Anyone else disgusted by officiating in NCAA final tonight?

WWRD wrote:

Including one after Winston stepped out of bounds right in front of the referee. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to bring that up again.

I'm dominating this thread like the officials dominated Wisconsin.

B. Hurley wrote:

Too bad for the Badgers that Okafor still came up with two buckets when it really mattered..

Haha, you aren't dominating anything. Your original post was about 5 fouls in 6 possessions. How much have you had to move the goalposts since then?

Dial it up wrote:

[quote]Not a factor wrote:

I get that you want the perfect world where Duke wins all fair and square but unfortunately that wasn't the case here.

No one wanted Duke, they were just better

Christian Laetner wrote:

Dial it up wrote:

[quote]Not a factor wrote:

I get that you want the perfect world where Duke wins all fair and square but unfortunately that wasn't the case here.

No one wanted Duke, they were just better

Duke was better when these two played the first time in December, they have loads of talent. Dekker hurt, no Koenig, Wisco not as efficient, etc. In this tournament and in this game, Wisconsin was clearly the better team.

Kentucky vs Duke would have been the game that most wanted to see but Kentucky had a horrible semi final game. I also think Wisconsin had a horrible second half with Frank the tank being the only guy that showed up. Duke took advantage and won, end of story.

That wasn't my post Einstein....what is that I hear? Yes me dominating again!

gestev wrote:

Haha, you aren't dominating anything. Your original post was about 5 fouls in 6 possessions. How much have you had to move the goalposts since then?

Kentucky Duke wrote:

Kentucky vs Duke would have been the game that most wanted to see but Kentucky had a horrible semi final game. I also think Wisconsin had a horrible second half with Frank the tank being the only guy that showed up. Duke took advantage and won, end of story.

I agree, but I wonder who may have been in the final if Duke was seeded properly from the outset. Even if a #1, they should have been the 4th #1. Instead of going through Gonzaga, MSU, and a few cupcakes, would they have made the final going through Arizona, Kentucky, and the like? This is where seeding comes into play. Do you have to play several tough games or one/two tough games?

The last time Duke won it all they were a disputed #1 seed and had the weakest #2, #3, #5, #6...... all in their region. Also, they rarely have to go out west or even far away from NC when overseeded if that actually matters.

The officiating was embarrassing and it favored Duke more than Wisco whether intentional or not. When Allen can give a stiff arm on nearly every drive, how can he be guarded without a foul called the other way? It barely resembles what I learned as basketball. Pound each other and no call and on the next possession call a touch foul. The inconsistency is embarrassing and clouds the competition.

Not buying all the seeding BS. Duke easily deserved to be a #1 seed, and the #2 in the tourney.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/team/schedule/_/id/150/duke-blue-devils

They beat two other final four teams (Wisconsin and MSU) soundly, they beat UVA at UVA, UNC at UNC (who was really overrated this year IMO), Louisville at Louisville, last years NATIONAL champ.

They only lost to Notre Dame (who almost made the final four), NC State (who beat a 1 seed) and Miami (admittedly an ugly loss).

Kentucky had a CUPCAKE schedule the WHOLE YEAR and everyone thought they were the great thing since sliced bread.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/team/schedule/_/id/96/kentucky-wildcats

Louisville and UNC are nice wins (again duke beat them both), and Kansas are solid, but the SEC schedule ended up being a joke.

Also everyone talked about Wisconsin had such a tough road, UNC really only had a good ACC tourney and wasn't that great for long stretches of this year. Zona was a very good team with NBA talent (I also think they could have beat Kentucky) and Kentucky was good but lets face it, they didn't look THAT good against Cincinnati and they almost lost to ND (a game they should have lost but the ND coach was terrible the last 10 mins and wouldn't stop the zone and let KAT score at will). So Wisconsin had 2 tough games. Duke had an easier road but they were so much better it looked a lot easier. Gonzaga was good team with at least 1 NBA player, MSU beat a lot of good teams this year.

Even if Duke had played Kentucky, Duke has the deepest 5 players by a mile. Okafor was the second best player in college bball, and didn't even have a dominant game against Wisco. When he is on like against MSU he is unstoppable. They have Justice Winslow who is gonna be a poor man's Jimmy Butler and would start for half the teams in the NBA. Then the PG Tyus Jones is a first rounder too. They also had a 4 year veteran with Cook who had a great tournament.

Besides Karl Anthony Towns, Kentucky doesn't have ANYBODY that could start in the NBA. Wiley Cauley Stein is soft and is going to get crushed in the NBA. He is not worth a lottery pick, he got smoked by Dekker and Kaminsky. The Harrison twins play terrible basketball. To be a hybrid PG you actually need to be able to shoot (See Steph Curry) or be super athletic (see Russel Westbrook) or at least be a good passer. They don't really do that, they just jack up a bad three or try to get to the lane and pray they get fouled (see ND game). I don't think Trey Lyles will be that good in the NBA since those guys basically need to be able to move like guards or be huge. I think if he can fill out his frame, he will be better. Kentucky was good but they would not have been undefeated if they had played a harder schedule.

You make some good points.

Some I agree with, some I don't.

If most any other team in the nation from a major conference had the credentials that Duke had including not winning their conference, I don't think they would have been a #1 seed or the 4th #1 at best, and had a much tougher road to the final. I also think the non-travel can play a factor with many teams as well.

Your points about the paths to the final are invalid in my eyes. You are looking 'after the fact'. I am looking at the seeding, prior to the tourney, when "seeding" is far more valid. Going into the tourney if you had to choose a path of Coastal Carolina, Oregon, UNC, Arizona, and Kentucky to make the final versus Robert Morris, San Diego State, Utah, Gonzaga, and Michigan State, I think it is a no-brainer. Duke seems to be on the receiving end of this on a regular basis. It is a chicken or egg kind of quandary in my eyes. Do they get the easy path consistently because of their tournament successes or do they have tournament successes because of the routine easier path. I think it is probably a combination of both. The selection committee who have an obligation to produce excitement and interest in the tournament want Duke going far. People LOVE or HATE them, so viewership is high.

Duke had by far the best regular season resume as far as teams that they beat. It has already been listed, but nobody beat as many good teams, many of them on the road as Duke. It wasn't even close and they deserved to be rewarded for that, especially considering that they beat wisconsin at wisconsin.

Sure wisconsin had a more difficult road to the final four. They should have as they were seeded behind duke. That said, substitute michigan state for villanova or virginia and the two don't look THAT much different.

UNC sucked this year and didn't deserve a 4. Utah is a better team.

Coach K is constantly outperforming teams in the second half, assistance by bad calls or not. If I remember correctly they made quite the run against ND in the second half, but ND got lucky and somehow drew better calls and made shots that counted, and ended up pulling off the win.

Look at Coach K's notorious second half performances, and compare them to another historically great all-time coach, Jim Boeheim's. Some people say they're the two best NCAA coaches of all time, and are always drawing irrational comparisons to their two completely different coaching styles (Jimmy B likes to get out early and hold on, K likes to make up ground in the last 20). K does it better, especially in games that matter. You're a fool if you would've thought Duke couldn't rebound from the first half deficit. And I'm a die-hard Syracuse fan.

The calls may be atrocious, no denying that, but given 100% perfect officiating, they still would have come back and taken the W.

There were some terrible calls. But that's not why Wisconsin lost Don't forget, it could be argued Wisconsin got to the final game thanks to some missed calls in the final minutes of their game against Kentucky.

Wisconsin has a 3 great point shooter who went 0-6 in this game. they went out of their game plan. They got frustrated and fouled. They are a great program, but appears to have too many leaving to be expected to e back at this point again.

Nice season.

opinionated guy wrote:

Your points about the paths to the final are invalid in my eyes. You are looking 'after the fact'. I am looking at the seeding, prior to the tourney, when "seeding" is far more valid. Going into the tourney if you had to choose a path of Coastal Carolina, Oregon, UNC, Arizona, and Kentucky to make the final versus Robert Morris, San Diego State, Utah, Gonzaga, and Michigan State, I think it is a no-brainer. Duke seems to be on the receiving end of this on a regular basis.

Rarely have I ever seen the Pot call the Kettle Black with suck reckless abandon. Well done, opinionated guy, you have really contradicted yourself in a most splendid fashion.

You should watch more wrote:

Christian Laetner wrote:

No one wanted Duke, they were just better

Duke was better when these two played the first time in December, they have loads of talent. Dekker hurt, no Koenig, Wisco not as efficient, etc. In this tournament and in this game, Wisconsin was clearly the better team.

I think Wisconsin assumed Duke WAS the same team they played in December. They weren't. The December team was very young and had yet learned to play defense. In addition, with the dismissal of Sualimon, M. Jones and Allen stepped up. Maybe Dekker was hurt in the December game, but he was still very ineffective in the championship game. As far as Koenig, T. Jones is just a much better player. Jones totally dominated Wisconsin both times they played.

Wisconsin was NOT clearly the better team. Even with Duke's two biggest stars in foul trouble the entire game - including some questionable and one completely bogus foul - Wisconsin failed to capitalize when they were on the bench for extended periods. Instead, they allowed Allen to come in and dominate them.

I have also heard and read where Wisconsin was called for only about 12 fouls per game during the season. They may have been true when they played in the down Big10 this year, but that was not true once they faced the better teams in the tournament. Don't remember complaints when they were called for 21 fouls against Arizona, 14 against UK, and 18 against UNC. They were called for 15 fouls including 2 when they intentionally fouled at the end. (Speaking of intentional fouls, why on earth was Kaminsky not called for an intentional when he received his one and only foul against Okafor? Not to mention just reviewing some of the photos from the game, he clearly had his hand grabbing a couple of the players' wrists as they went up to shoot, but no foul was called.)

How can you say Wisconsin was better? Older and more experienced? Yes, better, no. Duke had a 12-3 record against the Final AP 25, while Wisconsin's record was 7-3. If you narrow it down to the Top 12, Duke was 10-2 and Wisconsin was 5-2.

The only way Whitesconsin could have won that game was if it was being

decided by an all white grand jury or by balloting.

Even if you put Duke at 2, they would be the first or second best two seed? If you put them in the Same bracket as Nova (flip UVA to Duke's 1 seed) they would have run away with that region. If you put them in the 2 seed in their own region then do you move Gonzaga to 1? Maybe Arizona?

No way would they have wound up in the same bracket as Kentucky.

If Duke hadn't fallen asleep to Miami at home Duke would have been the ACC regular season champ. Remember how many bad 2 and 3 seeds there were this year? Kansas, Iowa State, Virginia and Baylor didn't even make it past the first weekend. Are you really going to tell me Duke was at that caliber?

The only real gripe I might have is if I were an Arizona fan. I think Arizona should have been a 1 seed, ahead of Nova. You could "argue" Duke should have been there in Arizona's 2 seed (that is a pretty big fall from where they ranked). As shown by the December game and national championship Duke had Wisconsin's number so they would have made it out anyway.

I also thought ND should have been a two seed and not in the same bracket as Kentucky. Other than that I thought the committee got it right.

beaner,

I am an Arizona fan so maybe that is my underlying issue with the seeding.

You do make some really good points and appear to me that you understand things pretty well. My contention is that Duke seems to get the benefit of the doubt nearly every year. This seeding argument seems to center around them on a regular basis so it makes me wonder.

To the other guy concerning being hypocritical concerning my take on seeding, that may be. Since you didn't explain I have no idea what you are talking about.

There were two times when Duke charged blatantly and they called neither, plus two out of bounds calls that went Duke's way. That's four possessions in the last 11:37 of the game (that's the section I got to watch). As for the foul calls in the game as a whole, Wisconsin was whistled barely at all the first half and a ton the second half, but I don't argue with the other calls I saw. Those four possessions plus for Duke were four negative for Wisconsin, and that is a very big swing in a game that was close until the end.

Dial it up wrote:

Hoopsters wrote:

Referees are never perfect, but they are usually pretty damn good as they were in this game. But you'll always find a few disgruntled fanboys who will pick the two or three questionable calls and use them to fuel their nutjob conspiracies.

By the way, one team having more fouls than the other is not a reasonable cause for complaint.

Nope they are never perfect. But typically they aren't this bad. If you disagree then ask yourself why there are so many threads about it just on this one running related website. It's a shame because it puts an ugly mark on a great tournament

I count exactly one thread on the first page about the officiating. What was your point again?

This is like trying to explain optics to people who dont even comprehend basic math.