Big 12: Free Speech Stops In The End Zone
The Big 12 now says that coaches and school administrators can't say anything...as in nothing...about officiating. Muzzling critics is nothing new to the Big 12, but this step makes it clear the Big 12 and its officials can't stand the heat.
The previous rule, which prohibited criticism of officiating, was bad enough. Now, the Big 12 honcho says any comment about officiating is verboten. Am I the only one who finds this offensive?
The Big 12's presidents adopted the new policy, with Nebraska Chancellor Harvey Perlman (chairman of the Big 12's board of directors) saying his group believes that "commenting about officiating is increasing to some degree" and, "I think the board felt that has a detrimental effect on college football."
Oh, really? Would that effect be more detrimental than the specter of the Big 12 telling its minions that, no matter how lousy the officiating, not a word can be said about it?
The Big 12 has done itself no service by this latest rule. Officiating gaffs like the calls during the OU-Oregon game cry out for public criticism, often the only way outrage can be properly focused.
I'm hard-pressed to determine exactly what is the purpose of the new rule (or the old one, for that matter). What is it that the Big 12 fears so much about coaches speaking out about the quality, or lack thereof, of officiating?
And what's next for the Big 12? Will it want to ban sports radio fans from venting on talk radio, ban sports writers from taking note of the gaffs, miscues, mistakes and confusion that sometimes overtakes officials?
It appears to be the position of the Big 12 that free speech stops in the end zone and it reminds one of what can be found in totalitarian nations where dissent and discussion is not allowed. Sad.
The previous rule, which prohibited criticism of officiating, was bad enough. Now, the Big 12 honcho says any comment about officiating is verboten. Am I the only one who finds this offensive?
The Big 12's presidents adopted the new policy, with Nebraska Chancellor Harvey Perlman (chairman of the Big 12's board of directors) saying his group believes that "commenting about officiating is increasing to some degree" and, "I think the board felt that has a detrimental effect on college football."
Oh, really? Would that effect be more detrimental than the specter of the Big 12 telling its minions that, no matter how lousy the officiating, not a word can be said about it?
The Big 12 has done itself no service by this latest rule. Officiating gaffs like the calls during the OU-Oregon game cry out for public criticism, often the only way outrage can be properly focused.
I'm hard-pressed to determine exactly what is the purpose of the new rule (or the old one, for that matter). What is it that the Big 12 fears so much about coaches speaking out about the quality, or lack thereof, of officiating?
And what's next for the Big 12? Will it want to ban sports radio fans from venting on talk radio, ban sports writers from taking note of the gaffs, miscues, mistakes and confusion that sometimes overtakes officials?
It appears to be the position of the Big 12 that free speech stops in the end zone and it reminds one of what can be found in totalitarian nations where dissent and discussion is not allowed. Sad.
Labels: Social Mores
posted by Mike McCarville @ 9:58 AM
<< Home