He’s just asking questions.

Joe Starkey penned what may be one of the laziest, craptacular, most regurgitated column I’ve read in some time — and yes I am saying it is worse than anything written this year on booing Bill Stull.

Let  me put it this way. This column would be derided as deluded fan ranting from a message board if a columnist had to respond to it.

An unfortunate tradition has emerged in Big East football: Every other year, its officials ruin at least one game of serious consequence.

The latest example occurred Friday in Cincinnati, when a ridiculous replay reversal gave Cincinnati a touchdown in its 24-21 victory over West Virginia.

The call might have cost WVU a chance to win the Big East, while Cincinnati remained in national-title contention.

Am I suggesting a conspiracy, a Big East agenda to keep a team alive for the BCS title game?

No.

But I’d have a hard time telling a conspiracy theorist he’s nuts.

This seems familiar.

This is beyond bad officiating. It’s so undeniably awful, I’m beginning to believe conspiracy nuts who claim the SEC is protecting its heavyweight teams (Florida and Alabama) since, you know, every poor call in the last month has involved, uh, Florida and Alabama.

That was from the Alabama-LSU game where replay overturned what appeared to be a clear interception by LSU late in the game to help preserve the ‘Bama win.

The poor officiating in the SEC — and how it has constantly favored the conference favorites — has been a major story all season.

Starkey brieflyconcedes that officiating this year has sucked all season.

All around the country, suspect replay calls are going in favor of the teams that would most help their conferences by winning.

I couldn’t help but think of that when replay official Don George overruled the on-field officials on a goal-line fumble and awarded Cincinnati a touchdown.

From the usual poor effort of the ACC and Pac-10 refs. The well documented putridness in the SEC. To the Big 11 giving every call to Iowa when they faced Indiana, it has been a bad year of officiating. It’s been a really bad year for referees and accusations of bias towards the favorites. Now the Big East adds to it.

Again, this has been well documented as to the the bad officiating. Stewart Mandel at SI.com had an interesting piece the previous week on how social media has really influenced and put a magnifying glass on things.

Add in HD television, every game being viewable anywhere on any medium and little  is missed. Especially the mistakes. The questions inevitably move from general incompetence of refs to how they are influenced — home field, conference bias, etc.

Back to Starkey’s piece. He reviews several bad officiating actions in 2007 in the Big East. Putting them in the context of favoring Big East teams or the conference favorite — focusing on the poor work in the Pitt-WVU game. And still he missed others like the offensive pass interference call on Oderick Turner that specifically cost Pitt the Rutgers game.

Of course, he’s not suggesting that this is part of a long and enduring secret conspiracy to favor “better,” ranked and/or home teams by the conference refs. He was just pointing out history and background that may or may not be relevant to this year.

Starkey then returns to the call in the WVU-Cinci game, and the subsequent review.

Up in the booth, George rightfully launched a review. His mandate, as always, was this: Assume the on-field call is correct; overturn it only if there is “indisputable” video evidence.

There was no such evidence on ESPN’s broadcast. To the contrary, every angle invited massive dispute as to whether the ball broke the plane, and, if it did, whether Pead had control of it.

The call was indisputably disputable. Yet, George, a trained football official, overturned it.

I suppose it’s possible he had access to angles not shown on the broadcast. Big East spokesman John Paquette told me a replay official is privy to as many angles as ESPN can provide, usually seven to nine.

ESPN, however, would have no reason to withhold from viewers its best angles.

George also had use of high-definition and super slow-motion technology, but I refuse to believe he found “indisputable” evidence of a touchdown.

Oddly enough, Starkey skips the other questionable Big East replay/officiating decision to buttress his speculation. Regarding whether Clausen fumbled or not late in the ND-Pitt game. Like many of you, I’m sure, I’ve watched it several times. I can see how both sides would see different things. That said, if you are using a standard of “indisputable” evidence then I would be hard pressed to agree with the replay reversal in that game or in the WVU-Cinci.

If he did, the Big East should say so. If he erred, the league should say that. Instead, it declined comment on the play when I called Tuesday.

That silence is more troubling than anything. Transparency, after all, should be a high priority given the Big East’s recent history.

I think transparency is best regardless of the alleged “history.” From a PR standpoint, and the context of this entire season of college football I can see why the Big East would think going with “no comment” works best. No official statement means providing less fuel to continue the issue. Sides have been taken and nothing stated will change that — as Starkey himself shows that by saying he “refuses to believe he found “indisputable” evidence” to overturn the play on the field.

This brings us to Starkey’s grand finale:

Again, I’m no conspiracy theorist, but I got to thinking: What if Pitt loses to West Virginia and goes into the de facto league title game Dec. 5 with two losses, while Cincinnati goes in unbeaten?

If I were a Pitt fan, that scenario might trouble me.

Well, thank goodness he’s not a conspiracy theorist. He’s just asking questions. He’s concerned about where this conference is going. He loves this conference and hates what is happening to it.

He’s not saying that Pitt fans should come into that final game ready to expect that the refs and the Big East will be out to get them. He’s not saying anything like that. He just suggests Pitt fans might be worried about that.

Here’s the final problem with this conspiracy theory to which Starkey claims he doesn’t actually subscribe. If you believe it is a conference conspiracy, then his scenario falls apart anyways.

There would be no way the refs/conference would let Pitt lose the WVU game the week before. Afterall that would hurt Pitt’s BCS ranking. It would diminish the drama and give it all an anticlimactic feeling. It would spoil the ratings and attention the de facto conference championship game on Saturday.

That’s the problem with conspiracy theories. You really have to weave a tremendously large web that gets further absurd.