[Goose]

TO Dan_ref

>Assming your premise is true, there's a very good reason >why an accomplished D1 basketball official might not jump >to the NBA: typically they have day jobs. Jumping to the >NBA would mean a loss of income, benefits and job security >for these people. Not to mention some of these folks >actually like their day job and wouldn't want to ditch it >for a shot at the NBA. But I would bet you not one of them >would say he wouldn't love to work in the NBA, if >officiating was the only consideration.

I do tend to agree with this with the following assumptions on my part.

Most D1 people I know are self employed. The ones that aren't in many cases get leaves of absences from their jobs. Years ago, a top D1 official was put under the microscope up in Syracuse because he would leave his "day" job for 6 months, which became problematic because it was affecting other departments. So, to be a top flight D1 official, I would guess that they have to give up their regular jobs just to make their schedules since many work 4-5 times per week. Most regular joes like myself are not self employed, nor own the company, and therefore cannot meet the demands of being on site 4-6 hours before game time.

And the ones I have happened to speak with over the years haven't had a single good word to say about the NBA. They, to a T have told me the "game" stinks. Not the officials, but the game itself.

Another issue why they don't/won't jump I think, is the fact that they are at the top in the NCAA and why jump to be put back at the bottom? Then again, if the NBA was serious about the integrity of the game, they should want the best, and start courting some of these individuals. Now, I don't know that they don't, but you never hear of a top D1 official moving to the NBA. At least I'm not aware of it. The NFL does a fine job of mentoring and so does baseball where there is no doubt as to whom the best are, the guys working the the majors, or in the NFL.

>As for whether the game is 'entertainment' or not: there's >a reason why even low ncaa & HS 'fans' follow their teams. >Because it entertains them. I'm not sure I understand why >you have a problem with this btw. You might as well >compare a production of the Bolshoi Ballet at Lincoln >Center to your lowly WWE. Afterall, they are both >merely 'entertainment'.

The main problem I have with the NBA is that they are desparate for fan appeal, and in that zeal to gain acceptance which football and baseball have, they take the easy road and simply use entertainment as the main focal point. Kind of like the Globetrotters. But are the Globetrotters playing good basketball? They once did, but those days are long gone and now they are just entertainers with a basketball court as a stage.

It's just me, and my opinion, but I believe the game should be the selling point. I personally don't watch the game to see player x or y, although I admit it makes it interesting, but I watch because I like the GAME. I used to love Olympic basketball because we could take a bunch of no-named college kids and kick butt because we played the GAME better. One can argue till the cows come home why with the talent we have why we should ever lose in International competition, but it all comes down to playing the game as it was meant, and not playing like a bunch of individuals. This is why I am all for returning to letting our college kids play and leave the Pro's to entertainment.

The movie Hoosiers is not entertaining because it had great basketball players, instead, what made it interesting and entertaining was watching a bunch of underachievers accomplish something extra ordinary all within the confines of the game of basketball. That is what excites me, and I guess that is why I have appreciated John Wooden's approach to the game ever since I tuned in years ago, late one night to watch a game in the Astrodome. Players come and go, but it is the game that remains, and the NBA should put the integrity of the game before any individual IMO.

goose