"Good" games vs. "Bad" games
 

In your area what in you opinion is the ratio of good, competitive, well played games verus bad, non-competitve, poorly played games?

We have 12 local high schools in our area. So boys and Girls on the Varsity level we have 24 teams. Only 3 girls teams have a chance to win games ( against all of the teams ) On the boys side, 3 also are the best, which means 8 average or poor teams playing most nights. the only chance they have is when they play one another. Most of our teams are about .500 teams.

It's a down year.

I hear this topic discussed amongst officials all the time. It has become more common of late, in my opinion, to say, "this is a crap game." I think that part of it is that some (I won't use "many" here in case Jurassic is still reading) officials think that they are better than the game they are doing.

A game can be a "good, competitive" game without being "well played." A game can be "rough" while being competitive. A game can be "poorly played", yet be very "competitive". Does that make the game "bad"?

For the most part, games are what you make of them. If a game is a blowout, enjoy the talent of the superior team and enjoy the effort of the losing team. If a game is between two strong competitive teams, enjoy your night, it will be fun!!! If a game is between two average teams, it will be a competitive game -- the players are still competing hard. If a game is between two poor teams, the game can quite possibly still be competitive. Depending on the age group, the players might not know that they are "poor" teams.

Enjoy the game regardless of who is playing. Have fun while doing it.

The number of top quality games is very limited. If you are doing one of these games, enjoy the moment and work hard.

If you find that you are doing a bunch of good games, that is probably because folks recognize you as being a good official. If you find that you are doing what you think are a bunch of "bad, non-competitive, poorly played" games, well, you know what kind of officials usually do these types of games -- work to get better.:D

great points
 

Coach you make a lot of great points here - in this era of instant gratification there are a lot of officials that do not want to "pay their dues" or earn the "high profile" games, they passed the test so they are ready to work
Duke-vs-UNC the next day

Let's face it a lot of the high profile games are not good games when it comes down to it, and some of the better games to work are at the ones that on paper look to be horrible.

Well said!

IMO, the hardest games to work are between two "bad" teams. Each thinks they can win (for one of the few times), yet neither is capable of winning. They will be more critical of the officials (who can "cost them the game"). Determining ad/disad will be more difficult because of the inability to play through minor contact and the extra minor contact caused by poor defense.

If I had to base it on this past season, I went with 70% good, 30% bad, and this was actually a good season for me. Yes, I did have a few blowouts, but also had a few OT games (shut up Padgett!), as well as some OT near-misses (yes, I can manage Mr. Padgett!). But the overall quality was improved on what I had during past seasons.

This was my first thought, too, Coach. We don't have the greatest skill level at the high school level around here, but I would say that at least 14 of the 22 high school games I worked this year were competitive -- meaning that each team had a reasonable chance to win.

Does that make it a "good" game? Sometimes. Sometimes not.

Gee - guess which way I voted.

"good" or "bad" as defined by whom?

I am amused by the irony that Raymond Burr would say such a thing.

What is "Good" or "Bad"?
 

Totally agree!

If symptoms persist, consult a physician.
 

Agree, in fact, you took the words right out of my mouth. It's a privilege to work any high school game, at any level, and the pay ain't too shabby either.