Is it time for the NCAA to develop elite officials

[HuskylnSC]

IMHO, there are maybe 4 or 5 elite refs in WBB (I can think of 3 by face but not by name). What I believe happens is the following scenario. I know from experience that refs get into a rhythm of making calls. More than 90% of WBB games are played at a much slower pace than the average UConn game (and DePaul was not average). Once the game starts the refs will see a call and start to make the call in their natural rhythm and before the whistle blows, the play has moved on and the ref swallows the whistle (that's from personal experience). This goes on and players begin to expect the game called in a "Let the Ladies Play" mode. Coaches get hot, players take advantage, and the game quickly spirals. You get Bruno going into "Torch the Ref" mode and see CD pulling Geno back to the bench. (Did you think that was a very timid 'T' call by the ref on Doug. It was as if she didn't want to call it because he was right.)

I believe it would behoove the NCAA to establish a core group of elite refs. These refs will be used only at the elite games and develop the rhythm necessary to give the elite teams the officiating they deserve. Of course, this would require the NCAA to admit that their general officiating sucks and they will never do that.

 

[ThisJustIn]

I've chimed in often on posts like this because:

1) If you're a sport, your refs "suck."
2) There are realities- like conferences unwilling to spend money because, as you know
3) the NCAA does not supervise the officials (until the tournament - where they draw from Conference recommendations, etc. to create the pool of officials). Conferences do - sorta. Officials are independent contractors, so anything above and beyond game day contracting has to BE PAID. So,
4) What the Rules Committee decides (input by ADs and Coaches) gets sent to the Conference supervisors. Who then interpret those rules and share them with the pool of officials they hire. How a ref calls games is often influenced by their employer.
5) Last I heard, most D1 reffed games produce a DVD that's given to the officials to review. Depending on the conference's budget, there is a rep observing and evaluating their work. They meet after the game and/or are given notes.
6) It's a stunningly difficult job. Yes, the top officials get good money, but they've worked years getting peanuts. AND traveling away from family for months. AND they get abused by coaches, players and fans who know better.
7) Most of the time they DON'T know better. Ask former player and current ref Monique Currie.
8) Finally, a while back, Mary Struckhoff took over at the NCAA. She replaced the legendary Marcy Weston. Mary started to implement some changes, created web-based support sites, pushed for transparency... and then was no longer in the position.

If you're interested, I wrote several articles a while back. Likely some stuff is out of date, but it does provide some useful background (I hope).

MAKING THE CALLS: The World of Referees

COACHES AND OFFICIALS: Reaching Across the Divide – A look at the relationship between officials and coaches and the impact on recruiting efforts

EARNING THEIR STRIPES: Officials in Training

OFFICIATING UNDER REVIEW: Coaches, Conferences and the NCAA Working to Collaborate

 

[willtalk]

The problem with poor officiating will not be fixed until the entire perspective of officiating is changed. What we have in place now is a system that eliminates the worst of the weak pool that it draws from. You can not make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Even in those articles, it refers to training officials. Well, there are some things that just can not be taught but rely on skills someone is born with. There are specific skills that will define and create the level that an official is capable of. A very important skill is to be able to notice and process and analyze visual detail rapidly. It is a skill similar to what makes an excellent point guard or QB on a football team. Right now the pool that officials are drawn from is filled with huge numbers of individuals that lack a high enough degree of ability in that respect.

We just need to look at the history of officiating to understand how this all came about. Initially, officials were just spectators pulled out of the crowd. This was long before sports became big business. The sports have grown, but the officiating has not caught up. The officiating pool is still mainly part-timers who liked sports but could not keep playing for one reason or the other. liking sports or even having been good at a sport does not necessarily make a good official.

What I am saying is that officiating should be treated as a vocation from the start. You begin by eliminating those that do not possess a minimum visual processing speed. There are tests available to do that right now. To produce high-quality officials, the first step is to set a minimum standard that has to be met. Doing that, to begin with, leaves a core group with a much higher ceiling.

Sports today make money and it seems that some of that should find itself in the hands of one of the most important aspects of each individual sport. You get what you pay for and the number of elite officials are few and far between. As fast as the games are being played today, if you do not have those specific skills I mentioned to start with, you just can not do the job.

 

[veryolddog]

My response to this question is: I do not know.

These folks do a job, some of them part time. They try to do the best job that they can and call it as they see it. I personally, could not run up and down that court or a football field for that matter or call balls and strikes like these guys and gals do. I may not like the result of their call, but that is the call. Thanks to video replay, another look can take place. However, as a fan and a bystander I cannot put myself in their shoes.

 

[HopJim]

I've chimed in often on posts like this because:

1) If you're a sport, your refs "suck."
2) There are realities- like conferences unwilling to spend money because, as you know
3) the NCAA does not supervise the officials (until the tournament - where they draw from Conference recommendations, etc. to create the pool of officials). Conferences do - sorta. Officials are independent contractors, so anything above and beyond game day contracting has to BE PAID. So,
4) What the Rules Committee decides (input by ADs and Coaches) gets sent to the Conference supervisors. Who then interpret those rules and share them with the pool of officials they hire. How a ref calls games is often influenced by their employer.
5) Last I heard, most D1 reffed games produce a DVD that's given to the officials to review. Depending on the conference's budget, there is a rep observing and evaluating their work. They meet after the game and/or are given notes.
6) It's a stunningly difficult job. Yes, the top officials get good money, but they've worked years getting peanuts. AND traveling away from family for months. AND they get abused by coaches, players and fans who know better.
7) Most of the time they DON'T know better. Ask former player and current ref Monique Currie.
8) Finally, a while back, Mary Struckhoff took over at the NCAA. She replaced the legendary Marcy Weston. Mary started to implement some changes, created web-based support sites, pushed for transparency... and then was no longer in the position.

If you're interested, I wrote several articles a while back. Likely some stuff is out of date, but it does provide some useful background (I hope).

MAKING THE CALLS: The World of Referees

COACHES AND OFFICIALS: Reaching Across the Divide – A look at the relationship between officials and coaches and the impact on recruiting efforts

EARNING THEIR STRIPES: Officials in Training

OFFICIATING UNDER REVIEW: Coaches, Conferences and the NCAA Working to Collaborate

Excellent articles. Dated but still accurate. With the low payments and high travel times and costs, most of the top refs leave the job at the high school or Division II college ranks. Once you reach the DI level, in a way like a tenured professor, little oversight or career development activities. Depending on whether its a league or Top 10 game, UConn typically has 1-2 of the top refs. Watch a mid-major team playing in Lewisburg, Pa or similar location if you want to see poor ref performance.

 

[eebmg]

Personally, I think the International (Euroleague) refs are much better. They call what they see without anticipating the call and are much more consistent overall. Not sure how their training differs from the US but maybe we can get some insights.

 

[j66kicker]

...Sports today make money and it seems that some of that should find itself in the hands of one of the most important aspects of each individual sport. You get what you pay for and the number of elite officials are few and far between. As fast as the games are being played today, if you do not have those specific skills I mentioned to start with, you just can not do the job.

In this country the NFL, NBA, MLB, a handful of college football programs, and a smaller handful of men’s college basketball programs make money. That’s about it. The WNBA is still partially subsidized by the NBA, and WCBB is heavily subsidized by the schools’ revenue sports (only because of Title IX) and the taxpayers and tuition payers in the case of public universities (again, only because of Title IX). The money is not there for WBB.

 

[UcMiami]

Considering there are 350+/- D1 programs and three refs working a game there are probably 600+/- D1 women's basketball refs. Add that they are hired and managed by 32 separate conferences and it is not surprising that the quality is pretty limited.

It is a problem that exists across all college sports and is much more obvious with the number of cameras and HQ quality replays that fans are able to access in the modern era.

When you look at a pro league like the NFL and the critical errors that continue to crop up in officiating where money shouldn't be an issue it is not surprising that quality at the college level is such a source of frustration.

Generally they do a pretty good job but it is never going to be perfect and rarely does it change likely outcomes.

 

[BroadwayVa]

Considering there are 350+/- D1 programs and three refs working a game there are probably 600+/- D1 women's basketball refs. Add that they are hired and managed by 32 separate conferences and it is not surprising that the quality is pretty limited.

It is a problem that exists across all college sports and is much more obvious with the number of cameras and HQ quality replays that fans are able to access in the modern era.

When you look at a pro league like the NFL and the critical errors that continue to crop up in officiating where money shouldn't be an issue it is not surprising that quality at the college level is such a source of frustration.

Generally they do a pretty good job but it is never going to be perfect and rarely does it change likely outcomes.

Therefore, the solution (as suggested above) is: Make College Ref's profession with specific courses and training/education. Consistent across the board training. They will all make bad call human are not robots. But they will be nearly consistent from ref to ref and wherever they perform. With adequate and consistent pay. They may still begin in lower grades doing the job but the training for those should be the same as College.
Delusional, I know!

 

[willtalk]

Training will only fix so much. The problem is poor visual processing speeds. You are born with that. If you don't have it all the training in world will not fix it. Refs get plenty of training. There are people who are suited for this sort of job. The problem is that it is inundated with too many people who are not.

 

[chrissaran]

How about officiating coasting the Minnesota Lynx a championship. When Minnesota played LA, an LA player hit a shot to put LA ahead. However, the light had already gone on to signal that the shot hadn't been made in time. You're saying it was only one shot. It was a shot in the last seconds that should have been reviewed. The ref even held up his arm meaning he was going to review it but he never did. Minnesota should have been happy losing the championship on a shot in the last seconds? I don't think so.