Thu Mar 25, 2004, 02:03am
|
 |
Get away from me, Steve.
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,785
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: experience or ability?
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
Quote:
Originally posted by RefSouthAlb
Rose had the final game based on his performance this year, not 6 years ago not ten. This year!!
|
Sorry bud, but that is not the argument you made. You argued solely based on past credentials, not a word about what was done this season. Can you even tell me which games Rose worked this year?
Specifically, you wrote that if you were a coach you would rather have Ref X who has blah, blah, blah credentials (9 of these, 5 of those, and 20 years of experience) rather than Refs Y and Z who are working their first ACC final. Then at the end you imply that Rose is a better official than the other two because of his credentials, nothing you wrote had to do with this season. Look at your quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by RefSouthAlb
I guess 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.
|
I just called you on arguing the past not the present. You may even agree that the present is more important since you changed that basis of your argument in your second post.
Quote:
Originally posted by RefSouthAlb
If Rose wasn't the same or better official he was 6 years ago, he wouldn't continue getting games at this level.
|
That is simply not true. It has more to do with political factors at that level than continued improvement or maintaining ability. The sad truth is that all officials degrade with age. John Clougherty is a good example, he is working the NCAA tourney this season and he is quite old. Is he out there because he is the same or better compared to 6 or 10, or even 20 years ago? No, but he is giving it up soon, and he is probably getting a thank you. I wouldn't be surprised to see him on the NCAA final. There is a period of time after an official has proven himself and risen through the ranks (done through ability and hardwork), in which he rides the wave for a while. The coaches know him, the assignor is comfortable with him, and he has credibility. Politics, in other words, carries him for a while as he begins the ride down. Eventually every official hangs it up.
|
I think Clougherty is a bad example for you to use. I would want him on my game any day of the week, even in his mid to late 50s.
|