You want to know the one thing I love about accusations like this? It is that none of the people making said accusations tend to follow through to the final logical conclusion. So allow me to do it for them.
Okay, hypothetically speaking, let's say it's true and there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll. Let's say, for argument's sake, the refs were biased in calling fouls on Clemson but not calling the same kind of foul on UNC. Does anyone care to take ask the questions derived from that premise? How about:
Was it one referee or two of them or all three working together?
How did the refs know when to call fouls and not call fouls?
Was it ordered by someone at the ACC?
If so who ordered it and why?
And besides that who knew what and when did they know it?
Is there a standing point of emphasis to call UNC and Duke games a certain way?
Is there a standing policy when it comes to not calling alleged fouls on Tyler Hansbrough?
What does the ACC stand to gain by UNC winning that game?
Is the military industrial complex involved in some way?
And is it really possible for a guy sitting on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository to hit the head of a person in a moving vehicle?
Yes, this is tongue and cheek to some extent but on a serious level, if you are willing to go out there and say UNC got favorable officiating in Chapel Hill on Sunday, then unless you are saying this because the referees are just plain bad at their jobs then you are suggesting some level of game fixing. And if that is the case then you have to ask whether it was one referee doing it or whether all three refs were involved. You also have to ask if someone higher up at the ACC passed instructions down to make sure UNC won the game by controlling the foul calls. At this point you are talking about something widespread because you have three different refs and these refs change assignments every time games are played so you also have to assume that more than the three refs who worked this game are involved in what is now a Vast Light Blue Conspiracy(and yes I am thinking about filing trademarks on that phrase so back off.)
My greater point is, the most basic assumption you have to start with is that all three refs have to be on the same page here. There is no way one referee can be responsible for skewing foul totals by himself. Also, if this was some sort of conspiracy then they really did a piss poor job at execution considering Clemson was up 11 with three minutes left. Over the final three minutes of regulation UNC committed two fouls and Clemson one with Clemson's Demontez Stitt, an 80% FT shooter, missing the only FT taken during that stretch. The one Clemson foul did not result in a FT for UNC.
So, if you want to believe UNC got favorable officiating and somehow the refs made split second decisions on calls with UNC bias fully engaged, then I really feel for you. I understand that UNC and Duke probably do get some calls other teams do not get but it is probably more limited than we all think. I also understand that officiating affects UNC and Duke less because they have talent to overcome shortcomings with the referees most of the time. The issue is if you approach watching a game with your preconceived notions such as "UNC gets all the calls" or "Duke flops on every play" then the likelihood of you perceiving that is happening goes up significantly.
And now I am done talking about it.