Quote:
|
maybe instead of assigning the best officials, we simply "take turns"
|
It isn't as simple as mocking a different selection paradigm as "taking turns" or asserting the current system hires the "best officials." One official can't be depended upon to work all, or even a large number, of big games. We need multiple officials that are ready to step in, and the only way they are going to be ready is if they get a big assignment. I'm afraid that too many of these guys that constantly get final four nods are there simply because they've been there before. "They have the experience, so that's why they are out there." Fine, but putting aside the fact that at SOME POINT, they didn't have the experience and simply got their chance, they aren't going to be around forever. The fact is that if you go by the standard of experience in a Final Four game as a means of qualification, we simply don't know whether Steve Welmer (for example) would do a better job than Ed Hightower (for example) because Welmer hasn't gotten the chance to prove it. And you can't tell me that Welmer has screwed up his NCAA games so bad he deserves to get shut out as he did this year. There are several assignors around the country that would argue -- by their own actions if nothing else -- otherwise.
So I defy anyone that justifies the current system as "having the best officials." All we know is that the officials there are the ones that Hank Nichols (or whoever it is that makes the decision) wants in there.