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

[pbmax]

I don't understand the argument of "the refs don't decide the game; the players should deliver." Why can't the refs be a factor as well? Lots of stuff goes into the formula, with the refs being one such component. Yes, if the Badgers played better, they would've won, but they would've had to offset the negative that the suddenly slanted officiating produced.

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.

[Patler]

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.

I agree. I had an interesting discussion the other day with a guy who saw the Duke game as having a bad call here and there, such as the out of bounds play, but thought the game was fairly officiated for a championship game. He said, in essence, the refs called one half in the way the Badgers would prefer and called the second half in the way Duke would prefer. He argued neither was wrong, just different styles. I tend to agree.

[th87]

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.

[pbmax]

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.