And that is about as high as they can go under the present admin.

What I usually see on the women's side is that any high profile game has either an all female crew or two women and one man. I can't even recall the last time that I saw otherwise in a D1 game.

I see it my area, though the only high profile NCAAW conference in my region is the Big East and that's about to change drastically with UConn, Notre Dame, Louisville and Syracuse heading out. I've seen more than a few conference championships in the Northeast with two man/one woman crews or even three men.

I work my D-3 games with two other men more often than not. This past season was the first time I worked a game with two women in a couple of years.

No ESPN360? That's the one spot where you could watch it.

If I hadn't been getting ready for work (i.e., sleeping) I would have but I also could have guessed the result. I see baby steps in terms of more competition but until Geno goes away UConn won't either. That program and Tennessee are the constants for the past 20 years and UT may slip a bit without Coach Summitt. The athletic ability is evening out but the coaching gap is still pretty wide.

Agreed. While Md, Stanford, ND and a few others have had some good programs over the past 10 yrs or so, they can't constantly keep up with the one or two elite programs.

It will be interesting to see how far Baylor slips nesxt season or if they can stay one of the better programs for an extended period of time.

Probably, but I don't think that was Nevada's point. I think this is ultimately about equality.

First of all, there's no such thing as "reverse discriminaton/sexism/bigotry." It either is or it isn't. If you use race/gender/creed/color/sexual orientation/etc. in your evaluation of somone, that flies in the face of equality, period. I think we can all agree with that.

If I'm comprehending Nevada's words correctly, I believe he wants to evaluate officials as individuals, and not favor any group based on the aforementioned. I can't honestly see what's wrong with that.

There are some who would disagree with this. At least, they would disagree with the idea that you shouldn't consider these criteria when assigning games. Rut has mentioned several times that it is helpful to have a racially mixed crew working a racially mixed game. That flies in the face of equality (although I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment).

Also, the counter to the point you impute to Nevada (I think you may be correct in your assessment of his point, but he can speak for himself) is that currently the men's side does not have equal opportunity for women to officiate. I have no idea whether this is true, as I have not been a woman trying to work men's college ball; nor have I really talked with any who have to get a better understanding.

+1

While I don't like it, it does happen. An assignor I used to work for said as much and acted accordingly. I know of several women that were given opportunities over men who had much more experience.

She promoted women to promote the women's game. That was her perogative to provide opportunities and promote accordingly. Some made the most of their chances, some did not.

As far as I'm concerned, women can have 100% of women and girls games.

The one thing I don't get is that when one of us (men) decides to work only mens/boys games why some people (assignors and other officials) have a problem with it. I don't see women being given the same grief when they choose not to work boys/mens games.

What? Say it ain't so!

Oh wait...I heard those same things at the same meetings!:cool:

Bottom line is that the supervisors can hire whomever they wish. If they are promoting people based on things other than their officiating ability, they probably will not be the supervisor for very long (as happened to the person icallfouls referenced).

Rocky, the person was in charge for 10+ yrs.

In the last couple of years, it blew up in her face because the quality of officiating became the issue. During the last years, after I opted out (like many others), I still had conversations with some of the college coaches who were very dissatisfied at some of the crews they would get. I was told of how they rated some of the crews and yet those officials kept getting the top games.

Eventually, each conference terminated their contract due to lack of QC.

If women had 100% of the female games, that means that men would be shut out, due to gender. What if a man wants to work those games?

I don't understand why someone would want to work one gender or the other, but that's all a matter of personal choice, anyway. If someone gives you grief for your choice, it's their problem, not yours.

Yep. I had the same conversations with some of the same Coaches at summer tourneys. There was a large number of very qualified officials (yourself included) who simply chose to stop working for that assignor. Many of them have/are returning to the ranks of officials in those conferences.

Moderator note:

All that was public is now private again.

The current assignor understands that quality is more important to the conference's schools regardless of gender, race, etc. It is the assignor's job to provide the highest quality possible. Now the pool of officials is growing and that will help all officials.

I think that's because, in context, one is commonly viewed as "the lesser" of the two games compared to the other.