The ref problem has been around for years. Nothing will change until bad refs and their supervisors (is it time for Jacobs to go?) are held accountable and good refs are better compensated.
This entire thread defines the obvious problem; but no one offers a useful solution.
Here is my take; and I have been arguing for this for many years:
Give the kids 6 fouls before ejection from the game -- instead of the current five fouls and out.
This doesn't assure that the reffing will be better.
But it does assure that bad reffing will not have such a negative affect on the game.
The current rules give only 2 fouls in the first half of a game before most coaches will sit the "guilty" player for the remainder of the half. This too often puts one of the best and most critical players from a team out of the game -- where they are useless to their teammates and out of sight for the fans who have come to see them play.
I'll bet that a majority of the games in this year's (and most recent years) were significantly affected by having star players spending too much time on the bench with "foul problems." The first half is especially difficult for the players because they have not had enough time to figure out what the refs are going to call. What is really unfair to the players is that one ticky-tack call (by an often out of position ref) means that the player has to be "more careful" on defense, and play less aggressively than normal; and, of course, get benched by the coach after the 2nd foul.
This leaves players with two "free fouls" in the 2nd half -- and out of the game after the third foul. The same balance should apply to the first half.
People who argue against a six foul limit usually assert that the players will just commit more fouls (which isn't good for the game). I don't think this will often happen. All fouls incur a penalty (two free throws, or a one and one.) These fouls add up to the "bonus penalty"; and are thus not helpful to a team's goals. SO --
I don't think giving six fouls per player will increase the number of fouls. In fact, it may decrease the total fouls because players, who replace a teammate who has gone to the bench, start with zero fouls, don't expect to play a lot of minutes, and are thus more free to foul than the player who has gone to the bench with 2 fouls in the 1st half or 3/4 fouls in the second half.
Bottom line: giving six fouls helps keep the best players on the floor, provides some "cover" for the refs who make a bad call that might seriously impact a game, and provides a balanced number of fouls for each half (3 and 3).
I know this doesn't answer the problem of inept referees; but it lessens the damage that bad reffing imposes on a game.
The final argument for a change to six fouls is that it does not affect the basic rules and structure of the game. The NCAA can change the rule in a New York Minute. And College basketball coaches should mount a campaign for that to happen. It will please players, coaches, fans, ESPN, and (last but not least) the Referees who will have fewer people bitching about them after every game.
P.S. I offer this advice to the NCAA free of charge.
