My last.... and it's not even an attempt to convince. Yes - I am pointing to specific instances about this one game - because THE THREAD IS ABOUT ONE GAME. You are convinced of your viewpoint and feel you can statistically back that up - good. I cannot convince you otherwise. You are right and we are all wrong.
For reference though FG % we won. TO's we had one more (on some questionable calls to some). Rebounding we lost and Free throws we greatly lost. I just don't get how that proves your point - but to you it does. To me - rebounding is a physical part of the game where fouls are (and were) called - often subjectively. and FTA's were greatly in their favor - you think that makes them more efficient in their offensive approach... you're entitled. Your approach ignores what can be observed in a game, and non-calls are not valued in your stats. Players fouling out is ignored in your stats, Coaching adjustments with personnel and strategy are ignored in your stats. A team gets 25 more free looks at scoring and takes out 4 players who are needed for defense and rebounding - and that is not noted as a clear advantage - one attributable to reffing? I get it's Kansas, etc... but it's still what it is. Several national commentators and opposing fan bases noted it as well... sadly they haven't been treated to your enlightened statistical analysis, and thus corrected.
At this point it's talking to a brick wall. I tried and I'm done. I did not complain about reffing vs OSU, UCLA or LSU. I can be objective.
This thread is about one game. But it illustrates an issue which we've had the entire season. We didn't just starting fouling in this game. It's been the norm.
I don't see how things are "ignored" in the stats. We've already talked about players fouling out and that having an effect on the game. We discussed strategy. We talked for pages among pages about Self changing his defense and that having an effect.
The entire thread can be summed up in his regard.
Free Throw Rate (ie the ability to get fouled and on defense the ability to not foul) is either viewed as skill or affected by the refs. No one argues that bad calls aren't made from time to time. No one argues the ref doesn't play some role. That's why when you point out specific instances in a game where 47 free throws were attempted well so what. You could go to any game UK has ever played and pick bad calls for UK just as well as you can do this for any team.
So to me there's groups here. Group 1 feels like this is 100% refs. I don't think many people fall into this category but those are the ones that completely look at the disparity and without any other thoughts immediately blame the refs for the difference. You'll see these threads. All they will do is point out the difference and immediately it's on the refs. But as I say I don't think many fall into this at all.
Then you have Group 2. This is where the majority fall into. This group realizes we have a fouling problem but still believe it's more the refs than actual skill. And that's fine to feel this way. None of these groups will be convinced to change positions. But people alot smarter than me came up with ways to measure efficiency of basketball teams. Free Throw rate is one of the major components. The skill is very real.
Then you have the minority group 3. These people realize that while the refs play some part, it's mostly a byproduct of a teams skill set. I fall into this category.
Ultimately it comes down to just how much stock you put into how much the ref affects the game. That's really all this is.