am now convinced its rigged just like 50's basketball
their way to rationalize it all
so we all know how fair the refs are
Last edited:
am now convinced its rigged just like 50's basketball
their way to rationalize it all
so we all know how fair the refs are
You did hear that OSU requested it be reviewed today and they cancelled the targeting call against them so the player no longer has to sit out their next game.Yea, personally I hate where we are at in football with the targeting calls and such. But that is the rule now and NU has been on the wrong side of it plenty over the years. Dude brought forearm to head and neck area of defensless player.
I know it’s a really thankless job, but I agree a full time position with good pay would change things. New faces would definitely make a difference. If they grade and chart every week, biases in calling or not calling penalties against certain teams would be there in black and white and should trigger a deeper dive/conversation/replacement, etc.I think if you go fulltime and pay well enough, you'll attract an entire new group of refs. Yes, bias exists, but if you grade them out each week, you'll be able to eliminate most of that. I've been a certified ref before, usually most guys are fairly locked into the ongoing play instead of the which team is it mentality.
Paying guys $2k/game means we get half"donkey" refs and not a good supply of replacements. If you paid $100k starting, you could attract tons of football people (high school coaches would jump at this IMO).
For sure some coaches would be bad.I know it’s a really thankless job, but I agree a full time position with good pay would change things. New faces would definitely make a difference. If they grade and chart every week, biases in calling or not calling penalties against certain teams would be there in black and white and should trigger a deeper dive/conversation/replacement, etc.
If the B1G is doing the paying, I’d say starting them at $150 would likely attract even better candidates. I’m not saying $100k is peanuts, but depending on where the individual lives (if in the footprint of the B1G) $100k isn’t likely to be a huge attractant.
Your comment about high school coaches gets me thinking though. I had a short HS coaching experience (unpaid assistant isn’t attractive) and I’ll say that few of the coaches seemed to have a great grasp on the rules. They had the basics down, but I was surprised at how little some of them knew about football outside of their area of expertise. I’m sure that varies all over the place, but it was surprising.
For sure some coaches would be bad.
I'm on board with $150k as well. There are billions of dollars here, carve out a few million and let's fix this.
I look forward to becoming one of them darlings.....The quality of the refs isn’t the issue. The outcomes will be the same, until the conference quits with protecting its darlings.
Nope, full time would not change a thing UNLESS the refs were INDEPENDENT of each conference, hired by and reviewed by and independent company.I know it’s a really thankless job, but I agree a full time position with good pay would change things. New faces would definitely make a difference. If they grade and chart every week, biases in calling or not calling penalties against certain teams would be there in black and white and should trigger a deeper dive/conversation/replacement, etc.
If the B1G is doing the paying, I’d say starting them at $150 would likely attract even better candidates. I’m not saying $100k is peanuts, but depending on where the individual lives (if in the footprint of the B1G) $100k isn’t likely to be a huge attractant.
Your comment about high school coaches gets me thinking though. I had a short HS coaching experience (unpaid assistant isn’t attractive) and I’ll say that few of the coaches seemed to have a great grasp on the rules. They had the basics down, but I was surprised at how little some of them knew about football outside of their area of expertise. I’m sure that varies all over the place, but it was surprising.
Nope, full time would not change a thing UNLESS the refs were INDEPENDENT of each conference, hired by and reviewed by and independent company.
Until and unless the refs become separate from the conferences, full or part time won't matter, you will still have bias.
The key is removal from the conferences.
Completely agree. Affiliated refs will never be unbiased as it benefits the league for the better teams to win and get a chance to make the playoffs. Fortunately for us none of the remaining teams are playoff worthy so we can go back to only not having offensive holding called on our opponents like normal.Yep, I mentioned this same thing a few posts back and I fully agree.
Why are there conference refs? Should be a national pool of full time refs that are assigned not based on conference ties.
Completely agree. Affiliated refs will never be unbiased as it benefits the league for the better teams to win and get a chance to make the playoffs. Fortunately for us none of the remaining teams are playoff worthy so we can go back to only not having offensive holding called on our opponents like normal.