(02-07-2016 03:24 PM)BeerCat Wrote: (02-07-2016 11:53 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: (02-07-2016 11:44 AM)BeerCat Wrote: People that blame refs blow my mind. Why are the refs against UC? Do they hate the institution? Hate Mick Cronin? Hate the city? Do they all have money against UC? Not just UC though, they ALL also hate the Bengals and the Reds. Get a grip. Reffing does not cost UC any games and it sure as hell had nothing to do with the loss yesterday. If the game comes down to one play and the refs blow it that's on the team and coaches.
Also what I always say to people who ***** about refs is to get out there and give it a try. It is not easy and you make mistakes.
I agree officiating had nothing to do with the loss yesterday.
On a larger scale, I have even heard people associated with the athletic dept say the officiating has not been kind to UC this year across the board.
So you believe there is a conspiracy against UC?
Don't straw man the guy. It's easy to mock an absurd statement which "there is a conspiracy against UC" would indeed be.
But no one said that.
My point was that a Pitino or a UNC (or an O$U) are given a longer leash than other schools are. History shows UC is among the large group of schools with the shorter one. See the Loyer incident. Which is hardly the absurd statement that you're setting up to attack.
Likewise, saying that UC has suffered from poor officiating because there is some conspiracy would be worthy of ridicule.
But no one said that.
There are many reasons why a team might suffer from a stretch of "bad calls". The link between black uniforms and fouls/penalties has been shown in enough studies that the correlation is widely accepted. A team's playing style, current or historical, or even their body type can play into how games are called. Famously, Shaq O'neal suffered from fewer foul calls than other players would have received, thought to be because he was such a man-mountain that it was harder to spot the effects of hitting him.
There is also normalization to consider. Baseball statisticians attempt to take into account "luck" (swinging bunts, Texas leaguers, Jose canseco trying to catch your fly ball) and bad luck (atom balls, etc). Over some period, all other things being equal, luck is meant to roughly even out, but that does not mean that one cannot have sustained periods of primarily good, or bad luck.
It is entirely possible that UC is in a period of "bad luck" as pertains to calls. I'm not sure, one would have to seriously study the data. Certainly "bad calls" are more memorable than calls that go your teams way.
In any event, if someone is saying that UC is getting hosed for trying to leave the AAC, or because they're not Freemasons, then by all means unload on them. But distorting an argument in order to dismiss it is intellectually dishonest.