Ref will get younger

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by KMBReferee

Geez, and I thought how the NBA handled the Durant call last year was bad.

Between his comments last night without having seen the video first and now this, Adams comes off as reactionary. It sounds like he's trying to please ESPN's talking heads more than actually putting the best officials in the tournament.

The best officials, no matter what age, should call the tournament. I know that may be naive, but that's how I see it.

I personally think Adams' words of "younger" is taken out of context. Most guys peak in their officiating career in their 40s in my opinion. That is when they have it all going on. They should be absolutely proficient with the rules, should still be in good shape and able to still run the floor well, and have had the amount of experience needed to be at the top of their game. So to me that is not too young. There are too many out there that are in their latter years who can't run, etc. and are on the decline. Although I think these men have contributed greatly to the game, I would still like to see them around the game, therefore I think they should be advisors to the NCAA, certain conferences, etc. but not on the court.

[mbyron]

I'm confused about how any official can get younger. Like Merlin?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

I personally think Adams' words of "younger" is taken out of context. Most guys peak in their officiating career in their 40s in my opinion. That is when they have it all going on. They should be absolutely proficient with the rules, should still be in good shape and able to still run the floor well, and have had the amount of experience needed to be at the top of their game. So to me that is not too young. There are too many out there that are in their latter years who can't run, etc. and are on the decline. Although I think these men have contributed greatly to the game, I would still like to see them around the game, therefore I think they should be advisors to the NCAA, certain conferences, etc. but not on the court.

I agree with the peak being in the 40's, but I think the optimum ages are between 30 and 55 years old. At 30, an official should have 5-10 years experience. At 55, he still should have enough mobility...and smarts... to get into and keep himself in position as long as he watches and works on his fitness level. Ideally imo, you try to pair the young 'uns with the older guys to take advantage of their acquired wisdom while getting the young 'uns ready to take over from them. Of course though, you can't make hard and fast rules. Some officials might start early and have the innate ability and drive to move onward and upward in their mid-20's when they get enough experience in. And the wear and tear of those 100-game seasons in both the NCAA and NBA combined with the travel are factors at any age too. Too much and you might not be mentally prepared on a particular night, no matter your age and experience. And some officials are born R's while others might be good, competent officials but they're still career U2's.

JMO.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I agree with the peak being in the 40's, but I think the optimum ages are between 30 and 55 years old. At 30, an official should have 5-10 years experience. At 55, he still should have enough mobility...and smarts... to get into and keep himself in position as long as he watches and works on his fitness level. Ideally imo, you try to pair the young 'uns with the older guys to take advantage of their acquired wisdom while getting the young 'uns ready to take over from them. Of course though, you can't make hard and fast rules. Some officials might start early and have the innate ability and drive to move onward and upward in their mid-20's when they get enough experience in. And the wear and tear of those 100-game seasons in both the NCAA and NBA combined with the travel are factors at any age too. Too much and you might not be mentally prepared on a particular night, no matter your age and experience. And some officials are born R's while others might be good, competent officials but they're still career U2's.

JMO.

agreed and well said and I also think you just called it the NBA and not the "NBE" for the first time!!! I think I'm going to archive this post and now I am going to shed a happy tear. haha

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Can you, with absolute certainty, say that on the women's side when talking about women officials?

I can't believe you went there.
Not saying you are wrong, but I also love my schedule too much to comment further

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

agreed and well said and I also think you just called it the NBA and not the "NBE" for the first time!!! I think I'm going to archive this post and now I am going to shed a happy tear. haha

Ben, believe it or not I have nothing but respect for the officials in the NBA. The league and some of it's administrators? Not so much. The problems with the NBE don't lie with the guys with the whistle imo. It lies with the league's philosophy.

Again, jmo.

[CDurham]

If they want younger then I'll be glad to sign up to officiate a couple of NCAA tournaments

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Ben, believe it or not I have nothing but respect for the officials in the NBA. The league and some of it's administrators? Not so much. The problems with the NBE don't lie with the guys with the whistle imo. It lies with the league's philosophy.

Again, jmo.

And this is different than what other levels? You work NCAA you have to do things that the Big East, Big Ten or SEC ask you to do. And the NCAA has philosophies as well. That is the case from the pro level, to the little corner of my world where one assignor wants this called and another assignor in another league wants this called. That is the life we all live in. The NBA just has a smaller staff.

Peace

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I'm confused about how any official can get younger. Like Merlin?

One word: BoTox

[OldFanDan]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I bet he wishes he had the power to affect the officials the conferences hire.

Don't think for one second that his decisions can't affect the assignors for each and every conference.

All he (and by extension, the NCAA) has to do is set up parameters of who does / does not qualify to work NCAAT games and all assignors will make their hires accordingly. The assignors will quickly realize that their conference must fall into line with the others or possibly be penalized for following arbitrary 'guidelines.' If the assignor hires outside these parameters, then the officials who work for his conference wouldn't get any NCAAT games; pretty simple concept. That would certainly get the attention of all the assignors and all the officials.

The saddest part of watching many of these once great officials work big games is that some of them are working on their reputations only; they have slowed down, or their eyes aren't as good, whatever ... but they are not able to do the job that they once did so well. With the big money available today I suppose it is very difficult to realize that perhaps they should get out, for the good of the game.

As far as the assignors wanting 'experienced' officials on their big games: the Rutgers / St. John's fiasco had a crew with perhaps 90 years experience (I'm guessing here) ... does anybody here dispute the fact that a crew with a combined experience of less than 25 years could have screwed it up any worse than the 'experienced' guys did?

As far as one comment that I read here that nobody feels any worse about the Rutgers / St. John's screwup than the three officials: I suppose the players on the team who got screwed out of the chance to win and advance might feel worse. After all, I'm sure that the three officials collected their full game fees and expenses. Pretty nice salve for doing a very poor job.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by OldFanDan

As far as one comment that I read here that nobody feels any worse about the Rutgers / St. John's screwup than the three officials: I suppose the players on the team who got screwed out of the chance to win and advance might feel worse. After all, I'm sure that the three officials collected their full game fees and expenses. Pretty nice salve for doing a very poor job.

You mean the players who threw the ball to the opponent to begin with? Gosh, I hope someone tells them they can blame the stupid refs for their loss.

They missed one call. One call. Doctors don't take less money when the get a diagnosis wrong. Attorney's don't take less money for making one mistake. Teachers can really screw up kids' lives in ways that are actually important, yet one kid failing out of school doesn't mean the teacher gets less money in his check. That's just stupid.

[Jeremy Hohn]

Originally Posted by CLH

As a guy who works on the women's side in D1, I can agree that happens with YOUR current supervisor (only because I workED for him too ) Here we go again playing to the typical stereotype that W officials are inferior. There are plenty of officials working D1 men's who don't have the experience either, but of course you guys have to single out the women's officials. I made it there at the age of 26, I assume by you guys standards I don't have the experience either. Always entertaining around here

I have heard it plain from Kaye Garms that her goal was "to have a complete female officiating staff". I understand that most conference assignors want to reflect the race and gender of what is seen on the floor. I am only saying that I will need to be superior to a female official to be hired, because if I am only the same, the female will get the nod. I have chosen the road of the female side and have worked with Connie Pardue, John Weeks, Brian Hall, and other D1 officials and I only hope that I can understand the concepts and fit in well with the other officials at camp this summer.

I was in no way inferencing that female officials were inferior. I just think that the numbers game plays a bit of a factor for women. That being said, certain things may get you IN but being a heck of an official, male or female, will KEEP you in!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by OldFanDan

Don't think for one second that his decisions can't affect the assignors for each and every conference.

All he (and by extension, the NCAA) has to do is set up parameters of who does / does not qualify to work NCAAT games and all assignors will make their hires accordingly. The assignors will quickly realize that their conference must fall into line with the others or possibly be penalized for following arbitrary 'guidelines.' If the assignor hires outside these parameters, then the officials who work for his conference wouldn't get any NCAAT games; pretty simple concept. That would certainly get the attention of all the assignors and all the officials.

The saddest part of watching many of these once great officials work big games is that some of them are working on their reputations only; they have slowed down, or their eyes aren't as good, whatever ... but they are not able to do the job that they once did so well. With the big money available today I suppose it is very difficult to realize that perhaps they should get out, for the good of the game.

As far as the assignors wanting 'experienced' officials on their big games: the Rutgers / St. John's fiasco had a crew with perhaps 90 years experience (I'm guessing here) ... does anybody here dispute the fact that a crew with a combined experience of less than 25 years could have screwed it up any worse than the 'experienced' guys did?

As far as one comment that I read here that nobody feels any worse about the Rutgers / St. John's screwup than the three officials: I suppose the players on the team who got screwed out of the chance to win and advance might feel worse. After all, I'm sure that the three officials collected their full game fees and expenses. Pretty nice salve for doing a very poor job.

Old School returns.

Sigh....

I hate to break it to ya, fanboy, but the assignors work for the leagues, not the NCAA. The leagues make the policy decisions; not the assignors. And the assignors had better keep the Office happy.

Now feel free to piss off to a fanboy web site and dazzle them with your vast officiating knowledge gained by watching multi games on ESPN.

[OldFanDan]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Old School returns.

Sigh....

I hate to break it to ya, fanboy, but the assignors work for the leagues, not the NCAA.

Now feel free to piss off to a fanboy web site and dazzle them with your vast officiating knowledge gained by watching games on ESPN.

Your answer is exactly what I expected from somebody with your obviously limited intelligence; can you read or do you just babble on without any measurable reading comprehension ?

The silly name calling that you use can either be because of senility or lack of intelligence; my guess is that it's a combination of the two.

I paid my dues in officiating (more than one sport) and am just as entitled to my opinions as the likes of you. If you don't like them then feel free to ignore me; if you do respond then know that I will reply to you in the same manner that you use.

[OldFanDan]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You mean the players who threw the ball to the opponent to begin with? Gosh, I hope someone tells them they can blame the stupid refs for their loss.

Okay, now I get it: because the Rutgers team screwed up a set play the refs were allowed to stop officiating. Sorry that I didn't see that earlier.

The refs had nothing to do with this screwup, that's a comforting thing to learn.