Define best in this case then I have another question/comment for you.

It's my belief that 'best' often means "most comfortable"/"more familiar"/"more credible" with the coaches.

So you are saying the best doesn't mean the best? :D

No, the best means whatever "I think is the best." It does not account for what others may or may not think. And since that is subjective, it only matters what John Adams and the committee thinks. What we think does not mean anything.

Peace

Best is subjective. Who's to say one official is better than another? What are the objective criteria?

It's easy to say this when you're on the inside and there are many officials trying to pound on the (seemingly) locked door. When some officials have been to the state tourney 5, 6, 10 times and there are outstanding officials who never get a shot at it, I think the system is broken. There is nothing about the officials I saw on TV last week (and I admit I didn't watch much as I'd rather watch the NCAA tourney) head and shoulders above the varsity officials I see with 25+ years experience who've never gotten the call. I think it's just easier to pick the same people year after year than try to identify new people and give them their shot.

Right, you're also going on what you see on TV which doesn't factor in a LOT of variables including rules knowledge, game management, etc. Or even a lot of the minor things like signals, etc that you rarely see on TV (I always scream for them not to cut away when they go to report but they almost always do :-( )

Of course all of it is still subjective -- but there is a lot of that subjective we are not privy too either.

I think there are some physical things that aren't subjective and we can make a decision on. Whether we choose to or not is another subject. For instance, if an official can't make it up the court...they can't make it up the court (not saying this about Higgins). If an official does not make position adjustments and is clearly straight-lined that isn't really subjective. If a position adjustment, like continuing to go low at the C, keeps a closed look that isn't subjective.

Hey, if we want to be a fan(boy) of other officials, or fans of the game I have no problem with that - IU and Bobby Knight are the greatest. However, if we want to talk about this as officials, we can't just look at who the official is and ignore what they do on the court. Having said all of that, I don't know why Higgins wasn't selected and I think there was some good/great officiating last weekend.

I think officials like Karl Hess, Anthony Jordan and others have done a great job so far. Does anyone know what Karl Hess tells his patients during the season?

That's why doctors have associates and partners. :p

You have kind of been messing with me today huh? Are you still coming out here soon?

Bobby Knight is the greatest what? :confused: Let's take turns finishing that sentence. I'll go first. "Bobby Knight is the greatest CENSORED."

You mean like many using college mechanics even though there was a memo out specifically asking people not to use college mechanics? :D

I'll be out there 10/10/10 to get married. I'll probably finagle a TDY to Creech/Nellis sometime in June or July.

Back on topic. I am most definitely happy with the seeing new faces in the tournament. For new officials to get in some familiar officials have to be left off the list. That's the nature of this, or any, business.

Saying XYZ is still a good official is not a sufficient argument to exclude new faces. By using that argument the only way an official stops going to the tournament is if he gets injured or retires. This isn't the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court justices do not step down due to injury. At least, not brain injury. :rolleyes:

Despite what anyone would like to be the case, every type of skill has a very few who are truly the best....the basic bell curve holds true in just about any endeavor. You've got a lot of average officials, a moderate amount of pretty good and fairly poor officials, and a few that are pathetic and a few that are outstanding.

The funny thing is that 80% of a group, when surveyed will think they are above average (several studies have shown this sort of inflated sense of a person's own abilities). But, that can't, in normal situations, be true. At least 30% of the officials are worse than they think they are....probably more as a few humble officials are actually better than average that don't think so.

THe real question is whether you want the best on the tournaments or those that are "good enough". The difference between the best and the "good enough" will not always be visible and will matter even less, but it will eventually matter.

The difference shows up in the number of mistakes. The best still make them, but make fewer (or smaller mistakes). Most time, such mistakes don't have any material impact...but if you make enough more, eventually one will happen in a situation that matters.

Many of the average officials would probably do a fine job on most of the games....but the odds of a problem increase. How "deep" you go really depends on the acceptability of the increased risk of an unfavorable situation.

Of course, determining the "best" is a difficult proposition...and an entirely different question.

Good article on Tim Higgins here.....

Basketballrefs.com

Just click on the link for the story.