- This topic has 82 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“I’m so tired of hearing this crap.”
You’re not hearing it here, you are reading it. Simple solution, quite choosing to read it.
People are going to believe what they want to. You can pull out all the stats you want and someone is going to say “I do not care what stats you have I know the refs are not biased.” Someone else will say “just never make a mistake and you will win”.
There is enough evidence that at the very least Luckie does not like State. And I agree about the big money.
Frankly, I have only watched a few minutes of basketball since the Syracuse game. I think refs are determining the outcomes of games and it is just not enjoyable to watch anymore. It stinks because baskebtall has always been my favorite sport. I used to watch any game on TV.
I’m even less pleased with vulgarity being flung around at those who refuse to piss and moan on every foul, or lack of, in every , single, game.
That a funny complaint coming from someone who keeps threatening to “kick my ass”.
People are going to believe what they want to. You can pull out all the stats you want and someone is going to say “I do not care what stats you have I know the refs are not biased.” Someone else will say “just never make a mistake and you will win”.
There is enough evidence that at the very least Luckie does not like State. And I agree about the big money.
Frankly, I have only watched a few minutes of basketball since the Syracuse game. I think refs are determining the outcomes of games and it is just not enjoyable to watch anymore. It stinks because baskebtall has always been my favorite sport. I used to watch any game on TV.
That’s a good post Rick. Your last part in particular. I used to really enjoy college basketball and would watch almost any ACC game that was on TV. I would also go out of my way to ensure that I got to see the NC State games live. Now, unless I am at some place where an ACC game happens to be on, I rarely ever watch a game that doesn’t involve NC State. I’ve also missed more NC State games this season than any previous season. The fun has been sucked out of it.
With that, I’m going to leave the Luckie stuff alone for a while. Maybe people will dig through the numbers (both related to Luckie, but hopefully more in general) and draw their own conclusions. The beauty of the numbers based approach is because it “sees through” the deceit that the eyes “want to see” when watching an event (either live or in review). An outlier is simply that, an outlier, and with respect to officiating, there are lots of them related to NC State and UNC basketball.
People are going to believe what they want to. You can pull out all the stats you want and someone is going to say “I do not care what stats you have I know the refs are not biased.” Someone else will say “just never make a mistake and you will win”.
There is enough evidence that at the very least Luckie does not like State. And I agree about the big money.
Yeah, no. You’re misconstruing the people who don’t believe the refs are biased against us. Nobody has said we have to be perfect. The simple fact is we haven’t even consistently reached the level of good. If you suck, you’re never getting the benefit of the doubt.
Outside of just the raw foul numbers, what’s the free throw rate for NC State vs. opponents for Luckie vs. non-Luckie games?
Yeah, no. You’re misconstruing the people who don’t believe the refs are biased against us. Nobody has said we have to be perfect. The simple fact is we haven’t even consistently reached the level of good. If you suck, you’re never getting the benefit of the doubt.
Outside of just the raw foul numbers, what’s the free throw rate for NC State vs. opponents for Luckie vs. non-Luckie games?We were good enough to win the Syrcuse gam if not for the calls. I wouldsay we certainly have reacehd “good” as we are .500 in the league. To say we suck is not accurate IMO.
If you want to make a point then feel free. I think expecting someone else to do the work for your point is not going to add much validity tothat point. Which comes back to why I say one side wants to ignore stats.
^^Tough for me to come down on one side or the other at a meta-level.
Feels like a catch-22: *If* we were the best team in the league would we actually get the benefit of close calls? Even if we’re not the best team, should not each and every call be made objectively no matter what?
I do believe there is some bias – particularly on an individual (ref) level. They’re human, and human nature dictates bias. That said, do I believe that they all try to do their jobs objectively? For the most part, yes (no one will ever convince me though that the immortal Larry Rose didn’t have it in for State).
To the point that ‘we’re just not that good and the calls reflect it’ – I think that is very valid. However, NC State Sh*t doesn’t exist in a vacuum. I think we can all recite numerous games (including two this season) where calls or non-calls directly impacted the result of the contest in the other team’s favor.
So, does that happen to everybody else? Yes and no. How many times has it happened to Duke and *arolina? You can, however point to it happening against other teams across the nation (usually when they’re playing a favored opponent – notably in the ACC we can all probably come up with a horrible call costing each ACC team when they are playing Duke and *arolina in the past). A counter-point to that is ‘well, Duke and *arolina are usually better teams with better players’. That is accurate. However, why does that justify getting the benefit of every close call?
This sounds like a never ending argument.
We’re .500 in a weak league, have been blown out three times, and have no top 50 wins. That indicates we’re not very good by historical standards.
FT Rate for Jamie Luckie crews:
NCCU 95.7
NCSU 57.9Pitt 44.4
NCSU 26.8WFU 111.4
NCSU 56.4FSU 46.4
NCSU 16.2Clem 54.2
NCSU 30.4Avg FTR NCSU all games: 35 <- BTW, we’re 13 in the conference for FTR
Avg FTR NCSU Luckie games: 37.54Avg FTR opponents all games: 41.7 <- 14 in the conference
Avg FTR opponents Luckie games: 70.4pakfanistan: Good job. Yet another outlier. Opponents in Luckie called games go to the line at a 93% higher rate than our opponents in any other game. Awesome.
I contend that we’re not great and we weren’t expected to be. We’re trending right where I thought we would — on the bubble.
I don’t believe that the good teams should get all the calls any more than I think that the teams are good because they got all the calls. For a team with a razor thin margin of error like ours, a little bit of “help” from our friends in stripes can make a huge difference in our overall season outcome. That’s not really the discussion though.
The discussion to me is whether there’s something wonky with ACC officiating. I’m not looking at it from what my biased eyes see — which has suggested to me that it’s been atrocious for years — but am trying to examine it from a numbers basis. There are a lot of outliers that can’t just be explained via rationalization, sort of like what you call out above.
I think refs are determining the outcomes of games and it is just not enjoyable to watch anymore
That is certainly quite the claim. I do not hold that same opinion but encourage anyone that does so to offer facts to support such an assertion.
These guys are working their tales off. They are human and make mistakes like the rest of us. Please see this recent article on the rigors and challenges inherit in officiating:
http://m.newsobserver.com/?cu=spreed%3A%2F16902171%2F16902174%2F27735708
… maybe a little specificity and clarity with respects to vocabulary would prove beneficial to those with high blood pressure, eye strain, hardening of the arteries and other assorted ailments resulting from #NCSTATESH%T — the basketball variety…..
The queston is NOT “Are referees determining the outcome of games?”
This answer is moot.The question properly stated is “Are some referees making calls or not making calls with the intentions of favoring the game outcome for some teams or against other teams.
The evidence at hand at best would support a conclusions similar to
“where there’s smoke… there’s fire…” or
“if it looks like duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck… it must be a duck…” or
“you can put lipstick on a pig… but it’s still a pig…”To find the smoking gun… stat guys…. ya’ll keeping ’em coming… and in the meantime…
I wonder if we could build us a “bear trap”…
and catch us a zebra redhanded ??Mr. Dog…. is that .50cal you boast off loaded.. if so I’ll gas up the pickup and get my hounds out of the pen and we’ll have us a zebra hunting party…
#NCSU-North Carolina's #1 FOOTBALL school!We’re .500 in a weak league, have been blown out three times, and have no top 50 wins. That indicates we’re not very good by historical standards.
Not very good <> suck
Actually, I don’t think you addressed the point in the quote you referenced.
But I’m sure it’s our fault. We’re just too dumb to understand what you’re telling us we really meant.
I found a few studies regarding referee bias, and it is a real phenomenon. From what I gathered, home field and crowd noise plays a big part, as well as the [subconscious?] tendency to want to “even things out”.
Click to access Officiating%20paper%20-%20Final%20draft%20version.pdf
Abstract: Results of the analysis indicate that officials are more likely to call fouls on the team with the fewest fouls, making it likely that the number of fouls will tend to even out during the game. This increased probability increases as the foul differential increases. In addition, there is a significant bias toward officials calling more fouls on the visiting team, and a bias toward foul calls on the team that is leading in score. The result is that the probability of the next foul being called on the visiting team can reach as high as .70 during some game circumstances. Finally, implications of this officiating bias are explored, including the fact that basketball teams have an incentive to play more aggressively, leading to more physical play over time.
And:
Statistical models show referees are homers – Research indicates officials unwittingly favour home teams and are particularly swayed by large crowdshttp://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/apr/28/referees-home-team-sean-ingle
Here’s an interesting one about Omission Bias. Check out the NBA rate of calls throughout the game, and how they diminish for more subjective calls from the first half to the 4th Q and especially OT when it’s pretty clear that the refs “let them play”.
Click to access Stanford-%20wertheim.pdf
All in all, I think there are psychological factors at work, including the theory that a team that’s perceived to be “not as good” won’t get the calls it needs to upset the better team. That’s the real Catch-22. I also think that individual refs are biased against certain teams – whether it’s conscious or subconscious is another matter.
Just ask yourself this… if the exact same play occurred, the EXACT same play, but with all roles reversed, do you think the same call is made?
Or put Duke in ‘Cuse’s role and Maryland (or NC State, or Ga Tech, or …) in Duke’s role, do you honestly think it’s called the same way?
Duke was given the benefit of the doubt because it’s Duke. Call it studying ‘tendencies’, call it reputation, call it the Cameron advantage. I call it biased officiating, at best. An official’s charge is to call the game he/she sees. Period.
Everyone knows Duke always gets that call at home. So many of us are not surprised by it. It was a close play, most agree.
I definitely believe there are all kinds of factors which influence a ref during a game. What I flatly reject is the idea that they come into a game looking to screw one team.
And IF that were the case, there are two other refs on the floor.
“And IF that were the case, there are two other refs on the floor.”
And then you have other phenomena concerning dominant personalities, the reluctance to overrule a co-worker, etc. Remember the call that went against StL in the World Series, the Pete Kozma fumble at second? At the end of the day they made the correct call by overturning the initial “out” call, but it took an almost unprecedented move for the umps to “get together” and get it right.
The problem with the argument that good teams get the calls is that it doesn’t seem to apply to those wearing red jerseys. At the beginning of last year, ranked number 6 in the country, did we get more of the benefit of good calls? I didn’t see it.
It’s just like the argument that says the Duke and Carolina get more calls because they drive the basket and that teams that shoot jumpshots don’t get the calls. We get more points from the inside the arc than almost every team in the country (I haven’t looked at the numbers in a while, but for a while we were ranked number 2 in that category), yet the statistics show that the expected increase in the number of foul shots isn’t there. One can argue that TJ is good at avoiding contact, but watching games I see him get slapped, hacked, and bumped on just about every shot he takes. It is a testament to his ability that he makes such a high percentage of shots through contact.
The problem with our league is that there is no consequence for an official being inept, no accountability. And that will not change until the PTB aren’t associated with the blue schools.
We’re .500 in a weak league, have been blown out three times, and have no top 50 wins. That indicates we’re not very good by historical standards.
Not very good <> suck
Actually, I don’t think you addressed the point in the quote you referenced.
But I’m sure it’s our fault. We’re just too dumb to understand what you’re telling us we really meant.
Thanks for trolling and contributing nothing to the conversation, at least your consistent! It looks like other people get what I’m saying, so maybe it’s not them, it’s just you that’s too dumb.
Here are some questions, let’s see if you can answer them.
1) If we’re so good, why could BC beat Syracuse and we can’t?
2) Why are we ranked 81 on kenpom behind such powerhouses as Cleveland St, Iona, North Dakota St., Stephen F. Austin (WTF), Richmond, St. Mary’s, Green Bay, etc.?
3) Why do we consistently draw fewer fouls than EVERY SINGLE TEAM we play? I haven’t gone through every game, but I’d be willing to bet you could count on one hand the number of games we’ve had a higher FTR.
4) Is every single reffing crew biased against us personally?Don’t look now, but freaking Virginia is leading the ACC. Virginia. Historically mediocre Virginia. And we’re crying about the refs. Miami won the ACC last year. And we’re crying about how the refs don’t love us.
Guess which games were close in FTR? Duke and UNC. DAMN YOU AND YOUR BLUE BIAS REFS!!!!
It’s not fair, but seriously, good teams are going to get the benefit of the doubt.
Call it the Greg Maddux effect. If you’re good, play the game the right way (fundamentally sound) you get the calls, especially the 50-50 ones, and a occasionally a few gifts. We’re not good. I’m with Pakfanistan on this. We’re very average in an average league, with no quality wins outside the conference or in it, and plenty of beat downs. Add to that, there’s nothing on Gottfried’s resume that says he ever puts a team on the court that’s anywhere but mediocre defensively. And the UCLA high post is not an offense that generates a lot of fouls, because it’s based on efficient scoring options and skilled passing, not attacking with the dribble drive. And of course, officials have bias, of course every call isn’t fair. Which one–play or officiating–exerts more impact on game outcomes? Our play, or officiating?
“Which one–play or officiating–exerts more impact on game outcomes? Our play, or officiating?”
^This is why I say this is a never ending argument. The “we’re just not that good” side will always say team play has more impact. True? Valid? I say yes.
The “bias” side will point to the numerous times where one or a few calls basically decides the contest in the other team’s favor. The refrain is “we did enough to win, but that call / those calls directly costs us the game”. Well, this is also true. It does happen. It will continue to happen. As others have alluded to, the real question is do certain refs or a subset of refs have a bias against a certain team/teams?
I state again that I believe most / all refs attempt complete objectivity while performing their duties.That said, I also believe that it’s dismissive to suggest that human nature (bias) doesn’t play a part. ‘X player is better/more athletic than Y player. X player gets the call on a close play.’ ‘X team is better than Y team. X team benefits from the subjective calls (Duke flops anyone?).’ ‘Y team has a reputation or tendency to be lazy and foul a lot.’
Tendencies. Reputations. Once those are decided, it’s damn near impossible to change someone’s mind on them. You see what you want to or believe you should see. Refs – they’re human.
Haha – I just heard Turgeon and Boeheim talking about their game.
“I thought Nick got fouled and the replay showed that,” said Turgeon.
“They shot 27 free throws. If anybody’s going to complain about the officiating, I’m going to complain,” Boeheim said. “If they didn’t turn it over 18 times, they wouldn’t have to worry about that.”
Everybody gets screwed! And there’s Jim saying implying that since Maryland had 18 TOs that they didn’t deserve a foul call at the end. Will it go ’round in circles?
I will add that along with team and player reps, I think coach reps play a huge part as well.
The problem with our league is that there is no consequence for an official being inept, no accountability.
Is there accountability in any league? You do realize refs work multiple conferences, right?
Yep, UVA is kicking tail, in first place. Yep, Miami won the conference last year. Yet all some want to do is blame others for our lack of success. It is getting old.
It’s not fair, but seriously, good teams are going to get the benefit of the doubt.
Correct. Nothing Earth shattering here though. Been that way for ages.
Refs are human and make mistakes. They are influenced by a variety of factors. But to suggest that they come into an arena looking to screw one team is, well, an interesting, and frankly baseless claim.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
