NCAAT - Selection Process for Officials

[pfister1]

John Adams National Officiating Coordinator on choosing the officials to work this season's NCAA tournament.

“We’re trying to deliver a product from an officiating point of view that will pass any test or any scrutiny with regard to impartiality, fairness, knowledge of the rules and trying to end the games in a fair manner,” Adams said. “It’s important that everybody who leaves the arena — even the team that lost — to think they had a fair game.” Article on the Process

Seems like there have been a lot of poorly officiated games in the Tournament this year. Maybe they need to head back to the drawing board in terms of the selection process, because by the standard above I'd say the process has been an EPIC FAIL.


"The process is thorough, Adams said, in order to protect the integrity of the game. Adams and his team spend months in airports, arenas and in front of televisions to ensure that the highest-caliber officials work the 67 games that decide who will be crowned national champion."

Does anyone here feel like that crew they gave us on Saturday was composed of the highest caliber officials available?? One of four Elite 8 games, in theory the officials should have been 3 of the best 12 doing games.


I especially enjoy this quote... “The key to calling plays right is being able to get in position to see them,” Baab said. “If you are not fit enough to get in position to see them, more than likely you’re out of position and guessing.”

Yet they continue to run a high number of guys out there that look like the next salad they eat will be the first.

Yeah, I'm still bitter over Saturday.

 

[orangehomer]

from what i have read in the past part of the problem is that the referee "fraternity" is basically a good ole boys club, and i don't think the ncaa has a whole lot of control over them. unlike the nba say, where the league has more control of the refs and they are examined more closely. in college there are so many games i don't think the ncaa wants to have to grade out the refs. they need to have some kind of evaluation process, especially for these older refs.

 

[BleedsOrange44]

There was an official on Dan Tortora's show on Sunday morning on TheScore1260. He basically inferred that there's a lot of political reasons why crews/officials are advanced in the tournament. He said he hasn't been in a lot of tournament games or final fours, even though he's rated as a very good official, because he has had arguments with a higher up.

Sounded to me like orangehomer is correct.

 

[pfister1]

The link may not stand out in my post, but it links to an article on the NCAA website describing the process for grading and selecting officials for the tournament.

Doesn't mention the political element.

 

[orangehomer]

The link may not stand out in my post, but it links to an article on the NCAA website describing the process for grading and selecting officials for the tournament.

Doesn't mention the political element.

whoops i missed the link the first time through. from the sounds of it there were basically 3 or 4 guys trying to grade like 400 refs. i understand it would be very very difficult for the ncaa to grade the refs but there is so much money on the line it seems like they need to have a better process. i still think the ref fraternity still has a lot of say over who gets to do major conference games, and who the "big game" refs are. i think the ncaa for a long time has just sort of let the refs decide amongst themselves who the best refs were. maybe now they are getting the idea they need to do better.

 

[pfister1]

whoops i missed the link the first time through. from the sounds of it there were basically 3 or 4 guys trying to grade like 400 refs. i understand it would be very very difficult for the ncaa to grade the refs but there is so much money on the line it seems like they need to have a better process. i still think the ref fraternity still has a lot of say over who gets to do major conference games, and who the "big game" refs are. i think the ncaa for a long time has just sort of let the refs decide amongst themselves who the best refs were. maybe now they are getting the idea they need to do better.

I agree because ultimately I think any grading system (in the absence of a negative grade because of something like a clear misinterpretation of rules) is going to be subjective and if you only have a very small number of people involved their prejudices will likely come to bear on the final output.