Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jeffpea
That's an interesting thought....maybe instead of assigning the best officials, we simply "take turns"....think we should rotate the teams that actually get to participate in the state tournaments - instead of a true playoff? then more kids and more schools will get the chance to experience the state tournament....(hopefully you sense my sarcasm).
Let's just assign the best officials! If I'm a coach, I want the best officials working the most important games. You can disagree with the evaluation process used to determine the best officials, but I do not think you can oppose the philosophy that the best officials should be working the championship games.
|
And you're missing Rich's point.
The
"best" officials aren't automatically restricted to a select few. If your state only has the same, relatively few officials that are supposedly capable of doing state tournament games, then your state badly needs to do something to develop officials, because it sureashell is doing a terrible job of doing so in the present. I don't believe that any state is so lacking in competent officials that it absolutely has to keep using the same people year after year.
Personally, I give my fellow officials a heckuva lot more credit than you are. I think that there are quite a few officials, in
ANY state, that could do a credible job if they are given the opportunity. And....if you don't give them the opportunity, you never will improve the quality of your officiating.
Having the same faces working
all of the key games does absolutely nothing to help raise officiating standards in any area. Imo, any assignor with half a brain is going to mix and match the current big dawgs with the up-and-comers, with the goal of developing the up-and-comers into future big-dawgs. It's a self-perpetuating process, if done properly.
You don't know what an official can do until you give him/her a chance. They might just do a good a job as the "best" officials.