Re. Atrocious Pac-10 Officials: Will Larry Scott be Spineless In Seattle?
by Tydides on Mar 2, 2011 4:00 AM PST
in Basketball
Email
PrintWhile the importance of the upcoming Washington game tomorrow and the way we close the season here is our primary focus, there have been sub-discussions here touching on the potential effect the refs may have tomorrow. It's unusual to be sure to be focused on something that is out of our control in our previews, but it goes to show just what a travesty the officiating has been, not only this season, but historically up in Seattle.
Although there may be incidents that predate this, to me, the genesis of Romar's Thugs was the ugly incident between Tim Morris and our own PAA (Alfred Aboya). UW had an inbounds pass late in the game and Morris was being guarded by Aboya. As the five second count wound down, Morris decided that it wasn't enough to try to throw the ball out of bounds off of Aboya and get another inbounds pass. Instead, he found it necessary to wind up and fire the ball off of Aboya's face at point blank range. This was a guy who was still wearing a mask due to, IIRC, a broken orbital bone. Even Coach was disgusted. And while the thuggish play was disappointing enough, the SPTRs evidently found nothing wrong with this kind of conduct, despite the potential for the ill intentioned punking by Morris to spark something a little less civil between the two teams, had Aboya not been such an unbreakable beast.
Morris apologized after the game, which is something I'll give him a little credit for, however his coach, the Reverend Lorenzo Romar, suggested that Aboya had asked for it, moving into the path of a fully wound up baseball pitch with his face. No remorse. No apology. No disappointment. Just an endorsement by omission. And thus Romar's Thugs were born.
UW has stumbled down the stretch, and the desperation has obviously set in. This is something that the Bruins will have to be prepared for. We should expect, and welcome physical play. However, by all accounts, in UW's latest game against Washington State (at home), Romar's Thugs once again crossed the line between physical play and dirty thug-like tactics, as Venoy Overton unleashed a cheapshot elbow into WSU guard Marcus Capers' back. This problem clearly hasn't resolved itself. Earlier this season, I'm sure we all can recall our first game with UW, wherein Reeves Nelson evidently fouled Isaiah Thomas' arm with his testicles. I understand that the way Reeves plays may make observers describe him has having balls of steel, but that's not an excuse for the refs to pull their patented Mr. Magoo act...again.
It's not like opposing coaches haven't taken notice. We've had fanshots of Cal coach Mike Montgomery's comments from earlier this season:
"They don’t care," he said. "They foul every time at every position, and they aren’t going to call it every time. So ultimately, you are going to get worn down after a while. They are very physical because they are able to play nine guys throughout the game. They just do not care if they foul. They are not going to let you get to the basket."
Now far be it from me to defend a cheater like Monty, but just because he's a cheater that tried to keep us down by slobbering all over Lavinoma as Stanford's head coach doesn't mean he doesn't have a point. Yeah, Cal shot a lot more free throws than UW. Maybe the refs did their job for once, and didn't let UW get away with murder like they usually do. As we've outlined above, the complaints about this punk/thug-like behavior are not unwarranted and are not new, and they predate our Dear Leader Larry Scott's glorious reign over our conference.
Why am I being so harsh on Scott? Maybe it's his reaction to someone pointing out the elephant in the room and trying to improve the terrible quality of officiating in our conference:
"The Pac-10 has specific rules that prohibit our coaches from making public comments about officiating, and this prohibition specifically includes comments that create doubts about the credibility of the Conference’s officiating program. Our coaches are provided the opportunity to address their concerns with the Coordinator of Men’s Basketball Officiating and to the Conference office, and we expect them to adhere to Conference protocol and policies."
With a paper pushing, protocol junkie like Scott in charge, is there any doubt that he and his officials are fully prepared to be Spineless in Seattle? Is there any reason to believe that his "efforts" to bring accountability to our football reffing are going to bear fruit? This guy can't even admit the obvious problems his officials have in front of boisterous home crowds, and he's supposed to bring accountability to his officiating crews? I'll believe it when I see it.
As for tomorrow, it will be Joshua Smith's homecoming, and the freshman surely isn't expecting a welcome reception. He has had some problems in the past dealing with non-basketball related adversity, and the chippy play that Spineless Scott's crew is sure to allow may just be the catalyst for something ugly to happen. If Scott wants to avoid the potential for a full scale public embarrassment for his conference on his hands, he will send a message that the behavior guys like Overton and Thomas have displayed in the past will not be tolerated from his officials.
As for young Joshua, I hope he will heed the words of Ben Ball Warrior PAA:
Bruin forward Alfred Aboya was asked, of course, about the incident where Washington guard Tim Morris threw the ball off of Aboya’s face not to commit a turnover in the final minute of Sunday’s game. Asked if he wanted to punch Morris, Aboya joked, "It was painful, so I had to recover from that first.
...
He was also quite philosophical about the play. "When something happens to you, you can’t always react right away because it might lead you to a wrong decision. So you have to take a step back.
We expect our Bruins to play hard, play clean, maintain focus, and keep their composure in the most hostile environment they have faced all year. I will throw up the video in case folks need a reminder:
I'd like to expect Scott to grow a pair and control his officials, but history shows that may be a lost cause.
If you have a Twitter account you can bring attention to this issue by tweeting this:
RT @BruinNation How will the @Pac10 address its historically atrocious officiating in Seattle? http://sbn.to/fFoK52
We can always hope that Scott and his staff are paying close attention and will give their officials a note that they will be watching very closely. We certainly will keep an eye on to see how Pac-10 handles it.
47 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Re. Atrocious Pac-10 Officials: Will Larry Scott be Spineless In Seattle?
Yes.
Look at that – I maxed the test and I didn’t even study.
on the contrary Fox
you’ve been studying for a long time – you were studying every time you’ve watched a game in Seattle. Because it’s always the same officiating.
by bucknellbruin on Mar 2, 2011 6:09 AM PST up reply actions
Oxymoron: Scott's Spine
Way back when, Nestor consistently noted that the first order of business for a new commissioner, once we got rid of Hanson, would be to clean up the SPTR mess and give us officiating, in all sports, that enhanced rather than detracted from the quality of play in the Pac 10.
So far, all Scott has done is screw up an expansion of the Pac 10, get played by UT, and leave us bigger but not necessarily better.
His reaction to public complaints about officiating is disgusting. Complain about the message not the content.
He’s shown no reason for hope that he will be a step up from the last commissioner.
sjh
Really? He's shown no reason for hope?
The last commissioner locked us into a terrible deal with Fox Sports where our games can’t even be seen on the west coast, let alone across the country. Scott is negotiating a better tv deal as we speak. . .now I will remain realistic until the deal is in place and it actually IS better, but this already is 1000% better than what the last fool did.
I’m not sure Scott ever believed UT was in play – I think they knew it was a calculated chance to take, and one that would likely not pan out. As for the expansion, I’m pretty ambivalent except that it gets us a better tv deal, which is absolutely necessary to survive.
As far as the officiating, I fully expect Scott to do the same thing with basketball officiating that he did with football, but it won’t happen until after the season. And what conference commissioner have you heard NOT make those statements when a coach questions officiating? It’s the standard response, and I’m not sure how Scott saying “Monty’s right, our officials are biased in games at UW” would really serve anyone. It would just undermine the credibility of our league further than the poor officiating is already doing.
Right Now -- Our TV Deal Is the Same
and, without re-litigating it, I’m not sure many of us prefer a league with Utah and Colorado over what we had — particularly when we lose the distinction of being able to play every team in our conference every year.
That proposal was being sold by Scott as including the Texas and others. Was he being disingenuous? No one in Texas thought UT was going West. It was a clear play to redistribute power in the Big 12. It worked for Texas — not for us.
All we have is talk of better TV. And, the key will be whether we come out so much better in both coverage and financially that the change proves worthwhile. And, BTW — the comparison will not be how much more we get under the new deal but how much more we would have gotten without changing the league had we re-negotiated competently from the original configuration.
Why isn’t it possible to affect the quality of officiating during a season? Or why was it not possible to raise the bar before the season started? And, to focus on Montgomery’s complaint and respond with a rule citation as opposed to dealing with the substance — that’s not leadership.
I don’t buy Scott.
sjh
Here's my take, and this is just MY take
I don’t know exactly what happened, but neither does anyone else on this board (I’m pretty sure). But it seems to me that Scott and staff decided to expand immediately after taking over. Originally the idea was Colorado and someone else, and then the whole Nebraska to Big 10 thing started moving. I imagine that talks began with Texas / Oklahoma and the original 16 team league gained steam. At the same time, I DON’T THINK SCOTT EVER BELIEVED TEXAS WAS LIKELY. I mean, if most people here and in Texas didn’t believe it was likely, I don’t think Scott was so clueless as to believe the opposite. I think he thought Colorado and Utah were the plan and Texas / OK would be the icing on the cake. So was he being disingenuous? Maybe, but I don’t recall him ever saying “Texas or bust”.
All we have is talk of better TV right now because we are still in an exclusive window with Fox, right? I think that’s how it worked – I wouldn’t be surprised to see us move past that window with no deal if just to bring more bargaining power to the Pac-12. Unless Fox makes us a can’t-refuse deal, in which case I imagine we will be happy regardless.
I feel like people don’t like Scott because of the whole expansion thing, but I just don’t think it is a huge screw up. You couldn’t expect him to not go after Texas – that would be pretty Dorrell-like, right? Don’t chase the recruit that you aren’t likely to get. But I don’t know how realistic it would have been to say “Texas or no expansion” when he felt he needed the additional tv markets to get the best deal possible. Time will tell I suppose. . .and if you have a realistic figure for how much more we could have gotten as the Pac-10, I’m all ears.
How about NO Expansion?
You start with the assumption that expansion was necessary and then argue that Scott did the best he could.
And, you make clear that he started down that path the moment he arrived.
I think haste has made waste.
I doubt the TV deal will be that much better because we added Utah and Colorado — neither state bringing a large TV market.
And, Scott, in his haste, created a situation that threatens natural rivalries and creates divisions in a conference so that we will no longer play all of the teams every year.
So, deciding to expand “immediately after taking over” did not exhibit the sensitivity to the conference and the need for a cohesive rational path forward.
Once you start with the assumption that we had to expand, you then jump to a Texas scenario that was by your description, at best disingenuous. If your secret plan is to deliver Utah and Colorado, why tease with Texas and some other Big 12 schools.
Finally, as to officiating, there is absolutely no reason he could not have studied the problem before the basketball season started and taken steps toward a fix immediately.
Oh, but I forgot, he was putting all of his energy into expanding the conference.
sjh
Yes, no expansion was an option
I would also assume that there was some research done to determine that expansion into two top 30 tv markets (no, they are not gigantic, but they aren’t tiny) added value. I’m ASSUMING that some sort of business case was done to show that this was needed. And I’m ASSUMING that the threat to natural rivalries and the perception among the fans was included in that. I’m assuming all of this because I have 0 connections inside the department. It could be that Scott came in and said “we are expanding, right now, bottom line”. . .but I kind of doubt that is what happened.
“So, deciding to expand "immediately after taking over" did not exhibit the sensitivity to the conference and the need for a cohesive rational path forward.”
Huh? Why not? Just because you didn’t like it doesn’t mean it wasn’t the best decision. I have seen no poll of Pac-10 fans or administrators that says that they are against expansion (not that it doesn’t exist, I just haven’t seen it).
“Once you start with the assumption that we had to expand, you then jump to a Texas scenario that was by your description, at best disingenuous.”
I didn’t phrase my response to that well. When I said “maybe it was”, I really meant “maybe it was perceived by that as fans”. Like I said, I don’t remember Scott ever saying “Texas or bust”, or even “we are adding Texas”.
“Finally, as to officiating, there is absolutely no reason he could not have studied the problem before the basketball season started and taken steps toward a fix immediately.”
I don’t know how you can definitively say that when you have no idea what else he has been working on. You might be right. . .but you might be wrong. That’s my main point. . .it’s hard to give Scott a grade at all right now because the biggest issue for the Pac-12 (the new tv deal) is not complete. It just seems a little bit disingenuous to pick some issue that has been bothering you (basketball officiating) and then blame the guy at the top for not fixing it.
Backwards
.it’s hard to give Scott a grade at all right now because the biggest issue for the Pac-12 (the new tv deal) is not complete.
I think you have this backwards. I think it’s hard to give Scott a passing grade right now because the tv deal is not complete.
Increased revenue is, to my mind, the one positive with expansion. Even if you assume that revenue increase to be large and immediate, by no means givens, you have to weigh that against the negatives.
And the negatives are enormous. To name but a few: the elimination of a balanced schedule for all teams, the disruption or elimination of natural rivalries, the addition of unnatural rivalries, and increased travel costs.
All this for more bucks. It seems clear to me that Scott came in with expansion as a given.
by GoodTimesBruin on Mar 2, 2011 4:09 PM PST up reply actions
Dead wrong
If the main goal was to get a tv deal done AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, then yes, he has failed.
If the goal is to get THE BEST DEAL POSSIBLE, then we are still incomplete.
If I understand it correctly, Fox has sole negotiating rights for another few months, and if we can’t reach a deal with them then other stations can come to the table. So we haven’t even heard bids from another station. We may never hear those bids if a deal is reached. But there is no way we could have expected the process to be completed right now.
As far as the negatives, I would hardly call the elimination of a balanced schedule, the addition of unnatural rivalries, and increased travel costs enormous negatives. The elimination of the balanced schedule sucks and fans don’t like it, but it has no impact on the conference’s marketability as a whole. The addition of unnatural rivalries is meaningless, you are the first person I have heard claim this as a negative. And I can’t see how travel costs are more expensive to go to Utah and Denver rather than Washington State and Oregon State, or whoever we don’t play in football. That seems to be a non-issue.
I know fans (including me) hate the elimination of natural rivalries every year, but I think it was a cost / benefit issue that came out on the side of expansion. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, but it is definitely the only thing from your list I would count as a negative.
Not sure how
adding Colorado and Utah gets us a TV deal noticeably better than the Pac-10 could/should have gotten. They’re not exactly big draws nationwide – though their metro areas are the 5th and 6th biggest of the ten Pac-12 markets, whether or not their addition creates enough of a benefit for the 10 extant conference schools is worthy of debate, and indeed was debated in great depth at the time of expansion.
The rest of your argument is based on conjecture: our TV deal might be better, basketball officiating might get better. I hope both come true, but for the moment I have to go with what we have to see based on the current evidence.
Roses are red, violets are blue...f*** $C.
Well then, we have to wait and see. . .
Did you want Scott to come in and wave a wand and create a new bitchin’ tv deal? If not, then how can you tell me Scott has done a bad job so far? As far as basketball officiating, I would agree that no changes in that area so far are a bad mark. . .but truthfully, it’s pretty far down on his list of things he needed to get fixed when he took over. And there were A LOT of things to fix.
Big Worm, I wish Scott would get fired on his day off
Saying Larry is 1000% better than his predecessor is like saying Hurricane Rita was 1000% less destructive that Hurricane Katrina. They were both natural disasters and FEMA aint bailing the Pac-10/12 out any time soon.
Officiating is part of the game, but when the officials decide THEY are the game, the entire point becomes moot. And placing a gag order on the players and coaches IMO is nothing more than a tacit agreement that the Zebras are jokes. And btw, I am friends with a senior WAC official who has applied for work in the Pac-10 but has repeatedly been denied due to nothing more than his ethnicity. As such, the Pac-10/12 will not be upgrading its officiating anytime soon under Larry.
Tell your friend to brand, on his forehead, " I am biased " and
he’ll get hired, in second.
That's one way to look at it
Except that I was responding to someone who said that Scott has done no better than his predecessor.
I’m just not sure how you can say Scott has been bad for the conference so far. Well, unless you ABSOLUTELY HATE the expansion deal. Clearly, many on here do. I’m pretty ambivalent so I see more positives than negatives.
Regardless, to compare Scott to a disaster is asinine. Truly ridiculous. Nothing he has done has hurt the conference in terms of exposure or financially, and in the near future there should be a financial and exposure windfall. If that doesn’t come, then we have a disaster.
One way to silence the crowd is to take an early, big lead.
Unfortunately, that’s something we haven’t been able to do all year. But maybe we’re due.
I try not to curse on these or any boards.
But watching that video again and again… that was fucked up. If somebody did that to me in a game, I’d probably deck the guy. Props to PAA being far more mature and composed than I would be, at probably a decade younger than I am.
"We are rooting for laundry. Whether we want to admit it or not." - Bill Simmons
Go Bruins!
That's why I emailed Romar. He knows my real name & phone# too
I stand by every blunt, accusatory word I said in my email to him.
Good for you
and Harsha, I agree. That sort of shit on the playground wouldn’t start a fight, it would BE a fight.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
Let's roll the dice, see what happens
Right now, everything we thought might or might not happen is pure conjecture, something beyond our control. We are not the ones stepping onto the court at tipoff time tomorrow. So hopefully, they’ll do us proud. If not, we’ll find out what goes wrong and goes from there.
Officiating is a realistic problem.
It's disgusting to see that play again.
I’m not believing any spin that call that play anything but intentionally unsportsmanlike. Gutless officiating, as usual.
Drain our free throws
26 fouls were called on UW on Sunday night (in Seattle), and WSU went 32-36 from the line, including 25 straight at one point, IIRC. UW went 15-24 from the line and lost by 11.
Monty says “they foul every time at every position” and hopefully recent history indicates the SPTRs are at least going to call a good number of them. If that happens again Thursday, it’s on us to make them pay from the line.
It's not about the refs, it's our guards...
Washington is fueled by turnovers and runouts – if our guards knock down a few shots, limit turnovers and penetration UCLA will be in the game. UW missed a ton of easy shots against Wazzu, I’m certain a number of those will go down Thursday. If the Bruins don’t tun it over and can keep them off the glass it’s a game. Plain and simple. Just a hunch that Lee rebounds from a horrible game against Arizona and Zeke plays well.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
Allow me to inject some more history, If I may
In our last few meetings with Washington, in Seattle, the foul situation has been… absurd, to say the least.
In 2008-2009, there were a grand total of 46 fouls called in our game. We were whistled 28 separate times, UW only 18. Darren Collison, by far our best player that year, fouled out. Drew Gordon had 4 fouls, which severely limited him. Justin Dentmon and Q Pondexter maxed out the Washington team with 4 fouls each.
And now the fun starts. 2007-2008, we came to Seattle ranked #4 in the country, only to have a wonderful game with 44 total fouls called. We lost Russell for the game. UW? They had one player, Pondexter, with 4 fouls. 44 total fouls in a game? 46 the year after? These games were not even basketball so much as they were whistling practice or free throw exhibitions. We’re not going to see a fair game.
And now, the highlight of my little post here: 2005-2006, our first final four year. We strolled up to #24 Washington ranked #12 in the country. What did the game look like? Imagine a basketball game, 40 minutes. Now imagine that basketball game interrupted 54 times. I’m not good at math, but thats 1.35 fouls PER MINUTE. That’s not a basketball game. That’s a traffic cop telling people stopgostopgostopgo. 54 fouls, 27 on each team. But guess who got the worst? Our Bruins. Ced Bozeman and Ryan Hollins both fouled out, and we lost AA, Farmar, and Aboya for plenty of minutes with 4 fouls each. Who did Washington lose? Jamaal freaking Williams. THE Jamaal Williams, the linchpin of their offense, stalwart of ther def… who am I kidding. Kid doesn’t matter at all. That’s right folks. Brockman, Roy, Jensen and Appleby all had 4, but none fouled out. Shocking.
I expect nothing but more of the same tomorrow. Lets hope I’m wrong.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
Don't Forget The Game At Pauley This Year
With the acting job done by their players at Pauley, expect a lot of whistles. By the way he reacted, you would have thought that Smith came at Thomas at 100 mph than the mild bumps while hedging the screens. Hopefully, Howland will keep him at home and not put him in a position to “foul” the guads on top.
And with Washington, it’s a culture of cheap, dirty play up there. There were plays that took out our players both last year and this year. (If memory serves correctly, they took out our QB at the Rose Bowl and another one of our players in Seattle with an ugly helmet to helmet hit).
by rocket rod forever on Mar 2, 2011 10:08 AM PST reply actions
My blood boils every time I see that clip
every time.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
Any ref who could think on their feet would have ejected him
I’m sure it caught everyone by surprise because you see the “throw-it-off-the-other-player” play all the time, just never right into someone’s face. You could easily make the case it was unsportsmanlike conduct though, and I doubt anyone involved (Morris, Romar, UW team) would have even argued the point.
Agree.
The biggest problem is refs wilt at Hec Ed. The crowd is so loud and so involved in the game, that they lose their spine whenever something happens. This is case in point. I struggle to find how that is NOT unsportsmanlike conduct. Worse still, the head of pac 10 officiating blamed it on ABOYA. That shows that the SPTRs go all the way up to the SHOPTR (Shitty head of pac 10 refereeing).
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
Agreed. I can't believe they blamed Aboya
At point blank, how is it possible that Aboya could intentionally get in the way of that ball? Also, if you watch the footage in slow-mo (or x-mo or whatever) of the floor angle, TIm Morris’ eyes were clearly locked on Aboya’s face before and as he threw the ball. Even the follow-through of Morris’ throw is indicative of where he truly intended to throw the ball. That’s the SHOPTR not taking responsibility, but just making excuses.
Action speaks louder than words !
Let’s go up there, blast them all flat and win convincingly. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can't help but worry about how much damage that could have really done
What if Alfred Aboya had seriously gotten injured? How can officials, coaches, staff, the SCHOOL, not act on this? We are so lucky that PAA just got away with some soreness. I just don’t understand how this could have happened.
The truth hurts....
While I typically disagree with 99% of Simers antics, this article spoke the truth discounting his idea that CBH style is boring. Howland has brought this team a long way since December while CRN team made the same STUPID mistakes all season long. I think we should commend Howland on the year the team has had to this point.
by Waitingfornumber12 on Mar 2, 2011 11:37 AM PST up reply actions
Who the hell cares
if it is “boring”, as long as we win? Bobby Knight wasn’t boring – but I’ll take CBH any time over that kind of “style”. And I don’t think anybody who has seen games this season can call them “boring”. And I’m sorry if D isn’t exciting, but it seems to me that this year we have improved both on offense and D, so what’s the issue?
Does it speak the truth?
And what, praytell, would that “truth” be? That Rick Neuheisel watched UCLA basketball games? How about him slipping in backhanded compliments at Ben Howland, is that the truth? The only truth I got from that article is exactly the truth posted above. The guy is a douche, and for all his failings (e.g. as a human being, as a father, as a writer, as a contributor to civilization as a whole) he presumes he can pronounce his (retarded) judgment on people like Rick Neuheisel. The funniest thing about Simers is that he’s the guy that thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room, when in reality, he’s nowhere close.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
The truth I took from the article
Is that CBH team has shown improvement throughout the season while CRN teams did not. Plenty of truth in that statement.
by Waitingfornumber12 on Mar 2, 2011 2:09 PM PST up reply actions
Then Simers should have saved everyone time
and just wrote that “Pizza is delicious, and the sky is blue.” These are truths as well.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
Last I checked, lol
I never want to read Slimer but I get drawn in, read a couple of paragraphs, and then close the article, cursing all the while. I never learn.
Do NOT click on his article
any hits he gets keep him employed. The best way to get rid of him is to ignore his ass.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
I see his name
and close the page. The OC registrar is the only paper that gives any good stories on ucla sports. Times blows.
Even they
have Scott Reid who is a tool. He’s sort of a Chris Foster light, although without Foster’s direct mandate from his boss stating he must disparage UCLA whenever possible and promote U$C in comparison.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
And how can I forget his idiot counterpart
Adam Maya. They’re the isn’t a brain between them.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
Oh, Lord
Maya. The monumental nincompoop of the decade.
Ugh, I wish I’d never read anything he’d ever written, because I’ll never get those 40 seconds of my life back and the sight of his name still makes me ill.
Love My Bruins
You sure look great after he fired 11 football refs in an overhaul of the leagues image, mere hours after this gem came online.
What Morris did was 100% a prick move. Legal, but a prick move none the less. But basketball is a tough game and shit happens. Overton was getting pounded by Capers all game and let his emotions get the best of him, which wouldn’t be the first time. It’s his game to get into the heads of other players and put them off of their own, and sometimes it backfires. To suggest that anyone besides Overton has anything more than a competitive style comparable to any player in the conference is plain stupid.
I swore never to return here because of the hyperbole that’s spewed from the staff, but on a suggestion of a UWDP poster, I had to see for myself. This is exactly the reason you are the joke of the Pac-10 SBN blogs.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
