Well, Karl Hess just helped screw A&M...

[feldspar]

calltheobvious,

FWIW, Seth just did a complete mea culpa on the TAMU/Memphis clock call.

Good for him.

[throatybeard]

But you know who irritates me the most? The one CBS observer who seemed to see it correctly, Greg Gumbel. After listening to Raftery and Lundquist express incredulity at the call, then spending a commercial break obviously talking to Seth Davis about the play, he still allowed Davis to go on like an idiot about the play, only softly to add a "maybe it was because..." comment--which is obviously the correct explanation and the correct rule interpretation--followed by something like, "The play will obviously be discussed a lot." Well, Greg, the play wouldn't be discussed much at all if you'd step up like a man and explain the damned play, even if it means in the process calling out your colleagues as a bunch of dopes.

In the studio just now, Seth Davis just issued a profuse mea culpa and totally recanted his position on that call. Also told Gumbel he was right.

[kexman]

I wasn't sure if they were incompetant or were just trying to stir up the controversy. I picked it up on the first replay without tivo. I'm a scientist not a paid analyst...I expect more. I can understand the fact that they thought it was 0.2 upfront, but not to be able to figure out where the 1.1 seconds came after the refs made the call suggests these guys are morons.

Gumbls should have stepped up and at least made a strong comment suggesting that this was the call...pathetic!!!

I wish they would take the tourney away from CBS and give it to NBC or ABC. One...there sports are better...plus we could watch on multiple networks on their family of channels. It seems ludicrous that the NCAA gives the games to the one channel that does not have multiple channels to broadcast all of the games.

[fan345678]

I gotta say, ever since the Indiana guy bear hugged Carlos Boozer back in '02, I get ticked off any time a foul is called in that kind of situation. Not Matt Christensen ticked off, but ticked off nonetheless.

Also, with the inability or refusal of the announcers to see that the correct call was made on the out-of-bounds review, I am even more convinced that Duke hatred is tied in with a larger epidemic of belief that officials might have a reason for anything that at first glance seems awry with an individual observer's own views. I hate it when officials anticipate calls (like the Ewing "foul" vs. St. Johns a few years back), but I hate it more when announcers anticipate officiating and build their broadcast around it. I can accept ignorance among fans, to an extent.

I'm trying to find some way to blame Hume and Descartes.

[dukeENG2003]

someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this situation very similar to the Clemson game, but officiated differently (I'm not familiar enough with the rule book to say which way is correct, I just know that it was done differently)

In the Clemson game, the claim was that the officials couldn't correct the fact that the clock was started late, but they could correct that it was stopped late (which is why 4.3 seconds appeared on the clock, as opposed to somewhere between 2 and 3 seconds which would have been more reasonable). In this game, the clock was definitely started late (well, not at all). Seems like if they were able to take time off of the clock despite it never starting in this game, they would have been able to correctly officiate the Clemson game.

I happen to think that they made the right call in the A&M game (dunno about the Clemson game, but as a Duke fan, I obviously liked the way it was officiated), but I'm curious what the rulebook says with regards to correcting timing errors of when the clock should START.

[calltheobvious]

In the studio just now, Seth Davis just issued a profuse mea culpa and totally recanted his position on that call. Also told Gumbel he was right.

Good for Seth. It would also be nice if Verne and Raf would do the same at the beginning of the Memphis-Tennessee game on Saturday.

[calltheobvious]

I wasn't sure if they were incompetant or were just trying to stir up the controversy. I picked it up on the first replay without tivo. I'm a scientist not a paid analyst...I expect more. I can understand the fact that they thought it was 0.2 upfront, but not to be able to figure out where the 1.1 seconds came after the refs made the call suggests these guys are morons.

Gumbls should have stepped up and at least made a strong comment suggesting that this was the call...pathetic!!!

I wish they would take the tourney away from CBS and give it to NBC or ABC. One...there sports are better...plus we could watch on multiple networks on their family of channels. It seems ludicrous that the NCAA gives the games to the one channel that does not have multiple channels to broadcast all of the games.

Kex,

I think the point you bring up in your last graf here deserves its own thread; I think it would make for a very interesting Malcolm Gladwell-type New Yorker piece or something.

I have no data to support any sort of a coherent position, but the issue you bring up raises many interesting questions:

Viacom is a huge MNC, and at first glance, it makes little sense to me how they haven't expanded their television holdings. Is the NCAA contract so lucrative that it is actually cost-effective for them not to expand, so that they can continue to out-bid competitors for the NCAAMBT? Presumably, one of the reasons they are able to do so is the revenue they generate from DirecTV packages that they can sell as a result of having only one channel on which to broadcast.

I'm hazy on the questions relating to ad revenues, though. Is ad space in a CBS-only world greater in the aggregate than if NBC, for example, had the tournament and were selling adds on NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, and Bravo at the same time?

Does the tournament possibly lend itself to a collaborative effort and piece-meal bidding process whereby networks bid on particular weekends of the tournament? I think that this would be a very interesting way for the NCAA to go if they could work a short-term deal, allowing everyone to easily compare the coverage of various networks.

I have answers to none of this, but it's sure fun to think about.

[Classof06]

If Acie makes his wide-open layup, none of this is an issue...

[calltheobvious]

If Acie makes his wide-open layup, none of this is an issue...

I think this is a terribly unfair characterization of that play, given the two defenders involved and how hard he'd worked over the course of the game.

[Fish80]

No call, but he was fouled, look at the play again, defender puts his arm around Acie's waist. Didn't yank him down, but definitely interfered with his shot.

[throatybeard]

If Acie makes his wide-open layup, none of this is an issue...

I wasn't aware a 1-point lead with 45 seconds left was an insurmountable deficit. This isn't soccer.

[Tateball23]

I agree I don't think a full 1.1 seconds should have been taken off the clock. But it wouldn't have mattered. They still would have lost. And it is not all Karl Hess's fault. There were several people involved.

[phaedrus]

it would have been 3 points if he'd made the layup. which is slightly less surmountable.

[Redickulous]

Karl Hess Blows. I'm sure he's real nice and all, but his officiating is and has always been completely atrocious and unfortunately he's an ACC ref. Yay.

[calltheobvious]

Karl Hess Blows. I'm sure he's real nice and all, but his officiating is and has always been completely atrocious and unfortunately he's an ACC ref. Yay.

I'm interested to learn of the credentials that qualify you to judge men's college basketball officials. I presume, since you use a word as strong as "atrocious," that you have some experience in this area beyond what one can get in front of a television.

[Fish80]

Wouldn't it be smarter to say kind things about the officials? We know Karl Hess is an ACC official and he does a lot of our games.

[Redickulous]

Wouldn't it be smarter to say kind things about the officials? We know Karl Hess is an ACC official and he does a lot of our games.

Yes, it would maybe be wise, if Karl Hess were sitting around trolling post 25 of the DBR, but c'mon, perhaps we're overstating the importance of our little posts on the internet.

I have no statistical evidence. I am not a referee. Sorry. I just have always thought Karl's refereeing to be subpar---and I have no opinion whatsoever about his recent controversial call.

Again, I'm sure he is a super-nice man.

If you think it will help, I'll write again and say I hate Duke or something.