Officiating

[PressManCoverage]

What’s a better conference?
Big XII sucks now. PAC is inferior and long flights. SEC wouldn’t let us in.

The only other option is the Big 10. There’s no evidence we could actually join, and if we did, our nearest conference rival would be Maryland. Plus we’d get to enjoy winter trips to Minneapolis and playing our conference championship game in Indianapolis. And that assumes OSU and Michigan stay (otherwise, see Big XII).

We don’t love the ACC, but we’re not going to do much better.

We turned down the B1G Ten, and Md got that slot and now they are getting $23Million Extra in TV Money every yr

We left the SEC for no good reason, just one person's sanctimonious stance of trying to mix too much Academics with big time FB

Just think about the Money we've lost from those 2 decisions alone (imagine 30 straight years of FB sellouts), the only reason the ACC is a good fit is because 2 horrible decisions has forced us into a corner we might never get out of

 

[gtchief]

We turned down the B1G Ten, and Md got that slot and now they are getting $23Million Extra in TV Money every yr

We left the SEC for no good reason, just one person's sanctimonious stance of trying to mix too much Academics with big time FB

Just think about the Money we've lost from those 2 decisions alone (imagine 30 straight years of FB sellouts), the only reason the ACC is a good fit is because 2 horrible decisions has forced us into a corner we might never get out of

Maryland and Rutgers did not receive full revenue shares for a while after joining the B1G, and Maryland also had to pay a chunk of the buyout fee for leaving the ACC. Their revenue might finally be stable now.

 

[PressManCoverage]

Maryland and Rutgers did not receive full revenue shares for a while after joining the B1G, and Maryland also had to pay a chunk of the buyout fee for leaving the ACC. Their revenue might finally be stable now.

I know that , about the partial payouts

For the last yr plus this year , Md is now receiving full shares from the the B1G Ten

When you are getting the same TV Money as Bama & uga, etc, no one remembers the years of partial payouts , imagine what GT could do with an extra $23million for the foreseeable future , to be an academic school we sure seem to have less vision and make less savvy business decisions than all the other schools we look down on

 

[GT98]

Yeah, looks like the NFL has significantly upped their officiating pay over the past decade or so. It used to be pretty puny.

They did what you said in your original post of realizing how valuable good officiating is for their product and paying accordingly. They obviously miss stuff on occasion, but it's rare that you view a game and think that there is an agenda. At best, in plenty of college games, the crew is simply quite poor at their jobs, in too many (like vs. UNC), you leave thinking that there was an agenda.

 

[Techbert]

They did what you said in your original post of realizing how valuable good officiating is for their product and paying accordingly. They obviously miss stuff on occasion, but it's rare that you view a game and think that there is an agenda. At best, in plenty of college games, the crew is simply quite poor at their jobs, in too many (like vs. UNC), you leave thinking that there was an agenda.

We will have to agree to disagree, I see an agenda on the part of the officials in many many games. Nationally and in ours.

It is rampant in college football for conference official crews to favor those teams that would improve their conference bowl standings. I mean, why let GT upset a ranked conference team and cost the conference money? It worked versus Clemson, where they killed any momentum with one-way calls at strategic moments. It did not work against UNC where our performance was outside their span of believable control.

It is not just GT that has had these issues, but we have been down a while so we have been disfavored by the conference a while. But I always hated to host an SEC team due to the officiating. And you cannot look at the UCF game officials sprinting to start play last year and think they were not invested in the outcome.

 

[Vespid]

We will have to agree to disagree, I see an agenda on the part of the officials in many many games. Nationally and in ours.

It is rampant in college football for conference official crews to favor those teams that would improve their conference bowl standings. I mean, why let GT upset a ranked conference team and cost the conference money? It worked versus Clemson, where they killed any momentum with one-way calls at strategic moments. It did not work against UNC where our performance was outside their span of believable control.

It is not just GT that has had these issues, but we have been down a while so we have been disfavored by the conference a while. But I always hated to host an SEC team due to the officiating. And you cannot look at the UCF game officials sprinting to start play last year and think they were not invested in the outcome.

This x10. I would play them again, but not under any circumstance in a situation we use their officials. That was disgusting.

 

[JJacket]

This x10. I would play them again, but not under any circumstance in a situation we use their officials. That was disgusting.

And UCF was quickly subbing on offense when a play would finish near their sidelines. The refs didn't hold the play for our chance to sub. Good strategy if the refs work with you. There were also numerous plays with multiple UCF players moving, not being set, when the ball was hiked

 

[LaFlavor]

It’s not just the ACC. Georgia will play a couple of close games this year—-Sat vs. Arkansas I think will be one of them. Florida will be another. Watch how blatantly biased towards UGA the officiating is.

If anything, the SEC is even more blatant about it. Auburn alone has been the beneficiary of at least two egregious calls against OOC opponents. Conferences will always instruct their officials to protect the conference's interests, there's too much money on the line to expect any different. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive.