Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rainmaker
What I'm saying isn't that anyone who puts in their years and is an average refs should get a shot. I don't think that. What I am saying is that our present system is basically grading on a curve and only the top 15% or so can get A's, even if 50% of the class gets 98% or better. I'm saying that anyone who is "good enough" to do a great job at the tournament should get a chance, even if there are 40 or 50 who are also good enough to do a great job at the tournament.
|
If 50% get 98% or better, the test is too easy. The bar needs to be raised.
Basic statistics tell you that it is
extremely unlikely to have that many people clustered at the top. Performance in nearly every field follows the basic bell curve....a few truly great/horrible ones, a few more extremely good/bad ones, a few more pretty good/bad ones, and a lot of average ones. If we're getting down to #45-50 or so in the varsity official list, we're well into the range of average varsity offiicals. Perhaps a few selections should come from the "average" range but most should come from only the better than average range.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rainmaker
I won't use names but in looking at who's gone to the tournament this year, and then who will be going next year (if this year's ranking holds), I can't see much difference in abilities to ref. In fact, I see some who've never gone who might actually be better than some who've gone several times.
|
I don't disagree with you there....it's the 3rd year out that is the concern since some of the eligibility requirements have a three year period. Next years likely candidates do indeed look very good.