UCLA and the media

I'm not sure when UCLA became the favorite punching bag for the media or the scapegoat for all that is wrong with college basketball, but I must say that I was unimpressed by the media reaction to what certainly (when viewed in isolation) were some bad calls.

Yes, Collison probably didn't get fouled, he admitted as much. Josh Shipp, well who knows if that went over the backboard, but it's at least a debate. However, the reactions were completely unfair. I heard talk of "homecourt advantage" being the deciding factor (bullshit) or that UCLA doesn't deserve a number one seed as a result (more hogwash).

First of all, the Stanford game was not a case of homecourt advantage gone bad. The calls were so bad in the first half, and throughout the second up until that point, that people were booing the refs with a viciousness and ferocity I'd never, ever seen in all my years at Pauley. Stanford also blew a 12 point lead with under five minutes and then put in an all-time stinker in OT. Honestly, every game probably has a foul that questionable and the bad calls against UCLA all game helped. The better team won in OT.

Second of all, the Cal game was more of the same. UCLA's shot was not conclusively over the backboard, it's still being debated. The refs made a call. Period. Maybe it was wrong, but the foul call that preceded it should not be that controversial. At the end of games, sometimes players can get a little more physical. So what?

Finally, it's not like UCLA (lucky or not) has all the calls here. Remember Georgetown winning two big games on a questionable foul 80 feet from the basket and a goaltend? Remember Duke winning against UNC without sending Psycho T to the line once? How about the Washington State game where they were whistled for 7 fouls in a row to open, only to see their opponent whistled for the next 9? Honestly, this should not be that big of a deal and does NOT reflect upon UCLA as a team. Fuck the haters.