Quote:
Originally posted by RefSouthAlb
I guiess my point is this.
If I was a coach would I rather have
"one of the league's most respected officials. He has worked nine ACC Tournament title games -- tied for second behind Lenny Wirtz' 13 on the all-time list. He has worked four Final Fours (1993, '98, '99 and 2003). He was named the Naismith Men's Official of the Year in 2002. He also is pictured in the ACC media guide with the list of ACC title game officials."
Or
"Reggie Cofer and Jamie Luckie each worked their first ACC final."
Yes they are in the ACC and can ref that game, but the perception is we didn't put the best overall ref into the title game.
If this whole scenario wouldn't have happened would Rose be the better official or would Luckie / Cofer.
Answer seems clear to me.
|
Under your logic, an official would never work a final that hasn't done one before. So when all the guys who have worked the finals for the past 20 years are dead and gone, who will have the required experience to step in?
One has to start somewhere, sometime.
But that said, I'm sure those guys have worked conference title games before in other conferences and it was clearly their time to start getting an ACC final.
Also, have you ever thought that perhaps Larry Rose was a much better official 6 years ago when he only had 3 ACC finals under his belt? Maybe he was quicker, ran harder, had better reflexes, better eyesight, hearing, etc. A number on paper doesn't necessarily equate to a better job done on the court!