Don't like that proposal.

Me neither. I don't think jeff has thought through all the ramifications.

edit: unless he's joking.

This is not Jeff's idea. This is actually an idea that John Adams has thrown out there and it already done with the football side. And honestly this is largely done at the D1 Women's side as there is really one person that assigns several regions and conferences. The ramifications are only bad if the conferences only want to see the same officials all the time. Other than that this is probably a good idea and will give more guys a shot to work many conferences and better games. You cannot tell me that the guys that work most of the top games are the only ones qualified to be on the floor. ;)

Peace

I think all it will do is that instead of "those" guys working all over the map, they will get all the games in their region and travel less.

I like the idea that though one supervisor might not like me, the next one will.

I would amend my response to say if it's only done at the D1 level, it wouldn't be so bad.

I guess I don't see that it's such a big problem (tired officials) that it requires such a top-down approach. If Adams can get the important people to buy into this plan, he wins.

My instincts are more laissez faire, so my reaction to this is going to be negative. It would never really affect me, though, either way, as I doubt I'll be working D-1 at any point.

And this is the part that sticks with me, too. I don't like the idea of one guy essentially being able to determine whether you're qualified to work. The effect would be the exact opposite of tearing down any sort of "good ol' boy" network. It'll strengthen it.

If one commssioner / assignor / school doesn't want to hire me, I shrug and take more games from another. However, I have worked as a varsity official in another state where you *had* to join an association and all games were assigned from there and one person with all the power in the area controlled whether you worked or didn't work.

I would guess that a few officials would be glad to take fewer games for more money and a "staff" position, but others would say goodbye and go to other conferences.

Let me also make something clear. Adams did not say he was changing the process for this reason that I am aware of. He just wanted a more even assigning process that would be based on region. And I believe that you could work other regions, but it would be based on who is playing and likely non-conference situations. This would be done in an effort to give newer officials a chance that I remember.

Peace

In CO, we have to belong to an association which assigns all of our games for high school. That said, if for some weird reason I became disgruntled with my current situation, I could drive to the nearby area and work for them.

The idea as jeffpea proposed it wouldn't allow for that, as D1 schools (presumably it would be limited to them) would be forced to use a regional assigner, and officials would be forced to work for the assigner in their area.

Not necessarily. I do not get the impression that the conferences do not choose who works for them on some level. You still will be hired by conferences. But you might work in other conferences if there is a need or if it will cut down on travel. At least that is how it is done at the football side. I think there would be a similar policy. Again this was only talked about as a concept in basketball, it has not been implemented. We will see if it ever comes to that policy.

Peace

Rut:

On a side note, John Clougherty is a 1964 graduate of Youngstown State University, :D.

MTD, Sr.

I was afraid you were going to say he graduated from The Other State University.

LOL!!!

Peace

the two main criticisms that people have of the current officiating set-up is: 1) guys work too many games (i.e. 25 days in a row), and 2) their isn't enough accountability and consistency in the officiating....

By having one regional assignor (who reports directly to John Adams @ NCAA hdqtrs), you kill three "birds with one stone" - 1) he can control how many games each official works per week, 2) you are accountable for your actions - if you do not follow the directives of the NCAA higher-ups (at least to their satisfaction)...you won't work!, and 3) you will work games closer to home and reduce the amount of $ paid to officials for travel (what administrator is against reducing costs these days?).

Of course, it will be interesting to see who wins the power struggle - the NCAA for more accountability/coordination to improve the "product"? or will it be the coaches who want to see the officials they want to see, when they want to see them (Tom Izzo WANTS Ed Hightower on his games - that's why Ed worked 15 of 'em in the 08-09 season).

this isn't "my plan"...rather this plan (or some form of it) is coming from those at the top of the food chain (NCAA)

"I wouldn’t even think about telling my top guys, who work multiple leagues, that they can’t do that. I have an option not to assign them ACC games. But once I assign them my ACC games, they have the right to go anywhere they want to referee after they get my games. Their commitment to me is to take my games first. They can then take those and go wherever they want. They’re independent contractors; I can’t tell them not to".

Maybe??, something similar happened to Mr. Clougherty during his career which he did not appreciate. Therefor he would not be inclined to do something to his staff that he did not appreciate being done to him years ago.