http://businessweek.com/articles/2015-01-09/proof-that-college-football-refs-are-riddled-with-bias
Ever watch a game and think to yourself that there seems to be a clear bias in play? According to a new study done by Miami and FSU, there probably is a legitimate reason for your complaining. A study of conference games called from 2005 to 2012 shows that the refs in the ACC showed a statistically significant bias toward home teams, betting line underdogs, and longtime conference members such as UNC and Duke. They also did a study on all other conferences and showed that the ACC and Big 12 were by far the most biased and that the SEC showed the least amount of bias overall. They also extended the study in the ACC to 2013 and 2014 and we're also able to see that FSUs title run also corresponded to a statistically significant return to normal where the bias was no longer seen.
Interesting stuff.
Comments
With these type of studies, the devil is in the details. Does the article describe how the study defines "bias"? I'm at work, I'll have to read it later...
I am sure the color of that devil is blue.
wait though, couldn't any team in the ACC be considered a home team or underdog throughout the season. This sounds like one of those studies put out by a university that says NEWSFLASH: a study now shows that eating ______ MIGHT increase the possibility of getting cancer.
It says the disparity adds up to 6.28 penalty yards per game. Couldn't this be coincidence? It basically adds up to one illegal procedure penalty. I'm not convinced. Edit: I agree with Alum07 that it is an interesting article even if I am skeptical.
I filled the blank in with "crow"!
extremely unlikely it is a coincidence...over 10% percent difference in the average yards penalized for a team over a large number of games over several years...
What would the motive be? The article even says it goes against what would be a motive to aid the power teams. There is also apparently no analysis to determine if the calls made in those games were bad calls. And certain types of calls are neglected. I remain skeptical of the study.
they aren't deliberately cheating. it's simply the kind of bias we apply everyday in our lives towards products or people, usually without thinking about it. who are you most/least likely to sit next to on a bus or subway or meeting room?
where does the pool of officials come from? how long have they called games within the conference? what is their playing/officiating background? what kinds of players play for the teams? who are the coaches? how do they behave? what are their reputations?
everyone has these traits and officials make judgement calls on every play. was that collision deliberate or incidental? when the ball disappears in the pile of players, where does it get spotted? where has forward progress stopped?
with broad scale televising of games and video replay challenges available, i would expect bias to diminish over time. there is now an instant disincentive (public humiliation) if an official has a call overturned.
but finding out there is some group bias within an organization wouldn't surprise me at all. it exists in all kinds of organizations. why not officials for sporting events?
The article says that subjective calls like pass interference weren't considered. I'm not sure if that means those penalties were neglected or if they just didn't scrutinize further. Either way the article did not present enough information to convince me. But maybe they are right.
Yeah, this argument seems inherently flawed given that you cannot control for many variables. The measurement of bias is conference games versus OOC games. Well, OOC games are typically played earlier in the season when teams are perhaps more prone to penalties. The fact that several SEC teams schedule OOC games later in the season, thus creating a smaller difference in average execution, would tend to support this particular theory. There is no way to control for the caliber of the opponent either, nor any indication of what effects that might have. In addition, most teams play better at home and have fewer penalties- procedure penalties caused by crowd noise for instance.
It is impossible to say that the culprit is referee bias, rather only that the difference in penalty yardage for in-conference and OOC games was statistically significant. This study, if done as a school project, would never get past a decent statistics professor with these conclusions. Correlation is not necessarily causation.
Also, of course a study done by FSU concluded that they were discriminated against and then they weren't when they started to win more. Not suspicious at all...
According to a new study done by Miami and FSU
Probably the most studying done on either campus in some time
It was Miami of Ohio, but I'll allow it.
You mean "the top public ivy school in Ohio"....I know we give LOLUVA crap for the public ivy persona but Miami of Ohio actually used that in one of their television ads about the school when we played them. I was like ugh another one like that on our schedule when I saw it.
Duke was pretty awful from 2005-2012 (although I think they were 5-1 when the Hokies played them in 2012). If there was a bias towards them during those years, I can't imagine how bad they would have been without it.
I assumed this was going to be about basketball refs, I didn't know the football refs had that rep too. Anybody remember the '11 ACCCG?
Was that the game where, according to the replay official, the ball magically changed direction in mid-air despite not having touched anything, defying the laws of physics and earning us a roughing the punter call?
My first time trying to share a video clip so apologies if I screw this up.
So Hopper only has 4 fingers on his right hand? Amazing, I didn't know that. If only he had a thumb, he would have gotten a piece of that ball for sure.
Exactly. That, combined with the obvious change in flight path of the football left little room for doubt.
I mean, Home teams typically get the 50/50 calls over the away team? I classify that under home field advantage. Long time members getting different treatment over newer members, doesnt really surprise me. The biased toward the underdogs does kind of concern me however.
I did notice a real bias when VT first joined the conference, but would think Duke and Wake are both well coached teams with smart players who probably commit less fouls than a team full of thugs like Miami, who was always favored by more than they should have been in those years. I would also think that adding new teams means adding new refs, and the bias to the older teams would decrease as these refs gained experience in the conference and moved to higher level officiating positions.