HS vs. College

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

most of the things you are speaking of when you say "college" is pro stuff. In my personal opinion, plays to the hoop, in college, need to have more whistles.

I wish you guys would make up your minds. For years (I'd say 5 years), the buzzword at "pro" camps that I attended was "cheap and-1s". There was a HUGE value placed on holding your whistle on any play going to the basket and let it finish without a whistle unless the contact caused the try to miss.

I haven't been to a pro-philosophy camp in the last two years, so perhaps that emphasis has changed. If so, all I can say is, thank goodness.

John Adams recognizes that there is indeed a problem cause he is wanting officials to up their play calling to 80 percent! That seems crazy to me. I think it should be higher

I said this at the beginning of the season when the 70% figure was stated for last year's NCAA tournament: I simply don't believe it. There's no way that the BEST 90 officials in the country miss 3 out of every 10 calls/no-calls. Either the evaluation method was flawed, or the people evaluating the tape were looking to make a point.

[refguy]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I wish you guys would make up your minds. For years (I'd say 5 years), the buzzword at "pro" camps that I attended was "cheap and-1s". There was a HUGE value placed on holding your whistle on any play going to the basket and let it finish without a whistle unless the contact caused the try to miss.

I haven't been to a pro-philosophy camp in the last two years, so perhaps that emphasis has changed. If so, all I can say is, thank goodness.

I said this at the beginning of the season when the 70% figure was stated for last year's NCAA tournament: I simply don't believe it. There's no way that the BEST 90 officials in the country miss 3 out of every 10 calls/no-calls. Either the evaluation method was flawed, or the people evaluating the tape were looking to make a point.

It was accurate mainly because all the veteran guys who don't go to camps to work on their game ball watch and call all over the floor.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I wish you guys would make up your minds. For years (I'd say 5 years), the buzzword at "pro" camps that I attended was "cheap and-1s". There was a HUGE value placed on holding your whistle on any play going to the basket and let it finish without a whistle unless the contact caused the try to miss.

I haven't been to a pro-philosophy camp in the last two years, so perhaps that emphasis has changed. If so, all I can say is, thank goodness.

I said this at the beginning of the season when the 70% figure was stated for last year's NCAA tournament: I simply don't believe it. There's no way that the BEST 90 officials in the country miss 3 out of every 10 calls/no-calls. Either the evaluation method was flawed, or the people evaluating the tape were looking to make a point.

No I wasn't saying the figure was too low. I would say 70% is about right, maybe a little higher than that. I was stating that I think he should set the bar higher and aim for about 88-90%. But there are just so many philosophies in the college game and so many assignors out there that its hard to attain that I guess. I hope and wish John Adams the best.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by refguy

It was accurate mainly because all the veteran guys who don't go to camps to work on their game ball watch and call all over the floor.

Simply ridiculous, if you actually believe that.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

No I wasn't saying the figure was too low. I would say 70% is about right, maybe a little higher than that.

I understand what you're saying. What I'M saying is that Mr. Adams' numbers are flawed. There's no way that the actual percentage of correct calls in the entire tournament was only 70%.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I understand what you're saying. What I'M saying is that Mr. Adams' numbers are flawed. There's no way that the actual percentage of correct calls in the entire tournament was only 70%.

Well what do you believe it was at?? Don't just tell me they are flawed... give me your opinion on what you thought (know) it was at, what do you think it should be at? etc.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

Well what do you believe it was at?? Don't just tell me they are flawed... give me your opinion on what you thought (know) it was at, what do you think it should be at? etc.

I don't have a firm number. But let me ask you this. Have you ever had a game where you thought afterwards that you had missed one-fourth of all your calls/no-calls in that game? One-quarter? Literally, one out of every four calls you got wrong. Have you ever felt that way? If so, maybe once or twice when you had a bad night.

Now someone is going to try to tell me that the 90 BEST OFFICIALS in the country did WORSE than that over the course of the ENTIRE tournament? No way. Simply not believable.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I don't have a firm number. But let me ask you this. Have you ever had a game where you thought afterwards that you had missed one-fourth of all your calls/no-calls in that game? One-quarter? Literally, one out of every four calls you got wrong. Have you ever felt that way? If so, maybe once or twice when you had a bad night.

Now someone is going to try to tell me that the 90 BEST OFFICIALS in the country did WORSE than that over the course of the ENTIRE tournament? No way. Simply not believable.

Point well taken!! i have felt like that in my early days and even confirmed it a couple times on film!!! But you have a valid point.

now let me ask a couple more questions:

-Do you think these are really the 90 best, outstanding, PLAYCALLERS in the country? You don't think there are a plethora of early to mid 30 yr. olds who could do better?
-Do you think these "90 best" focus more on play calling or game managing and by that i mean do you think they make more foul calls based on its a foul or not a foul vs. "I can get away with this foul" to keep everything in check? Cause if they think with the mindset of the latter then they think they get all kinds of plays right night in and night out??

I'm just posing the question and would like to hear your answer cause i think you have a realistic outlook and knowledge in this area?

[Brad]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

All you can do is call your game. Stop worrying about what others do or call.

Almost 14K posts and this is possibly the greatest thing you have ever said.

You can retire from the forum now!

[refguy]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

Point well taken!! i have felt like that in my early days and even confirmed it a couple times on film!!! But you have a valid point.

now let me ask a couple more questions:

-Do you think these are really the 90 best, outstanding, PLAYCALLERS in the country? You don't think there are a plethora of early to mid 30 yr. olds who could do better?
-Do you think these "90 best" focus more on play calling or game managing and by that i mean do you think they make more foul calls based on its a foul or not a foul vs. "I can get away with this foul" to keep everything in check? Cause if they think with the mindset of the latter then they think they get all kinds of plays right night in and night out??

I'm just posing the question and would like to hear your answer cause i think you have a realistic outlook and knowledge in this area?

Well put. Very well.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Brad

Almost 14K posts and this is possibly the greatest thing you have ever said.

You can retire from the forum now!

I might just do that, and it would not for what I said in this thread.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

Point well taken!! i have felt like that in my early days and even confirmed it a couple times on film!!! But you have a valid point.

now let me ask a couple more questions:

-Do you think these are really the 90 best, outstanding, PLAYCALLERS in the country? You don't think there are a plethora of early to mid 30 yr. olds who could do better?
-Do you think these "90 best" focus more on play calling or game managing and by that i mean do you think they make more foul calls based on its a foul or not a foul vs. "I can get away with this foul" to keep everything in check? Cause if they think with the mindset of the latter then they think they get all kinds of plays right night in and night out??

I'm just posing the question and would like to hear your answer cause i think you have a realistic outlook and knowledge in this area?

They may not be the best if you consider who can get in position or who could actually call the game. But just like anything in life, I doubt there are many that have been in the situation that most officials working the tournament have and could take the place of these individuals and not have a drop off. Usually these officials are there because they have proven they can handle themselves in big games and situations. Remember these guys were recommended by their conference supervisors to work the tournament. It is not like all these individuals were not working the top games in each conference. There is a big difference from working a game that you have to check the box score to know the game took place and to work a game(s) that are on national television all the time.

Peace

[Scrapper1]

The tone of my last post might have sounded a little hostile. I didn't intend it that way. Let me just say that I appreciate the back-and-forth of this particular train of thought. So let me answer the questions you posted. . .

Originally Posted by btaylor64

-Do you think these are really the 90 best, outstanding, PLAYCALLERS in the country?

I honestly can't answer that. Somebody thought they were the best people to have on those games, though. There is obviously some value on game management vs. strictly playcalling. I'm sure that there are some excellent playcallers who were not selected for other reasons. I'm also fairly sure that many, if not most, of the best playcallers in the country were in the tournament.

You don't think there are a plethora of early to mid 30 yr. olds who could do better?

No, I don't. There are a few, I'm sure. But a "plethora" implies to me a "whole boatload", people lined up out the door. And I don't think there are a whole boatload of 30-somethings out there who are better than the guys chosen by Mr. Adams and the selection committee.

do you think they make more foul calls based on its a foul or not a foul vs. "I can get away with this foul" to keep everything in check?

Again, I can't honestly answer that simply because I've never worked with the Burrs and Higginses of the world. But I'll say 2 things.

1) I would hope that they call the play first, and then manage the game and/or coaches. If the call is there (talking mainly fouls now), I would hope that they would make or pass on that call based on the advantage gained, not based on, "Gee, I don't want to get Jim Boeheim upset".

2) At one of the pro-philosophy camps I attended, one of the big points they talked about was that the official's call must FIT the situation.

IOW, you can can call a play correctly but still be wrong because it doesn't fit the situation. There is room for game management calls. Simply being the best playcaller in the world isn't enough. While we all strive to call our plays correctly as often as possible, sometimes you let that carry in the backcourt go in the last minute of a blowout. Technically, that's an NCI. But in the real world, that's a correct call.

[dbking]

Originally Posted by Brad

Almost 14K posts and this is possibly the greatest thing you have ever said.

You can retire from the forum now!

I believe that this philosophy can only take you so far.

There are three teams on the court for every game. In 3 person crews, this philosophy can kill the game. A good solid pre game and follow up at time outs will bring the consistency that is required to have a quality game. That inconsistency is what drives coaches and fans crazy.

Be in proper position to see the whole play. Be patient with your whistle. Call the obvious and protect the shooter are great basics. However, the great crews are the ones that have similar calls on similar plays on both ends of the court. The players and coaches can adjust to that. We take the bad rap when we do not do that.

BE THE BEST TEAM ON THE COURT!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by dbking

I believe that this philosophy can only take you so far.

There are three teams on the court for every game. In 3 person crews, this philosophy can kill the game. A good solid pre game and follow up at time outs will bring the consistency that is required to have a quality game. That inconsistency is what drives coaches and fans crazy.

Be in proper position to see the whole play. Be patient with your whistle. Call the obvious and protect the shooter are great basics. However, the great crews are the ones that have similar calls on similar plays on both ends of the court. The players and coaches can adjust to that. We take the bad rap when we do not do that.

BE THE BEST TEAM ON THE COURT!

Are you saying you can control what your partners do or do not do? Because I have been doing 3 Person for some time, and they either know it and understand the system, or they do not. And a lot of that understanding takes work in the off season and constantly working games to learn that system.

Peace