I'm not saying the Refs cost us the game...
but they certainly made it alot harder for us to win. It was hard enough to begin with. Here are some things from an article from the Free Press that I thought were interesting...
John Beilein and his players were careful not to criticize the officials after the game. The closest anybody came was when Beilein was answering a question about why he got a technical. (The answer: Zack Novak was called for a foul for standing still, and Beilein said he asked the official, “What (is he) supposed to do?”)
But three things to consider:
• 1. Harris had not fouled out once all year, despite playing 33 minutes per game. He had fouled out twice as a freshman — and in both of those games he played at least 37 minutes.
Against Oklahoma, he fouled out in 21 minutes.
• 2. Michigan averaged 15.2 fouls this year — the 10th-fewest in the nation. Oklahoma averaged 17.4. In this game, Oklahoma was called for 14 fouls and U-M was called for 23.
• 3. While Beilein juggled his lineup like a circus performer, Oklahoma coach Jeff Capel played his five starters the entire second half.
This definately played a role in Michigan losing today, no doubt.
Either way, we'll be back next year ready to go.
I think the reasons for officiating are three-fold:
1) Stars get the calls. Just like LeBron gets four steps in the Leauge, Griffin is going to get a lot of positive attention from officials.
2) We have come to expect poor officiating while playing an "away" game, and Kansas City, while not exactly next door to OU, is a hell of a lot closer to Norman than Ann Arbor.
3) College basketball is called very inconsistently, leaving a lot of room for reasons 1 and 2. The charge rule is a perfect example. I recall when even the announcers said "He shuffled right into him and took the charge," totally ignoring that if he was "shuffling" it couldn't have possibly been a charge. The absence of the "no charge" circle also came into play, with a couple of charges right under the basket.
College officiating is a joke. I've come to think it's less bias than it is just sheer incompetence.
The officiating was pretty standard (read: horribly inconsistent) for an NCAA game. I was forced to watch most of the UCLA-'Nova game with cut-ins to UM-OU, but the 'Nova game was far more physical than what I saw with UM, but the refs apparently decided to swallow their whistles for long stretches. Personally, I prefer refs who "let the teams play", especially when the guy getting most of the foul calls is the biggest, strongest guy on the court. I understand that the refs probably didn't want a repeat of the Morgan St. suplex, but UM (outside of Elbowgate) doesn't have a recent history of fighting or being excessively rough, and JB is a classy coach who would never allow that to happen. Calling the game as tight as they did created situations where the best players on one team were fouling out at outrageous rates while the other side marched to the free throw line for much of the second half.
You guys are pathetic. All UM had to do is hit their shots. They didn't. The team wasn't all there and it didn't help that Griffin was unstoppable. Regardless, this team broke through barriers and I can't wait to see how they perform next season.
the all-bench team had to hit the shots when manny and deshawn were riding the bench. anthony wright damn near did
Wright stepped up big time. We need more of that next year from the bench.
March 22nd, 2009 at 12:53 PM ^
It certainly would have helped but the game was not called fairly which certainly hurt UM, with Manny on the bench and 900 charges called on UM while the same kinds of plays getting called as blocking fouls on the other end.
If Michigan hit all their jumpers they could have overcome the poor officiating AND Blake Griffin but unfortunately both essentially worked together despite an average day. If only we had Superman on our team (or Manny Harris)
The solid truth of it:
- The team didn't lose because of the refs, they lost because Griffin really is as good as advertised and because they couldn't capitalize on some offensive opportunities down low. (The three-point shooting was as good as you can reasonably expect and is not to blame.)
- That doesn't mean the reffing wasn't inconsistent. We actually got away with taking a lot of liberties as Griffin. We beat him up pretty good. Nobody can complain that we weren't allowed to touch him, because he was bleeding every way to Sunday by halftime and we were billy clubbing him underneath the basket. The complaints I have are the inconsistent application of the block/charge rules, the T, and the boxing out foul on Manny.
- Regardless of all of the above, the team did itself proud during this tournament. They scored a mild upset over an ACC team and stood toe-to-toe with one of the best teams in the country and didn't back down. UCLA was intimidated into submission by Villanova. aTm didn't belong on the same court as UConn, and Maryland got Memphis all riled up and were exposed for the punk-ass bitches that they are. Those teams didn't belong. Michigan showed they belonged. All in all I'll take it and look forward to an even better year next year.
March 22nd, 2009 at 12:23 PM ^
I actually thought the box out foul on manny was reasonable, you're not allowed to undercut a player when he's in the air. The one that was a joke was the box out foul on Sims.
Note: My final game in high school I got called for an over the back and a foul on a box out the very next possession. Only game in my career i was ever in fout trouble.
March 22nd, 2009 at 12:38 PM ^
Maybe it's just the combination of my bias and the limitations of the TV cameras, but I saw Manny with position and Griffin going over top of him. I dunno. I mean, I know you can't undercut someone but at the same time, they can't be undercut if they're not jumping in the air over top of you. Looked to me like Griffin should have been called.
March 22nd, 2009 at 12:55 PM ^
This was how Blake Griffin drew ALL of those calls. He'd be out of position but jump over guys and fall down. It's not undercutting if the "undercut" player is basically making the other guy be underneath of him.
March 22nd, 2009 at 12:44 PM ^
Wow are you off base. Manny and Griffin were leaning on each other. Griffin jumped for the rebound, Manny did not. Griffin LANDED on top of Manny. How the fuck is that a foul?
Sims would have been fine had he not continued to push Griffin out of bounds. He already had him boxed out on the baseline and the ball was rebounded by our player and everything would have been fine. Instead Sims continued to ride Griffin into the cheerleaders, thus the foul.
We were definitely outmatched and outplayed, despite playing with a lot of guts. Lost to a better team, no shame in that, and it was a helluva good season. Everyone should be proud of our team.
But if you actually think that the refs didn't have a meeting where they "discussed" something along these lines: "The TV networks want Griffin coverage for as long as possible. It probably won't be a big factor, but Michigan has upset potential. If we can do a little something-something to keep their chances nil, there will be a little something-something in it for us," then you are, sorry to say, a little naïve.
How else can the "LeBron factor" be explained? It happens consistently with this caliber of player who, it just so happens, is a ratings-generating dynamo. Do you really think the refs just have altered senses of reality in the presence of such magnificent specimens? Or maybe there is a giant pile of money at stake and that gets the top priority? As for how the refs would get the throwbacks, it's easy enough for any business, including non-profits (like conference leagues and the NCAA) to hide and ninja-move money in their balance sheets.
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:06 AM ^
C'mon man. The grassy knoll stuff is a little silly.
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:28 AM ^
Whatever your feelings about it may be, this is how businesses operate. Do something that increases revenue, you get a bonus. A common practice, actually.
While I have made some inferences, no doubt, here are the facts:
1) There is a significant financial incentive to have star players, and their teams, on the court (on TV) as much as possible
2) It would be easy for the NCAA or a conference to give throwbacks to officials
3) If throwbacks are given, we would expect star players to get star treatment
4) Star treatment is observed commonly
Not quite proof, but how silly is it, really?
March 22nd, 2009 at 12:44 PM ^
The NCAA gets quite a bit of hype and exposure from upsets, too. They know there will always be a superstar in the Final Four - in fact, it's really the championships that make the superstars, not the other way around.
Second, do you think the financial return on having Blake Griffin in the later rounds is worth the galactic amounts of bad publicity, not to mention Congressional involvement, the NCAA would face if there were even the hint of them fixing the games?
My only means to compare the financial benefit of an upset vs. star-power is through analyzing their marketing strategy. As has been discussed, Mr. and Mrs. Griffin are frequently shown, while other parents of players are not at all. Perhaps it's due Big Grif's having sired two gifted athletes (but what about the Gradys, then?), but I am thinking there is a financial incentive behind showing them... audience polls indicating that they enjoy seeing these people, or something (can't imagine why). Also, the commentators' endless adoration of all things Blake Griffin reveal a general favoritism towards this guy and his family. Maybe they just think he's a swell guy, or maybe they have identified a cash cow and are rolling with it.
Cinderella stories are common in hyping up games. Michigan did not get much exposure for their success, relative to the hyping of Griffin, which leads me to believe that they have identified greater profitability in star-power over upset. At least, in this specific case.
I would like to take this opportunity, as well, to point out that I don't fault them for doing so; it's business... nothing personal.
As for negative publicity of "getting caught," I proffer that getting caught is highly unlikely. Moreover, examine similar cases of corruption and long-term backlash... Patriot's taping scandal, NBA referee betting on games... each could be diverting attention from corruption further upstream in the organization (another common practice in general, though not any evidence for it in these cases). In any case, it would be interesting to take a look at whether or not these scandals had significant negative effects on quarterly profit. I'm skeptical. People love their circensis. If there was no significant loss, then the threat of getting caught is not much of a counter-incentive (see also: Congress's unwillingness to actually punish professional sports leagues for corruption; they just make a lot of noise... posturing).
----
Summary: The marketing practices of the networks indicates higher profitability in OU winning than UM. The incentive is there and the officiating was obviously one-sided; draw your own conclusions from it. Establishing threat of exposure as a counter-incentive depends on three things: 1) whether or not similar scandals resulted in significant loss of revenue, 2) their inability to divert blame to lower-echelon staff (thereby retaining integrity of overall organization), and 3) their inability to effectively lobby government officials who could potentially punish them.
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:28 AM ^
I'm tired of seeing players take "charges" literally underneath the basket. The NCAA needs to implement the international rules with no charges inside the circle.
Part of the reason I like ncaa football more than basketball is that in football, the refs, on average have little to no impact on the game. In basketball, there are glaring inconsistencies that often do affect the game's outcome.
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:32 AM ^
osu v miami.
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:13 AM ^
Pass interference and the occasional well-timed holding flag are the only judgment type flags that I see on a consistent basis that can impact outcomes, but there is also a level of consistency for both sides.
In basketball, the consistency is very questionable especially when you have a physical big man or great slasher. You never know what a foul is or isn't, as well as a lack of replays on foul calls. In football, they try to show the replay of most penalties.
Hence why I said, "on average have little to no impact on the game". You pick one game from 6 years ago. Thanks for proving my point.
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:27 AM ^
ask jake locker how "little" impact football refs have on a game
March 22nd, 2009 at 12:45 PM ^
You can't blame the refs for that. They followed the stupid rule to the letter. Blame the NCAA for that idiocy, not the refs.
Okay, so that's two examples from the last 7 football seasons. Well, just doing a quick search on mgoblog for "refs" brings up, now this is just UM basketball and just this year, well over 20 threads.
"REFS F*CK MICHIGAN AGAIN"
"Place officiating comments here"
"Livid - Our kids deserved better today"
"I'm not saying the Refs cost us the game..."
"Worst refs ever"
Bitching about the refs after pretty much every loss. Even some of the wins, people still bitch about the refs.
Oh, that's right, the official was out there blocking the PAT to tie the game, wasn't he???
The NCAA definitely needs the charge/block circle. If NBA refs, who are supposed to be the best in the world, need it to make that call, surely NCAA refs do as well. The Gibson charge, in particular, was just comically bad yesterday.
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:44 AM ^
The game was reffed inconsistently at times and there were some bad calls, just like in every game. I think it's silly to point to the foul disparity though as evidence of the refs having some kind of anti-Michigan bias. Knowing what you do about both teams, if you hadn't expected Michigan to get called for more fouls than Oklahoma, then you know very little about basketball. As refs often say to coaches who point to the amount of fouls their teams have been called for compared to the other one, "tell your players to stop fouling." We are a team that stands around the perimeter and launches threes. Oklahoma is a team that goes inside to one of the biggest, strongest, best post players in the country. OF COURSE they are going to get more foul calls than we are, it's the nature of the styles of play. Also, for every foul they called us for, there were probably 4 or 5 other plays where we hacked the crap out of Griffin and they let it go. Yeah, better players tend to get more fouls called, but they also tend to get fouled more. I remember when I played in High School against Oak Hill (team that featured Rajon Rondo, Josh Smith, KC Rivers, and our own Anthony Wright) I've never done as much shoving and hacking in my life, some of which I got called for, but a lot of which they let go. All I'm saying is that there was a ton of contact with Griffin last night, and I don't think the officiating made much of a difference in this game.
March 22nd, 2009 at 12:58 PM ^
..with Michigan's best player on the bench most of the game for 2 or 3 "charges" and a box-out of Blake Griffin in which Griffin jumped over top of him.
The refs would have sucked Griffin's penis AND testes if he just would have asked.
Manny Harris played 21 minutes, or about 50% less than normal, because of foul trouble. And you think the officiating didn't have an impact?
I'm not saying that we would have won this game with him playing; that would be homerism. But having to go 19 minutes without him (including most of the last five minutes) didn't exactly help our chances of pulling the upset.
This is a very significant observation, and one that must be taken into account. Most of the fouls called on us were legit and we got away with a lot of contact, as well.
My focus is on the two absolutely, indisputably bogus calls against Manny that just happened to result in our best player... our best (only?) chance at driving to the basket... being fouled out. Which hasn't happened all season. With what, 5 minutes to go? Those calls had nothing to do with frustration re: Griffin's prowess; he wasn't involved. Maybe an unfortunate coincidence.... but I doubt it, as I've pointed out above, because there was, imho, clearly a financial incentive for OU to proceed in the tourney instead of UM.
Like Lenin said, look for the person who will benefit. And you will, uh, you know, you'll, uh, you know what I'm trying to say...
Refs are human like everyone else. They have their biases, resulting in the "star calls" and "homer calls" already mentioned by numerous posters. We will never really know if UM could have beaten OK with a level playing field, because the officiating ensured that there wouldn't be one.
So, while I am not saying that UM would have beaten OK if the officiating was fair, I am saying that it would have been nice to find out.
"We will never really know if UM could have beaten OK with a level playing field, because the officiating ensured that there wouldn't be one.
So, while I am not saying that UM would have beaten OK if the officiating was fair, I am saying that it would have been nice to find out."
Yes, the refs were crummy. But are you guys suggesting that we would have won if the game was called "fairly?" Or that they were all on the take, and the game was thrown? That's stupid.
I thought the calls on Manny were crummy, but I also think that they could have called even more fouls on the guys guarding Griffin. And some of you seem to be suggesting he wasn't all that. The guy is a stud, and I wish him well.
Also, as I said elsewhere, we played well, but complaining about the refs looks like sour grapes and whining. This is the difference between Michigan and Sparty fans. Take your lumps, be a nabm learn from it, and win so dominantly next year that the refs can't job you.
You keep beating up this straw man. Not one person has said that we definitely would have won if more calls had gone our way. What people are saying is that the way the game was officiated made it awfully difficult for us to win. If someone had told you before the game that Manny Harris (who was averaging 33 minutes per game and hadn't fouled out all season) would foul out in 21 minutes, would you have liked our chances?