to Cancun or maybe $5,000? Or who wants what? And now they're all laughing, which is basically what I wanted to do. So I said, 'I know you guys, you probably want $5,000, you want the money, you won't take the trip to Cancun. So I'm going around, 'What would you take?' At that point, I said, 'By the way, you know my wife's not going to go for this. I'm going to have to pull this off the table.' They all laughed, 'Yeah, yeah, yeah. OK, bud.' That was it, and I walked out."

This is exactly the spirit in which I imagined it being said. Of course, it went from one official to another, then to another, and by the time it reached the sports media it was a "BOUNTY"

Give me a break. There is nothing to this story, but the sports media made it into something to serve their own purposes. And officiating is worse off because of it.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Funny response, but let's see if the info posted by Badnews turns out to be accurate, and if so, you will be the one looking for BBQ sauce that goes well with shoe leather.

That's what I was going for

I don't think the story will get worse at all. There won't even be a story anymore. The sports media achieved their goal and now that Ed has resigned it is no longer interesting for them.

Besides, I don't know how the story can "get worse" when there is nothing to the story to begin with. It was made up in the minds of sports writers based on the rumblings of a single disgruntled official.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

"That was wrong place, wrong time, wrong audience," Rush said. "See, where I come from, in the NBA, there's a code that you definitely follow. You never, ever take the conversations in that locker room outside. I learned that code in 1966. Mendy Rudolph taught me that. You talk to the NBA officials, they all follow the code.

"There's a few guys (in the Pac-12) who didn't follow that code. They missed that part, and that's a shame. That's a very important part of the bond and the profession. Shame on me for not knowing that, but I used poor judgment. So that's my regret. Other than that, we got after it. We spent a lot of time. We definitely made some inroads in the right direction."

CODE??? What a bunch of BS! This is the core reason why Rush needed to get out of officiating. It's not 1966 anymore. The college game has become a BIG time money maker for universities and coaches. How people involved with officiating conduct themselves and what they say is held to a different standard than a couple of generations ago.
Code??? That is nothing more than a way to say cover-up. It is a shame that some of these old-timers don't understand that the society of today doesn't adhere to their past ways of doing things secretly in back rooms, but insist that people be accountable for what they say and how they act in the context of their professional duties.
What Rush advocates above and the way that he thinks is sad. It would be like saying that those at Rutgers shouldn't have spoken up about the treatment from the coaches and instead should have kept it in-house. His way of thinking is the problem here. The mentality IS the good ole boy network of protecting others within the circle without question, even when they are wrong.

[zakman2005000]

Originally Posted by Brad

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.

Originally Posted by Brad

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.



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

Sooo...you're using a media story to show that what the media is reporting may be "something it wasn't". Is the media overreacting or are they a good source of information? You appear to be doing a lot of speculating and passing it off as fact.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Brad

That's what I was going for

I don't think the story will get worse at all. There won't even be a story anymore. The sports media achieved their goal and now that Ed has resigned it is no longer interesting for them.

Besides, I don't know how the story can "get worse" when there is nothing to the story to begin with. It was made up in the minds of sports writers based on the rumblings of a single disgruntled official.

Sounds like SEVERAL officials from this recent ESPN piece, which was published about four hours ago.
Pac-12 Conference ref boss Ed Rush resigns after technical foul bounty scandal - ESPN Los Angeles


Had Rush not resigned or been fired, there was a good chance a mutiny among Pac-12 officials would have occurred. ESPN spoke with a number of officials from the conference on Thursday who requested anonymity for fear of assignment reprisals or loss of wages. A number of them told ESPN they were worried Rush would hold any comments over them.
...
Officials confirmed that Rush went into the meeting before the UCLA-Arizona game and was banging a chair up and down, demanding the officials perform at a higher level. And then, according to the officials, Rush hurled a boxed lunch against the wall after the game, nearly hitting one of the officials in the head.

"It was absolutely a form of bullying," one official said.

...

Another official said the Pac-12 investigator talked to the 10 officials in the room, but not Scott.

"We are a tight-knit group of guys," one official said. "We can't change what happened. A lot of officials didn't want to be in this league if Ed Rush were retained. Some officials have options with other leagues, some don't."

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

CODE??? What a bunch of BS! This is the core reason why Rush needed to get out of officiating. It's not 1966 anymore. The college game has become a BIG time money maker for universities and coaches. How people involved with officiating conduct themselves and what they say is held to a different standard than a couple of generations ago.
Code??? That is nothing more than a way to say cover-up. It is a shame that some of these old-timers don't understand that the society of today doesn't adhere to their past ways of doing things secretly in back rooms, but insist that people be accountable for what they say and how they act in the context of their professional duties.
What Rush advocates above and the way that he thinks is sad. It would be like saying that those at Rutgers shouldn't have spoken up about the treatment from the coaches and instead should have kept it in-house. His way of thinking is the problem here. The mentality IS the good ole boy network of protecting others within the circle without question, even when they are wrong.

You could not have possibly interpreted this more incorrectly.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by zakman2005000

Sooo...you're using a media story to show that what the media is reporting may be "something it wasn't". Is the media overreacting or are they a good source of information? You appear to be doing a lot of speculating and passing it off as fact.

No, I'm using direct quotes from the very central person in the story ... to balance out the hearsay from an "anonymous source".

As I said, "the context that this story has been lacking"

Of course, this doesn't fit the sports media's preconceptions about officiating, so it won't get near the same amount of play tomorrow on ESPN or Twitter.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

CODE??? What a bunch of BS! This is the core reason why Rush needed to get out of officiating. It's not 1966 anymore. The college game has become a BIG time money maker for universities and coaches. How people involved with officiating conduct themselves and what they say is held to a different standard than a couple of generations ago.
Code??? That is nothing more than a way to say cover-up. It is a shame that some of these old-timers don't understand that the society of today doesn't adhere to their past ways of doing things secretly in back rooms, but insist that people be accountable for what they say and how they act in the context of their professional duties.
What Rush advocates above and the way that he thinks is sad. It would be like saying that those at Rutgers shouldn't have spoken up about the treatment from the coaches and instead should have kept it in-house. His way of thinking is the problem here. The mentality IS the good ole boy network of protecting others within the circle without question, even when they are wrong.

Nev, are you saying there's stuff we say in the locker room regarding how we deal with players/coaches that we know isn't supposed to leave the locker room?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Nev, are you saying there's stuff we say in the locker room regarding how we deal with players/coaches that we know isn't supposed to leave the locker room?

I don't. I make every effort to not say anything about a coach, player, or team in a lockerroom (or a restaurant, at a party, etc.) which I wouldn't say while face-to-face with those people.
When one is known as an official, there are always people watching and listening, so it is intelligent to not make comments which could reflect unfavorably upon your impartiality, judgment, or integrity.

Unfortunately for him, Mr. Rush made comments in such a setting which when communicated to others made his role in the officiating process of today undesirable.

[JRutledge]

Stopi it!!!

Please do not tell me that in a pre-game where you talk about the attitudes of a coach or how you would handle a player we have dealt with or have a reputation, then not sure what could be talked about.

I know in the post season it is not unusual that we have people come in our locker rooms that are not assocated with the teams playing and I do not want to say a lot of things in front of those people because I know someone might hear us talk about the teams, how they play, what they run and draw conclusions when they do not hear the entire conversation. The public does not know what kinds of things we do to prepare for the game, get on the same page or discuss even the strategy of the games and I can see how those things would be assumed as bias or some favoritism. I have even been in several conversations where at halftime we might disucss why we did or did not T a coach or player or how we will deal with the situation moving forward. The public would think we were putting out a "bounty" if they heard those conversations.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I don't. I make every effort to not say anything about a coach, player, or team in a lockerroom (or a restaurant, at a party, etc.) which I wouldn't say while face-to-face with those people.
When one is known as an official, there are always people watching and listening, so it is intelligent to not make comments which could reflect unfavorably upon your impartiality, judgment, or integrity.

Unfortunately for him, Mr. Rush made comments in such a setting which when communicated to others made his role in the officiating process of today undesirable.

In the privacy of the locker room you don't talk about behavior of the coaches or who could / might be a problem? You don't talk about such things at halftime after a chippy first half?

I find this very hard to believe. Just like JRut, we've had visitors to the locker room at halftime or people in a room next door and we have to be very careful we keep our voices down or even wait until the people clear out of the area.

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by whistlemania

yes I still feel the same way about how our two groups are treated and that coaches have unreasonable power over how officiating programs are implemented nation wide at a multitude of various levels.

That is how things work in every business. The victim mentality works for nobody. I wish you the best of luck.

[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.