More drivel from the local scribes

[Nevadaref]

I happen to agree with the overall point. The majority of the guys working are near 60 (and some are over that). Dick Cartmell was in Portland for the first weekend and he couldn't run in his second game.
One of my friends asked what the officials were paid and what I told him was within a couple hundred of what is in that article. He was surprised that it was so low. I too think that the low pay is part of the problem.

No way should Marv Albert be making more during the game than an official.
$10,000 is the figure which I suggested would be fair when asked how much the NCAA should pay tournament officials. Curiously, that is what the article puts forth too, although only for the Final Four. I would make it for all rounds.
The NCAA and TV are making huge $ on this. The people who work it should see a bigger share.

[Nevadaref]

Now where I find fault with the article...

The author would not have noticed the wrong FT shooter had it not been caught and corrected.

There is no mention of the incorrect awarding of FTs for the team control foul in the OT of the UNC/Ohio game.

So while the author makes it seem in the article as though the NCAA refs are making simple mistakes that the average viewer, or even TV broadcaster, would spot, that is clearly not the case.

The NCAA refs are making plenty of mistakes, but it takes someone with officiating experience to spot most of them.

[JetMetFan]

The author would not have noticed the wrong FT shooter had it not been caught and corrected.

I'm not so sure about that. I posted video of that situation in another thread. Len Elmore and Reggie Miller both picked up on it right when it happened. All Feinstein had to have been doing was listening to the broadcast.

There is no mention of the incorrect awarding of FTs for the team control foul in the OT of the UNC/Ohio game.

Keep in mind, he may have written it before the Ohio/UNC game was played.

At any rate, I agree with his premise as well. I know I felt like I hit a wall this season - while working the most games I've ever worked - and that was with a schedule half the size as the big-time guys and way less travel. I've wondered a few times during all of our discussions about officials' mistakes in the NCAAs whether fatigue played a role.

The idea of officials only working one tournament at a time is a good one as long as the fees in all of the tournaments go up.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

I'm not so sure about that. I posted video of that situation in another thread. Len Elmore and Reggie Miller both picked up on it right when it happened. All Feinstein had to have been doing was listening to the broadcast.

I would have to check the video to be sure, but I believe that they only noticed after a replay of the foul was shown. Had there not been a replay, I doubt that they would have realized the error.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I would have to check the video to be sure, but I believe that they only noticed after a replay of the foul was shown. Had there not been a replay, I doubt that they would have realized the error.

I just watched it. They did notice after the replay - since they were concerned about whether is was a block or a charge. But it's kind of hard to get on the TV people for noticing on replay when it took the four people on the crew (the alternate as well) to use replay to flag it.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

No way should Marv Albert be making more during the game than an official.

Apples and oranges. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

$10,000 is the figure which I suggested would be fair when asked how much the NCAA should pay tournament officials.

How does one arrive at a "fair" amount in a case like this? Why not $20,000?

The NCAA and TV are making huge $ on this. The people who work it should see a bigger share.

How much do the cameramen make? Is it enough?

The golden rule applies here. Whoever has the gold makes the rules. If the officials in the tournament feel they are underpaid, I imagine there are countless others available who would do it for the same amount or less.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The golden rule applies here. Whoever has the gold makes the rules. If the officials in the tournament feel they are underpaid, I imagine there are countless others available who would do it for the same amount or less.

Doesn't mean they'll do the same quality of job, regardless of what Jay Bilas thinks.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Doesn't mean they'll do the same quality of job, regardless of what Jay Bilas thinks.

I didn't say they would, and that wasn't the point. The point was that supply and demand is the key.

"Here is the job. This is what it pays."

"We accept."

Apparently both sides are satisfied at the moment. If either side becomes dissatisfied, then quality and quantity must be reexamined.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Apples and orange. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

Both are on TV for the contest and performing a service. While their tasks are certainly different, there is some reason to make a comparison. We could also look at what the NCAA head coaches are paid.

Originally Posted by just another ref

How does one arrive at a "fair" amount in a case like this? Why not $20,000?

The same way that the players unions in the NFL and NBA determine what is a fair slice of the pie. The problem is that the officials don't have an organized union to negotiate on their behalf. Also one can look at what officials in other notable sporting events are paid--such as the NFL playoffs, NBA playoffs, the Champions League for soccer in Europe. That along with knowledge of the TV revenue should provide good guidance.

Originally Posted by just another ref

How much do the cameramen make? Is it enough?

I don't know, but it would be interesting to see and comical if they made more than the guys on the court.
Also, I believe that they have a union who handles this.

Originally Posted by just another ref

The golden rule applies here. Whoever has the gold makes the rules. If the officials in the tournament feel they are underpaid, I imagine there are countless others available who would do it for the same amount or less.

Yep, and in the end, you get what you pay for. If the talking heads and coaches wish to complain about the officiating, then part of the solution is higher pay to attract better talent and encourage people to put more time into the task.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The same way that the players unions in the NFL and NBA determine what is a fair slice of the pie. The problem is that the officials don't have an organized union to negotiate on their behalf.

I don't see a lack of unions in this as a bad thing. That would just muddy things up even more. You just looking for more clients?(If I recall, you are an attorney, although I don't know what line of that work you do exactly.)

[canuckrefguy]

Adams himself admits the officials are working too much. It probably wouldn't take too much (hiring a few extra people in each conference) to fix that.

Either the NCAA is unable to do that, or unwilling to do that. I'm guessing it's the latter.

[twocentsworth]

Guys, the pay/game fee isn't the issue. The issue is who is hiring the officials. Each conference hires/assigns its' own staff (and they are VERY reluctant to relinquish that responsibility). If Art Hyland (assignor of the Big East) wants to hire official X to work on Tue. night, he has know idea that official X is working for Rick Boyages (assignor of the Big Ten) on Mon. night.

The only way to limit the number of games that officials work, is to create a system whereby the NCAA is responsible for assigning ALL games....one idea that has been discussed is to have NCAA Regional Assignors - who would assign officials for ALL schools located within their region (regardless of conference affiliation); an official would work ONLY in that region (probably the region where the reside). Under that system, the NCAA could control how many games/dates an official would work.

From what I've been told, there is already a battle brewing between the power conferences (Big Ten for sure) and the current NCAA officiating leadership. It will be interesting to see how that plays out and if any significant current occurs.

[eyezen]

I'm going to throw this out there, I could be wrong with my premise.

If you paid guys at the Division I level $1 million dollars a game and limited them to 2 nights a week would the officiating be discernibly that much better?

I'm not so sure it would be. Why?

1) They still would be human.
2) As everyone here knows, its freakin hard game to officiate.

Other than perhaps some of the guys in the NBA, are there people out there is the world that could do much better and the (lack of) money being paid is what is deterring them?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

No way should Marv Albert be making more during the game than an official.

While the general viewpoint on this forum is talking head is a talking head, the bottom line is the TV audience cares significantly more who's wearing the headsets than the stripes. Since announcers help make money more directly for CBS than an official ever will, the market will create a better payday for the announcers.

[JRutledge]

Nothing will ever change until the BCS conferences are willing to give up some control over what happens during their regular season. As long as they control their scheduling of all kinds, there will always be certain officials working the big games and will affect who works the NCAA Tournament.

The big conferences would rather have the big names working than even the less experienced guys at that level because they feel every game will affect their season resume to make the tournament.

Peace