Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: The Lakers Are a Broken Model

Are Officials Biased Against Nebraska?

This article was sent to me by someone who doesn't wish to have their name published other than their screen name, moosew648.

It includes statistics, histograms and scatter plots, and it's long. If you don't like reading that sort of thing, then look away.

I'm not going to add any of my own commentary so feel free to add your own. (For complete disclosure, I took courses in statistics for Engineers while at Nebraska - but I probably killed most of those brain cells along the way.)

Star-divide

First, some preliminaries.  The most appropriate way of assessing whether penalties are disproportionately biased against Nebraska is to compare the penalties in Nebraska games to other games in which our opponents play.  This way, we can hold constant one of the important factors in this relationship: the tendencies/abilities of Nebraska's opponents.  To this end, I create a data set of each game that Nebraska's opponents play.  For each game, I collect the number of penalties and yards by the Nebraska opponent, and the opponent's opponent. 

Are refs biased against Nebraska?  There are two ways where this bias can manifest: in penalizing Nebraska or failing to penalize the opponent.  Let's examine each of these in turn.

Nebraska is ranked 101 nationally in penalties, with 70 penalties for 652 yards.  On average, this means that Nebraska has more penalties than the other team.  Perhaps there is something about each team that causes the other team to experience more penalties.

Average number of penalties and penalty/yards for the opponents of Nebraska's opponents, and Nebraska's penalties for that game.

Team

Average Number

Average Yards

Nebraska Number

Nebraska Yards

Western Kentucky

7.2

56

6

75

Idaho

6.9

64.5

10

123

Washington

6.56

61

7

49

South Dakota St.

5.9

49.9

6

47

Kansas State

6.7

60

6

48

Texas

5.5

46.1

10

94

Oklahoma State

6.2

50.3

7

55

Missouri

6.9

54.7

6

53

Iowa State

4.8

43.3

6

54

Kansas

8.5

82.9

6

54

Texas A&M

7.1

58.4

16

145

This table shows the average number of penalties and yards from penalties for the opponents of our opponents this year.  We can also compare these numbers to the penalties that Nebraska had during those games.  For the most part, this tells us something that we already know; Nebraska is a highly penalized team.  What this doesn't answer, is whether there is a statistical difference between the average level of penalization for Nebraska and the other opponents. 

To answer this question, we can divide up the data set into two categories: games involving Nebraska, and games involving Nebraska's opponents.  We can then determine whether the average number of penalties committed by Nebraska is substantially different than the average level of penalties typically committed by other teams when facing the same opponents. 

Number of penalties per game:

Group

Obs

Mean

Std. Dev.

Opponents' opponents

109

6.6

2.8

Nebraska

11

7.8

3.1

Difference

 

+ 1.2

 

This shows that Nebraska has more penalties, on average, than the opponents of all the teams that Nebraska played this year.  We can also be reasonably confident that the difference in average penalties per game is statistically different from 0 (p-value < .10). 

The story is similar for the number penalty yards per game.

Group

Obs.

Mean

Std. Dev.

Opponents' opponents

109

57.0

27.5

Nebraska

11

72.5

33.8

Difference

 

+15.5

 

This shows that Nebraska is penalized, on average, for more yards than the opponents of all the teams we played this year.  Moreover, we can also be quite confident that this difference is statistically significant (p-value < .05). 

So the primary take-home point here is that Nebraska gets penalized more often than other teams.  This could be due to a number of different explanations.  First, Nebraska could be a poorly-disciplined team.  This is certainly possible, and we have seen time and time again the sort of unsportsmanlike penalties that either kill drives or save drives.  Unfortunately, without data on the types of penalties (i.e., holding versus unsportsmanlike), we are unable to rule out this explanation.  The second explanation is that the refs may simply be more flag-happy in those games involving Nebraska.  In other words, Nebraska is penalized more because both teams are penalized more.  To examine this, I create two different scatterplots intended to demonstrate the relationship between two teams' penalties.  I then provide a scatterplot for the games not involving Nebraska and then for the games involving Nebraska.  If this explanation is correct, then we would see a strong, positive relationship between these two variables (meaning that both teams are either penalized more or less, depending on the referee's disposition).

Scatterplot of Teams' Penalties (without Nebraska games)

scatterplot1

Scatterplot of Teams' Penalties (with Nebraska games)

scatterplot2

Now, one must be careful in drawing too strong of inferences from a sample of only 11 games, but the differences between the linear regression lines in these two figures are striking.  In the first figure, we see a weak, positive relationship.  This indicates that for the sample excluding Husker games, increasing the number of penalties by one team also slightly increases the penalties for the other team.  In these cases, there are either refs who are either more lenient or more strict in calling the game. 

In the sample with the Husker games, the relationship is weak and negative.  This indicates that when Nebraska's opponent receives more calls, then Nebraska will receive less.  This is most likely driven by the presence of the outlier on the right side of the graph (Texas A&M game), but even if we exclude this observation, the relationship is flat, indicating no relationship.

From these preliminary graphs, we can conclude that the reason for Nebraska's penalties is most likely not due to referee style (either lenient or strict), at least not for the sample of Husker games. 

The third and final explanation is that the refs are somehow biased against Nebraska and are more willing to penalize them.  This is by far the most unrealistic and most far-fetched of the three explanations.  Unfortunately, we cannot directly test this proposition, but we can look at another characteristic of penalties that might shed some light on whether the refs are biased against Nebraska.

The second way in which the refs' biases can appear is by failing to penalize Nebraska's opponents.  One way to get a gauge of the average level of penalties is to compare how the opponents do in games against the Huskers compared to all their other games.  If Nebraska's opponents are penalized much less in games against the Huskers, then that might be evidence that refs favor the opponents.  Let's take a preliminary look at the results.

Average number of penalties and penalty/yards when playing Nebraska versus all other teams

Team

Average Number

Average Yards

Nebraska Number

Nebraska Yards

Western Kentucky

6.4

48

7

51

Idaho

7.6

77.6

3

15

Washington

6.9

61.8

2

15

South Dakota St.

6

55.4

7

73

Kansas State

5.3

42.1

4

30

Texas

6.7

58.6

4

53

Oklahoma State

6.7

64.7

8

84

Missouri

5.8

54.2

7

40

Iowa State

6.2

52.1

3

40

Kansas

6.8

66.1

1

9

Texas A&M

8.7

68.8

2

10

The average number and the average yards columns represent the opponents' average penalties for the other games on their schedule (excluding Nebraska).  This gives an idea of how prone that team is to committing penalties.  We can then use this average "penalty proneness" to games involving the Huskers.

Of the 11 games, four of the opponents experienced more penalties than they usually did.  Of these four, Oklahoma State and Missouri were the only two teams that experienced more than one penalty higher against Nebraska than their average (1.3, and 1.2, respectively).  On the other hand, of the 7 games where teams were penalized less than their average, five teams were penalized less than half as much as they usually were.  The most striking example is either the Kansas game (penalized once compared to their average of 6.8 times a game), or the Texas A&M game (penalized twice for ten yards compared to their average of 8.7 times for almost 69 yards a game).  This would seem to support the hypothesis that Nebraska's opponents are penalized less than usual. 

A much more systematic test is to examine the different average levels of penalties and penalty/yards between those games involving Nebraska and those that don't.  If we find that Nebraska's opponents have lower average number of penalties when they are not playing Nebraska, then there may be a bias.

Average number of penalties by Nebraska's opponents when playing Nebraska and when playing other teams:

Group

Obs

Mean

Std. Dev.

Other opponents

109

6.6

2.6

Nebraska

11

4.4

2.5

Difference

 

-2.2

 

And, for penalty/yards:

Group

Obs

Mean

Std. Dev.

Other opponents

109

59.0

27.8

Nebraska

11

38.2

25.5

Difference

 

-20.8

 

These two tables show that, on average, when Nebraska's opponents play teams other than Nebraska, they will have 2.2 more penalties and 20.8 more penalty yards than they would if they played Nebraska.  Substantively, this means that simply by playing Nebraska, Nebraska's opponents will receive fewer penalties resulting in fewer lost yards.  We can also be extremely confident that this result is statistically significant (p-value < 0.01 in both cases).  Thus, we know that there is less than a 1 in a 1000 chance that we would see this difference in averages if there was actually no referee bias.

While these numbers are particularly damaging for those who suggest that there is no anti-Nebraska bias, it is not a direct test of the motivation behind the supposed bias.  Some Nebraska fans are paranoid that Nebraska's move to the Big Ten has triggered this backlash.  If this is correct, then we would expect to see an even bigger bias in favor of penalties for opponents in Big XII games. 

In the next two tables, we replicate the above tests but for a sample of only Big XII games. 

Average number of penalties by Nebraska's opponents when playing Nebraska and when playing other teams (Big XII games only):

Group

Obs

Mean

Std. Dev.

Other opponents

43

6.9

2.8

Nebraska

7

4.1

2.5

Difference

 

-2.7

 

And, for penalty/yards:

Group

Obs

Mean

Std. Dev.

Other opponents

43

60.0

29.6

Nebraska

7

38.0

25.9

Difference

 

-22.0

 

In Big XII play, on average, a team should expect to have about 7 penalties a game (6.9), for a total of 60 penalty/yards.  This changes if they are playing Nebraska, however.  If they are playing the Huskers, then they should only expect, on average, 4.1 penalties for 38 yards.  When we compare the entire schedule to only Big XII play, we can see that the anti-Nebraska bias is slightly larger for Big XII play.

Therefore, we can make two observations: first, that Nebraska is penalized to a greater extent than other teams (which is most likely unrelated to referee bias), and second, that Nebraska's opponents are penalized less on average.  Altogether, this appears to be a double whammy because not only is Nebraska moving backwards on the field, but the other team is moving forward.  The true damage in terms of changing the outcomes of games is probably un-estimable. 

A final observation to make can be made by looking at the difference in penalties and penalty/yards for each team and opponent.  By doing so, we can examine the (im)balance of penalties in a game.  For example, we can determine if Team A had 8 penalties for 40 yards and Team B had 7 penalties for 30 yards.  While this difference may be positive or negative at the individual-game level, on average, as the number of games increases, this should be close to 0.  This would imply no difference in the average penalties across teams.  Of course, this would be the case if there was no bias. 

Let's look at a histogram, which gives a sense of the distribution of these values in our sample.  Keep in mind that a positive value on this difference means that Nebraska's opponent is penalized more than its opponent in that game.  The first histogram excludes Nebraska games.

histogram1

This is shaped like you would expect.  The height of the bars represents the number of games that had that difference in penalties.  Most of the games are quite close to zero, indicating a relative balance of penalties for both sides.  There are some larger positive numbers and negative numbers, but much like a bell-curve (or a normal distribution), these are relative rare.  The mean reflects this parity, as the mean is close to zero as well (0.07). 

Now, compare this to a histogram of the 11 Husker games (with wider boxes because of the smaller sample size):

histogram2

The maximum value is 1, which indicates that the biggest difference in penalties in favor of Nebraska was +1.  On the other hand, there were five cases where Nebraska had 5 more penalties against it than its opponent.  However, take caution in interpreting this in favor of the anti-Husker hypothesis because this is a function of Husker penalties as well as opponent penalties.

When we look at penalty/yards, the results are even more striking.   Recall that the average (mean, median and mode) should all be close to 0.

histogram3

The mean for all the games (excluding Nebraska) is 2.04, which is close to 0. 

histogram4

The mean for the Nebraska sample is -34.3, which implies that Nebraska, on average, is penalized for 34 more yards than the opponent.  Not only are these differences statistically meaningful, but it is probable that they have the effect of either putting points on the board for the opponent or leaving points off the board for the Huskers.  Thus, the influence of penalties on the outcomes of game is incalculable, but most likely substantial.

To conclude, the differences in penalties and penalty/yards in Husker games is quite large, and in favor of Nebraska's opponents.  This is a function of two components: first, that Huskers are penalized more often, and second, that Nebraska's opponents are penalized less.  While the former is most likely unrelated to referees' dispositions, the latter is possibly a more direct test of the bias hypothesis.  Again, we are extremely confident in the difference in penalty yards, as there is a less than 1 in a 1000 chance that we received this result due to random chance.  This implies that we are extremely confident that there is a bias against Nebraska.  There is also evidence that this bias is larger in Big XII play.

Comment 50 comments  |  2 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Neb getting more penalities isn't necessarily suprising...

Because Neb is a very aggressive defense and can play undisciplined (on the o-line in particular) at times. But the lack of penalties on the other team is really the kicker in all this. Again, looking at A&M, this season they were every bit as undisciplined and mistake prone as Nebraska, and only gives up 2 minor penalties esp. running the sweep play that often gets called for a holding or two.

I wouldn’t worry too much about the sample size concerns, p-values already take that into account, so if they are significant, they probably are still statistically significant with more data.

But like all stats (unless you perform the Granger Causality test), causation is always debatable. I tend to believe that the officials are not punishing Nebraska per se, but are punishing Pelini’s behavior. While its not justified, it is understandable.

by meatybob on Nov 23, 2010 11:02 AM CST reply actions  

Again, we are extremely confident in the difference in penalty yards, as there is a less than 1 in a 1000 chance that we received this result due to random chance. This implies that we are extremely confident that there is a bias against Nebraska.

The data doesn’t support this. It establishes that there is a disparity in number of penalties on each team in a Nebraska game, but that’s as far as the numbers take you.

While a disparity may imply bias in officiating, it doesn’t actually prove it. It could just as easily come from differences in style of play when going against Nebraska (using a pass rush more likely to exploit a weakness and cause a holding call), cycles of retaliation unique to Nebraska games (if you get one or two guys known to take a stupid penalty if you piss them off, people will take advantage of that), a disproportionate number of players who either don’t “sell” penalties well (ie, receivers who don’t make pass interference as obvious as those on other teams) or play in a manner that makes penalties easier for the other team to sell (defensive linemen who don’t respond normally to holding or clumsy defensive backs who look like they’re committing more pass interference than usual).

None of these may be true and it may actually be bias, but the data doesn’t support either side. The raw numbers show disproportionate penalties but in no way hint at bias as the source therefor. I’d assume a mix: Pelini is a hard-ass who is going to piss off the refs, but he’s also going to teach his kids to (1) play hard and always attack (thus risking penalties) and (2) to finish the play even when fouled and not take a soccer-style dive (thus making opposing penalties less obvious).

undefeated in Sun Belt play

by LongCat on Nov 23, 2010 11:08 AM CST reply actions  

The numbers say what this anonymous person WANTED them to say, LongCat.

"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp

by K. Scott Bailey on Nov 23, 2010 6:19 PM CST up reply actions  

We have the hypothesis, the data...what about the solution?

I say the solution starts with kicking some Buffalo behind this Friday.

by Billgrip on Nov 23, 2010 11:13 AM CST reply actions   1 recs

rec

Anthony Tolliver says "Get that weak stuff outta here!"

EXTEND JASON RICHARDSON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Omaha Sun on Nov 23, 2010 7:49 PM CST up reply actions  

The Two Texas Games

Which subsequently are our only two losses, have been where the bias has really shown. Texas and Texas A&M were penalized for a combined 6 penalties for 63 yards. Nebraska was penalized 26 times for 239 yards.

Also, look at the last 4 games, all Big XII opponents. Missouri, Iowa St. Kansas and Texas A&M were penalized a combined 13 times for 99 yards. Nebraska was penalized 32 times for 304 yards in those games, 16 for 145 in the last game alone.

This may not be concrete evidence of bias, but it sure tends to lean in that direction.

I AM VIKING, HEAR ME ROAR!!!

by BaldViking on Nov 23, 2010 11:27 AM CST reply actions  

Let Me Try These Two Angles

If it’s not bias, are the officials, at least, “squeezing the strike zone,” so to speak? If a pitcher doesn’t have his best stuff and he’s bitching under his breath about the strike zone, what does the home-plate umpire start doing? He starts to “squeeze” the strike zone.

Listened to a little bit of the “Shick and Nick” show on 1620 The Zone. It sounds like Bo and this particular officiating crew have a “history,” like how a baseball manager and/or player have a “history” with an umpire and/or umpiring crew (translation: they can’t stand each other).

If it is bias, check out this blog called LawPundit.com. The blog is written by a distinguished law professor at Stanford. He had more than a few choice words about the officiating in College Station Saturday night. Among those choice words were “this is college football at its worst.” And check out the juicy take at the end of the post he has about last December’s 00:01 incident at the Big XII Title game. He barely stopped short of saying the “fix” was in.

Hmmm…..didn’t somebody squawk last December something about “Once Is An Accident, Twice Is Coincidence?”

"This is gonna cause more confusion than a mouse at a burlesque show." --Foghorn Leghorn

by Section 37 on Nov 23, 2010 12:20 PM CST reply actions  

Not really a neutral viewpoint

While I enjoy his take on this A&M game, it’s probably worth pointing out that the writer of LawPundit grew up in Nebraska and is an alum of UNL (and to be nitpicky, he’s not a professor at Stanford Law, just an alum).

by JCMo on Nov 23, 2010 1:32 PM CST up reply actions  

He's A UNL Alum?

That solves that mystery. I was scratching my as to why a law blogger was taking so much interest in a football game?

And he graduated Stanford Law, not teach there. I stand, corrected.

I posted the link to his blog posting for the sake of discussion.

"This is gonna cause more confusion than a mouse at a burlesque show." --Foghorn Leghorn

by Section 37 on Nov 23, 2010 4:23 PM CST up reply actions  

And to be frank...

his is a lawyer, and typically statistical analysis is not really what they do. That is why you find little to zero math on the LSAT.

by meatybob on Nov 23, 2010 2:23 PM CST up reply actions  

This

is simply a statistical analysis. I don’t see how you can conclude from this an actual bias is true. This is designed on strictly quantity and averages. What about WHEN the penalty occurred? Was it in 2 minutes of the 4th quarter? Was it a good or bad call? When the penalty occurred, what other benefit did the non-offending team receive (i.e. first down, drive kill, etc)? The only thing I see from this is that NU gets roughly rolled for 30 more yards each game. Are pass interferences 15 yards? Yes. Do we get called for them more often than other teams due to the style of defense we play? Yes. (Not saying I don’t like the style, hell the style is awesome, but we need to observe that by playing man-to-man and harassing WRs we will pick up calls that others probably won’t.) What were the penalties called most often? On and on and on. I don’t see how anyone can conclude anything from this analysis other than to say “NU gets penalized more often than other B12 teams and the result is usually for more yards.”

by JimmytheRed on Nov 23, 2010 1:16 PM CST reply actions  

I do find

statistical anomalies like “over 16 quarters, NU has not had an offensive holding called against their opponent” more of a systemic issue with the referees. You always hear that “holding could be called on just about every play”. Well, I can tell you that we haven’t had that called in our favor for over the last 16 quarters. Why is that? Are they making a human error in deciding that because we play more aggressive they will allow more leeway with the rules to the offense?

by JimmytheRed on Nov 23, 2010 1:20 PM CST up reply actions  

Read the second half

Read the second half of the article. The article clearly says that the amount of penalties called against us, can not determine bias. But the amount of penalties called on other teams can. And that is where the 1 in 1000 comes from. The other teams are statistically significantly not getting penalties called on them when playing Nebraska.

by Huskerlax on Nov 23, 2010 2:21 PM CST up reply actions  

It is simple

the crew that worked the ISU, Texas, and Texas A&M doesn’t like Nebraska. The evidence is in the stats. At first I thought I would miss the Big XII but now I hope we win the title and flip them off as we walk out the door with trophy.

by Huzkerfan on Nov 23, 2010 1:59 PM CST reply actions  

Even if we don't win the title

I’ll be glad to get out of this pathetic excuse of a conference. I’m sure we’ll run into bias officiating at some point again in the future, but no way would the Big 10 put up with that crap.

by Billgrip on Nov 23, 2010 2:01 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

That’s why the Big 10 has been around for 100 years and the Big 12 couldn’t even last two decades.

by Billgrip on Nov 23, 2010 2:02 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

Apologies from an Aggie

Sorry Husker fans. If the defensive struggle of last Saturday that got the better of you has hurt your feelings! I wish you good luck in the Big 10. Hopefully, the referees there would be unbiased and totally willing to support you in your on the road games at the Big 10 venues such as Iowa, OSU, PSU, UM and UW, so that you can disturb the balance of power there. Afterall, they really want to have you more than the schools in the Big XII who thought of you as a family for the past decade or even more (incase of the former Big 8 schools). Maybe your coaches’ whine central will find greater sympathy and understanding in the Big 10 and their anger issues will be adored in the big 10 land. Perhaps you will win several games after scoring 6 points in 4 quarters there. Afterall, Big 10 may be just the right fit for you and we will not miss you at all for breaking our house and defecting to a rival conference..so long…

by YUMC on Nov 23, 2010 2:25 PM CST reply actions  

I think we have our first case study here

Troll? Not a troll? And just how trollish is his trolling (if he is indeed a troll)?

And since the original has me in an academic mood: What is the correlation between the trollishness of the tone of this post and the stupidity of its content?

by Cheeseandcorn on Nov 23, 2010 2:53 PM CST up reply actions  

two things

I would say – not a troll. Expressing an entirely different viewpoint, one that we wouldn’t like, but I will have to say that there’s another half to the equation, and that’s how we respond to them.

We’re getting a lot coming in, and that’s because we have some strong feelings coming out at the end of the season.

So…. if the person isn’t a troll, but has a different point of view, and we respond to them as they’re a troll, then doesn’t that encourage more trollish behavior?

Bottom line – are we becoming troll enablers?

Go Big Red Nebraska!
Our Cobs Are Bigger Than Yours!
Corn Nation!
Twitter!
cornnation@gmail.com

by Jon Johnston on Nov 23, 2010 3:31 PM CST up reply actions  

Oh, Lordy, now we're

“troll enablers”. To make a comparison to AA, does this mean we no have to attend “Troll-anon” meetings? : )

by redvalley on Nov 23, 2010 4:29 PM CST up reply actions  

plus

to be honest, he has a point with:

Perhaps you will win several games after scoring 6 points in 4 quarters there.

which hurts… because it’s too truthful.

That bastard.

Go Big Red Nebraska!
Our Cobs Are Bigger Than Yours!
Corn Nation!
Twitter!
cornnation@gmail.com

by Jon Johnston on Nov 23, 2010 3:32 PM CST up reply actions  

His main point is:

“his” team won the game. He’s here to rub our faces in it. Very childish. Most people here were either discussing the statistics or reading about it. He was a disruption to what was going on. I’m sorry, but, in my opinion that is just as bad as trolling.

by Roadweary on Nov 23, 2010 3:39 PM CST up reply actions  

9 POINTS FTW!!!!!!1!!!11!!!!
11. 2-YARD PASS INTERFERENCE
• Culprit: Safety Courtney Osborne
• A replay’s interpretation: Osborne climbed the back of A&M’s Bradley Stevens, knocking the intended receiver over.
• Direct result: Nullified an overthrown pass on second down and gave A&M an automatic first down.
• Degree of impact: Moderate
Had no flag been thrown, the Aggies would have faced a third down and 10. It’s unlikely they would have kept the drive going. Instead, the possession continued and ultimately ended with a go-ahead field goal.
12. 15-YARD PASS INTERFERENCE
• Culprit: Cornerback Alfonzo Dennard
• A replay’s interpretation: Jeff Fuller had two hands on Dennard, but the Husker cornerback didn’t get his head turned around in time.
• Direct result: Rewarded Texas A&M with a first down after its third down pass was incomplete.
• Degree of impact: Considerable
The punt teams would have been on the field had that call not been made. Four plays later, the Aggies were inside the NU 15-yard line. They took the lead with a 28-yard field goal 27 seconds into the fourth quarter.
15. 15-YARD ROUGHING THE PASSER
• Culprit: Safety Courtney Osborne
• A replay’s interpretation: Just as Ryan Tannehill released the football, a blitzing Osborne delivered a hit on the Aggie QB.
• Direct result: Gave A&M a first down after Tannehill’s pass on third down fell incomplete
• Degree of impact: Extreme
The Aggies were going to punt the ball back to Nebraska, but then the infraction was called. It moved the ball to the NU 34-yard line (basically field goal position). Six runs later, A&M’s Randy Bullock made the game-winning kick.

/12th Man (+7)

by monsatano on Nov 23, 2010 3:57 PM CST up reply actions  

F

T
W
!

Anthony Tolliver says "Get that weak stuff outta here!"

EXTEND JASON RICHARDSON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Omaha Sun on Nov 23, 2010 7:53 PM CST up reply actions  

He's doing the same thing on burntorangenation

He’s definitely a troll. He isn’t looking for anything on other team’s sites other than to stir the pot and whip everyone into a frenzy. He get’s beat down by more rational arguments from more intelligent people everytime he does this, yet he seems to continue. I think that qualifies him as a troll. A stupid and immature troll.

I don't want NO PART of yo' tired ass country club, YA FREAK BITCH!

by HookTech on Nov 23, 2010 4:28 PM CST up reply actions  

Mr. Cash would like to thank you for stopping by Corn Nation.

"...when the devil says to you: do not drink, answer him: I will drink, and right freely, just because you tell me not to."
— Martin Luther

by Go Big Rev on Nov 23, 2010 3:01 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

Is there a reason

that there isn’t something like the NFLPA for college referees? This would make more sense for everyone IMO. Conferences would just pay the association a fee for the number of games and the association would provide the referees for the games.

by JimmytheRed on Nov 23, 2010 4:23 PM CST reply actions  

well

I did that series earlier this year on officiating.

They are reviewed after games…. but you have to wonder what the reviews look like.

Go Big Red Nebraska!
Our Cobs Are Bigger Than Yours!
Corn Nation!
Twitter!
cornnation@gmail.com

by Jon Johnston on Nov 23, 2010 10:30 PM CST up reply actions  

I dont trust Beebe (assuming he is in on the officials reviewing).

One of the founding members of The Super Duper Matt Cassel Fanclub.
We all have the right to our own opinions, its just that mine are right.
My quest for soberiety is an ongoing struggle.

by nateforchiefs on Nov 24, 2010 6:20 PM CST up reply actions  

I don't think the refs are biased.

Let’s face it. We play agressive and that tends to lead to more penalties. Also, with Bo screaming at everyone, borderline calls may not go in our favor. If someone was screaming at you all night, and there was a call that could go either way, wouldn’t you be more inclined to toss the hanky?

by Aaron Musfeldt on Nov 23, 2010 7:55 PM CST reply actions  

Nice Homework Jon

You can take your post graduate classes in the BIG 10 :)

I think its time our players and our coaches started playing football. You know, blocking, catching, throwing on target, tackling (been pretty good) and executing.

I hope to God, Burkhead is taking some snaps and practicing a few throws. For the love of God that is all it would take to of won against A&M. Our D plays so well.
However your statistics bring up the point that ….it is near impossible to play a tough opponent and the Refs at the same time.

TM is not 100% and quite frankly should not be on the field…..his terrible throwing cost us over and over. Green,,,,should never see the field again. Zac if your hurt,,,Damn.
So we will find out what kind of coaches we have. WATSON your on the block.

by Pornhusker on Nov 23, 2010 8:16 PM CST reply actions  

Still not sold on the whole conspiracy thing, bias maybe

But probably unwitting bias.

Thought the article was very interesting. It left me wondering how the last two seasons would look under the same scrutiny, you know, prior to the Big Ten announcement. I think comparing the prior seasons to this one, assuming similar results, might indicate its not a conspiracy/bias for leaving the BigXII thing, but rather a Bo wearing on the officials thing.

I tend to agree with the post that likened Bo’s relationship with a particular officiating crew, to that of a baseball manager and a specific umpire. It’s like a self-fulfilling prophecy… the officiating crew knows the coach is going to be in their grill, and after the first penalty, solid call or not, there he is – spewing. And the more that goes on, the more an unwitting bias creeps in. After a bit, they just can’t give that team’s players the benefit of the doubt, and probably do so more for their opponents. So if this happens in 3 league games, then naturally (logically?) it appears this happens more frequently in Big XII games and there is a conscious bias.

That said though, the officials should be stronger than that. The particular crew that worked the UT, IAST, and TAMU games must have really weak leadership.

by aka_slim on Nov 23, 2010 9:45 PM CST reply actions  

A "L" would be so much easier to take if it didn't happen this way...

However Saturdays game was the first time I had ever screamed at my computer (the game was on ESPN3 here…) Never in my life had I felt such anger for a ref, if I was in Bo’s shoes someone woulda got bitchslapped. Without a doubt the worst calls from officals since they added a second to the clock.

I feel sorry for the Aggie fans too, they got all pumped up to beat Nebraska, and in the end they got the game handed to them since the Big 12 figured they couldn’t hold thier own.. talk about a letdown.

However nothing can be done about it now except take it out on Colorado….

by SinCityHusker on Nov 23, 2010 10:02 PM CST reply actions  

I'm pretty sure the Aggie fans weren't "let down" after their team defeated the Huskers.

And after watching the 0:01 thing again on YouTube, it’s still the right call. And that’s from a guy who actually WANTED you guys to beat Texas that day.

"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp

by K. Scott Bailey on Nov 24, 2010 11:26 AM CST up reply actions  

6 pts ftl :(

We got hosed that game in the final scoring drive of tamu with number 12 and 15. However, our offense failed us. We looked good to start but Martinez got hurt and we apparantly cant do anything on offense with cody green as qb. That is why we lost more than the bad calls. I am a Huskers fan and i do think the refs should get the game ball for that win, but as Cornhuskers we should dominate other teams, not put up 6 points and complain about calls. Its not like it was the 89 orange bowl or whenever that was we had our tds called back for some bs holding or clipping call. Still rooting for miami to lose every time they play. This wasnt supposed to be a championship year anyway and although we all got our hopes up when we were #5, Auburn is probably the better team this year. (Not Oregon, TCU, or Boise St!) 3 more years of Martinez! Hope he gets some adamantium ankle implants!

by option_right on Nov 23, 2010 10:50 PM CST reply actions  

All this math

Is great, but if anyone, & I mean ANYONE, watched that game & didn’t see the bias, they are completely numb from the neck up. Outrageous! Is the only sane reaction to such colosal BS.

by SONOFLY on Nov 25, 2010 11:51 PM CST via mobile reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

CN needs your tips! Inform us with an email to: cornnation - at - gmail.com. Better yet, join the CN community and create a fanpost or fanshot!

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Introduction to the BIGTEN

Recent FanPosts

Small
Huskers catching up with A&M to win Espn contest. Help vote!
Mschultz_small
College Football should be banned - Comments?
N656335037_2472909_5238_small
Please Donate During EDSBS's Charity Drive
Small
How can the B1G improve in baseball?
Nyjer_morgan_butterfly_small
Help a CNer Out - Give Your Opinion on Online Discussion
10982_lores_small
Corn Nation March Appreciation - Congrats, Husker Pucks!
Small
Do you think Notre Dame will ever join the B1G?
Small
Tim Miles = Great Hire!!!
10982_lores_small
CornNation March Appreciation, Day Five

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SHOP THE CORN NATION STORE

Gameday Depot University Apparel

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recent FanShots

More Texa$$ Arrogance
Irish payout to Weis keeps piling up
Call me anal retentive, but this is NOT how Nebraska Baseball should make it to ESPiN. The best...
Building for the B1G. Recent aerial photo of Memorial Stadium expansion and Haymarket arena construction from HuskerMax.com.
Adam Carriker writes NEW blog, "Draft Day" on ProInterviews
Alfonzo Dennard bond set at $5000
Brook Berringer, 16 Years On....RIP, #18.

From our friends at HuskerMax.com.
Athletic Department Announces Two Options for Redeeming Spring Game Tickets
Adam Carriker writes about the Off-Season on Pro Interviews
New LB Huskers Commit

+ New FanShot All FanShots >


Managers

Photo_6_small Jon Johnston

Rc_icon_small Husker Mike

Editors

Hobbes2_small JLew

Bern_hat_small Brian Speers

Mel-gibson-braveheart-photograph-c1010192231_small Billgrip

Sword_011_small Aaron Musfeldt

Rickysmith_small Ricky Smith

Al_bundy_vs_chobot_small Andy Ketterson

Authors

Cornguy_small Cobby

Sb22_small William Grubb

Pelini_small AdamTheTitan