CURSED IN WISCONSIN AS PACKER...and BADGER FANS......IS IT REAL ??.CONSIDER

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patler

That same perspective is becoming very prevalent among fantasy league participants. Who cares if the Packers lost and the Bears won so long as your fantasy players did well?

---

This is why I loath FF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoosier

I think PBs point--which I agree with--was that Badger fans are predisposed to notice bad calls that go against Wisco and to be blind to bad calls that favor our team. Arizona and KY fans were whining up a storm about how the officiating was slanted in favor of Wisconsin. Complaining about the refs is pointless for the team (beyond their control) and for the fans, who are unable to be reliable judges of what is good and what is bad officiating.

---

WI fans are better than AZ and KY fans. That's the critical difference.

Still, carping about the refs is as inevitable as grumbling about the weather. But it never changes anything and it typically doesn't make you feel any better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patler

That same perspective is becoming very prevalent among fantasy league participants. Who cares if the Packers lost and the Bears won so long as your fantasy players did well?

---

I don't know if fantasy really affects the outlook of the committed base of fans. I have never seen someone I know to be a die hard comforted much by a Fantasy outcome. Its a nice paper victory, but they would swap it for team success every time. When I played regularly, one of the frequent complaints of pundits was that no one cared about the team anymore only their players. I think this takes Fantasy interest completely out of context. I am fully capable of holding two things true: one, I want the Packers to win; and two, it would be better for my Fantasy team if Forte scored when the Bears had the ball, rather than Cutler or Marshall.

However, there is no doubt that Fantasy and the social groups around it, have puffed up the periphery of fandom into a sizable force. If Fantasy went out of vogue I think the effect would be measurable across the board, TV, print/digital media and ticket sales.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pbmax

I don't know if fantasy really affects the outlook of the committed base of fans. I have never seen someone I know to be a die hard comforted much by a Fantasy outcome. Its a nice paper victory, but they would swap it for team success every time. When I played regularly, one of the frequent complaints of pundits was that no one cared about the team anymore only their players. I think this takes Fantasy interest completely out of context. I am fully capable of holding two things true: one, I want the Packers to win; and two, it would be better for my Fantasy team if Forte scored when the Bears had the ball, rather than Cutler or Marshall.

However, there is no doubt that Fantasy and the social groups around it, have puffed up the periphery of fandom into a sizable force. If Fantasy went out of vogue I think the effect would be measurable across the board, TV, print/digital media and ticket sales.

---

I see it all the time with friends and even family members who were diehard Packer fans. They follow players more than teams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mraynrand

This is why I loath FF

---

Me too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pbmax

I don't know if fantasy really affects the outlook of the committed base of fans.

---

Problem is that there is a huge FF base of non-committed fans, fair weather fans, etc. They are insufferable.

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid Viking fans who neither know victory nor defeat.

The problem in the title game was the consistency of the officiating. I saw a ton of calls that could go either way go Wisconsin's favor also. The tipped ball call was atrocious, anyone can see that. But for the fans and Bo Ryan to BLAME the officials, it's silly. They all sound like pussies. Per usual the Badgers choked down the stretch in the tournament, just this time it was in the title game. They had two of Dukes best players on the bench in foul trouble for long stretches and couldn't capitalize. They weren't whistled for a foul the first 8.5 minutes of the game. They were up 9 with 13 minutes left and 12 minutes later they were down 8. Down 5 with 35 seconds left, they inexplicably danced around with the ball seemingly afraid to shoot for near 20 seconds. I've never in my life seen a team down by two scores with 30 seconds left waste that much time. Blame their offensive ineptitude, and their inability to contain Jones and Allen down the stretch for the loss. Losers make excuses, winners persevere. Same as it ever was. They had ample opportunity to win the title and they pissed it away.

I did not notice the calls against us so much as Decker taking a bad time to shit the bed, and nobody else stepping up. My biggest gripe is knowing I prolly won't see another chance like that in my lifetime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pbmax

They can decide a game, and they can produce monumentally bad decisions. Duke wasn't happy with a 7-2 imbalance in calls in the first half. UW wasn't happy with the objectively wrong calls and 10-2 imbalance in the second half.

Its not rigged. You have to overcome it. Refs are like rebounds, they don't just fall into the team's lap by chance, evenly split. You have to work hard to make it break even.

You need to shoot well from 3. You need to touch the post. You need to shoot from the wide open wings (Gasser and Hayes). And you need to defend quick guards on ball screens better.

---

Any idea that modern sports can't be rigged should see the 2002 Lakers-Kings series as Exhibit A. That was the biggest sports travesty I've ever witnessed, and there was virtually no way that the Kings would overcome that, unless they somehow upped their FG% to 100. There was no hustling, or post-touches that could've overcome that.

Wisconsin's foul deficit was a rarity for a team that fouls among the least in the nation. And they also occurred in critical spots that allowed Duke to stay in the game. A 10-2 advantage is unheard-of, given Wisconsin's style of play. Yes, the Badgers could have executed better, but that wouldn't have somehow made the Duke ref advantage not exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patler

I will separate my comments between the Packers and the Badgers.

First, the Packers. Most, not all, playoff losses tend to be disappointing to the losing team. Teams are generally evenly matched and games tend to be close. Close losses are disappointing losses. When you have a team that makes the playoffs year after year after year there will be some disappointing losses along the way. For sure, some stand out, such as the final play losses. The Seattle game this past season was particularly excruciating because they seemed to have the game well in hand with only a few minutes left. How many Packer playoff wins have been "disappointing losses" for their opponents?

I am not enough of a Badger fan to discuss their disappointing losses because, to be honest, I don't remember them. With all due respect to the Badger fans on this site, since the Badgers started gaining success in football and basketball, many of their fans have become whiners. Regarding the basketball championship game, there were some poor calls, but officiating did not decide that game. Failed execution throughout the game more so than a bad call here and there decided that game. Instead of accepting that, Badger fans wanted the officials to call the game in a way that would favor the Badgers and help compensate for their failed execution. I watched the game with a group that included one Badger fan and five like myself who had an interest in the Badgers, would like to have seen a win, but were not fans. Most had varying degrees of contempt for Duke. Certainly, all in the group would have preferred to see a Badger win rather than another championship for Duke. Throughout the game comments were about the Badgers blowing opportunities and setting themselves up for a disappointing loss. There were not as many "bad calls" by the officials as many Badger fans seem to think, at least not in the perspective of a group that was basically impartial.

---

It wasn't just calls though - it was the way that Duke was being allowed to play all of a sudden. Their screens became wider and contained more elbows. They were allowed hand-checking and grabbing. Things like this will certainly affect execution. An extreme example of this is that if you tackled Kaminsky on every possession, you would prevent him from scoring. At that point, can you really make the argument that the Badgers didn't execute? Technically, you'd be right - Kaminsky could have prevented himself from being tackled, but that certainly wouldn't have told an objective story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoosier

I think PBs point--which I agree with--was that Badger fans are predisposed to notice bad calls that go against Wisco and to be blind to bad calls that favor our team. Arizona and KY fans were whining up a storm about how the officiating was slanted in favor of Wisconsin. Complaining about the refs is pointless for the team (beyond their control) and for the fans, who are unable to be reliable judges of what is good and what is bad officiating.

---

KY fans should be happy that Lyles didn't get ejected, let alone not being called for anything at all on the Gasser slap. AZ got to the line on virtually every possession in the second half on absurd calls. Had Dekker not gone nuts in that game, we'd be talking about that instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yetisnowman

The problem in the title game was the consistency of the officiating. I saw a ton of calls that could go either way go Wisconsin's favor also. The tipped ball call was atrocious, anyone can see that. But for the fans and Bo Ryan to BLAME the officials, it's silly. They all sound like pussies. Per usual the Badgers choked down the stretch in the tournament, just this time it was in the title game. They had two of Dukes best players on the bench in foul trouble for long stretches and couldn't capitalize. They weren't whistled for a foul the first 8.5 minutes of the game. They were up 9 with 13 minutes left and 12 minutes later they were down 8. Down 5 with 35 seconds left, they inexplicably danced around with the ball seemingly afraid to shoot for near 20 seconds. I've never in my life seen a team down by two scores with 30 seconds left waste that much time. Blame their offensive ineptitude, and their inability to contain Jones and Allen down the stretch for the loss. Losers make excuses, winners persevere. Same as it ever was. They had ample opportunity to win the title and they pissed it away.

---

They tried to capitalize by getting Winslow out of the game, and once Dukan was called for blocking when it was clearly a charge, and was also called for charging when it was clearly blocking on Winslow. You can't cliche yourself out of facts like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by th87

Any idea that modern sports can't be rigged should see the 2002 Lakers-Kings series as Exhibit A. That was the biggest sports travesty I've ever witnessed, and there was virtually no way that the Kings would overcome that, unless they somehow upped their FG% to 100. There was no hustling, or post-touches that could've overcome that.

Wisconsin's foul deficit was a rarity for a team that fouls among the least in the nation. And they also occurred in critical spots that allowed Duke to stay in the game. A 10-2 advantage is unheard-of, given Wisconsin's style of play. Yes, the Badgers could have executed better, but that wouldn't have somehow made the Duke ref advantage not exist.

---

No one has made that claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by th87

It wasn't just calls though - it was the way that Duke was being allowed to play all of a sudden. Their screens became wider and contained more elbows. They were allowed hand-checking and grabbing. Things like this will certainly affect execution. An extreme example of this is that if you tackled Kaminsky on every possession, you would prevent him from scoring. At that point, can you really make the argument that the Badgers didn't execute? Technically, you'd be right - Kaminsky could have prevented himself from being tackled, but that certainly wouldn't have told an objective story.

---

GREAT POST

The hand checking was annoying all tournament but they allowed it all tournament.

I have no idea what happened to last year's point of emphasis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by th87

It wasn't just calls though - it was the way that Duke was being allowed to play all of a sudden. Their screens became wider and contained more elbows. They were allowed hand-checking and grabbing. Things like this will certainly affect execution. An extreme example of this is that if you tackled Kaminsky on every possession, you would prevent him from scoring. At that point, can you really make the argument that the Badgers didn't execute? Technically, you'd be right - Kaminsky could have prevented himself from being tackled, but that certainly wouldn't have told an objective story.

---

On the other hand, if he was tackled once on an attempted dunk and went 0 for 15 shooting otherwise while the Badgers lost by one, you might be technically correct to cite the failure to call the foul on the tackle as a reason for the loss, but that also would not have told an objective story.

The championship game was not called that badly. Things that were allowed in that game are allowed in many games. Especially in the second half, the officials called the game in a way that games are played very often, it just happened to be a type of game the Badgers don't play as well. The Badgers at times were struggling to keep up with the aggressiveness of Duke, and when that happens calls tend to go against you.

Dekker's off night from outside and numerous Badgers' failures to score in close and relatively uncontested were much more the cause of the loss than anything the officials did. Carelessness with the ball also plagued them at times. The Badgers didn't have to play an extreme game to win, just a good one.

I'm a bit curious how many times everyone has watched this game ? I went to it and then have watched it a couple times with replays. I've watched the second half more times than the first.
Duke got away with plenty in the first half as well. In reality the hand checking and bumping style of defense that they played through the whole game undoubtedly should have led to more fouls being called on Duke...in half one and two. They play a much rougher style of defense than Wisconsin. They don't let you cut without contact. The Badgers are not taught nor do they play defense that way. There is a reason they had the foul record they did the entire season. This second half was called completely different than there other 38 or so games.

Coach K just rided those buys for about ten minutes straight and at halftime and made them his bitch the second half. Kudos to Bobbby Coach K Knight....I give him credit. He owned them.

I'd love to watch the replay of this game with anybody who thinks this was remotely equitable, including the Duke Fans...and go play by play pointing out things. If I could get away with what they allowed Duke to do my teams wouldn't give up a lot of points either.

Every time I watch it again it gets worse.

The Badgers couldn't buy a call in that second half but I have to agree with Patler that its not the main reason why they lost. Dekker playing at a high level is what got them there and he couldn't keep it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3irty1

The Badgers couldn't buy a call in that second half but I have to agree with Patler that its not the main reason why they lost. Dekker playing at a high level is what got them there and he couldn't keep it up.

---

Badger fans have seen Dekker's shot desert him before. But Hayes touch leaving him was a surprise, especially in close.