Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jeffpea
Since the NBA has a regimented evaluation process, it is possible to evaluate and rank all the officials based on their performance during the regular season. Here's an idea: assign the top officials to the playoffs based on their regular season performance - not based on past experience or prior season performance. If Dick Beretta rates as one of the top 9 (or whatever number you decide) officials, then use him in the Finals - if not, he sits at home to watch like you and me. Don't just assign him because he's worked the Finals the last 10yrs in a row.
|
IMO, even evaluators can biases. Exactly how do we determine who is a better official and who’s not? If we rank officials, how is this "ranking" system going to work? Since we know not all officials are guaranteed receive the same amount of games, those who get assigned more games MIGHT tend to do better than those who get less games. And even if they are given the same amt of games, not all game level are the same. Then what????? Given that this “ranking system” is for the NBA refs, game levels can still be very different in terms of posting psychological factors. Games that are televised on National TV might post more psychological stress for refs than games that are not televised publicly across the nation. How are we going to account these variables in the “ranking system?”
Another comment I have is that if they are constantly being evaluated, would officials be more concerned about their personal ratings vs. “teamwork within the crew?” After all, if they truly want to advance, they need to “make a name for themselves!” Given that, would that suggest doing less as a crew but more individually? Officiating a good game requires more than just one person doing his/her job, right? So if my partners failed on me, why should my ranking drop because of his/her mistake. I just don’t see how a ranking system would be fair for officials.