Tim Higgins?

[CLH]

Originally Posted by big jake

No way to do the vet. He sould have got to work the first week. There were some who called the first weekend that could not officiate a WWF event. They were killing and letting it go. Hope Tim still calls, he gets most of the big games in the Big East and big 10. Welmer made them mad last year and does not care if he gets to work the NCAA but he will still do 80 regular season games.

I didn't realize that being a "vet" got you an automatic bid into the tournament.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by big jake

He still does a good job, I hope you never get in his position. Just a couple of years ago he was calling the finals! He has not fell that much and his judgement is still great!

I don't understand why people get picked year after year when there are so many good D-I officials out there. Anything to get new faces opportunities is a good change, as far as I'm concerned.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by big jake

He still does a good job, I hope you never get in his position. Just a couple of years ago he was calling the finals! He has not fell that much and his judgement is still great!

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I don't understand why people get picked year after year when there are so many good D-I officials out there. Anything to get new faces opportunities is a good change, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm with you Rich. Instead of looking at it as a negative towards Higgins, I look at it a positive for the other very good officials who are now getting an opportunity to shine.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm with you Rich. Instead of looking at it as a negative towards Higgins, I look at it a positive for the other very good officials who are now getting an opportunity to shine.

Now if only certain state HS associations would get that message.

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I don't understand why people get picked year after year when there are so many good D-I officials out there. Anything to get new faces opportunities is a good change, as far as I'm concerned.

I would totally disagree with you on this...if the best officials each year are the same officials then they should be assigned to work the NCAA tournament and any HS State Tournament. The assigning for the NCAA tourney is a very complicated process hoping to put the "best" officials to work in the Tournament. If you are good enough to work you will get your shot to work at all levels...IMO!

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

I would totally disagree with you on this...if the best officials each year are the same officials then they should be assigned to work the NCAA tournament and any HS State Tournament. The assigning for the NCAA tourney is a very complicated process hoping to put the "best" officials to work in the Tournament. If you are good enough to work you will get your shot to work at all levels...IMO!

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by tomegun

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.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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?

[JRutledge]

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by tomegun

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

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Good article on Tim Higgins here.....

Basketballrefs.com

Just click on the link for the story.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Good article on Tim Higgins here.....

Basketballrefs.com

Just click on the link for the story.

I thought that Senator Kennedy passed away.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Alrighty then...

[Nevadaref]

Tonight ESPN Classic showed the Big East conference tournament quarterfinal game between Pittsburgh and Georgetown played on March 6, 1986.

Seeing nothing better on TV, I decided to watch it for a few minutes. I noticed a few things.
1. The players were far less muscular, especially in the upper body than we see today.
2. First year of the shot clock. It was 45 seconds.
3. No three point shot. (NCAA adopted it nationally for the 1986-87 season.)
4. The C sometimes administered a FT.
5. Dick Vitale was one of the broadcasters.
6. Tim Higgins was one of the officials. He was MUCH younger, but I had no doubt due to the way that he moved and his signals.

For conclusive proof, I decided to search the internet for a copy of the box score. Here it is: http://www.bigeast.org/fls/19400/sta...B_OEM_ID=19400
Yep, there's his name.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

I would totally disagree with you on this...if the best officials each year are the same officials then they should be assigned to work the NCAA tournament and any HS State Tournament. The assigning for the NCAA tourney is a very complicated process hoping to put the "best" officials to work in the Tournament. If you are good enough to work you will get your shot to work at all levels...IMO!

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.