Womens championship game

[Nikki]

3 deserving female officials on the floor to work the WOMENS championship game and 3 deserving male officials on the floor to work the MENS championship game...what's the problem?

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Nikki

3 deserving female officials on the floor to work the WOMENS championship game and 3 deserving male officials on the floor to work the MENS championship game...what's the problem?

100% agreed.

[Nevadaref]

I've personally seen female officials selected over more deserving male counterparts at both the HS and college levels for no other reason than their gender. It happens and it is wrong.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Disagree, and have every right to. I've personally seen female officials selected over more deserving male counterparts at both the HS and college levels for no other reason than their gender. It happens and it is wrong.

Hey, they might have made a bad call but at least they were consistent about it...

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Disagree, and have every right to. I've personally seen female officials selected over more deserving male counterparts at both the HS and college levels for no other reason than their gender. It happens and it is wrong.

You specifically referenced this game. What does what you personally have witnessed in your corner of the world have to do with Pantoja, Mattingly, and Brooks?

I've seen white officials picked over more deserving black officials in my corner of the world. Does that mean Higgins, Cahill, Hess, etc didn't deserve their assignments? For a lawyer you sure do make some illogical and baseless statements.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

You specifically referenced this game. What does what you personally have witnessed in your corner of the world have to do with Pantoja, Mattingly, and Brooks?

I've seen white officials picked over more deserving black officials in my corner of the world. Does that mean Higgins, Cahill, Hess, etc didn't deserve their assignments? For a lawyer you sure do make some illogical and baseless statements.

And who the f**k are you to say who should or shouldn't be moderating?

Exactly. I love when a certain group that has always been getting the opportunities are finally shut out and all of a sudden there is some "reverse discrimination." What was it when no Blacks or Women ever worked those games? And heck I still see an entire staff in many conferences that look nothing like the players, but if people were to cry discrimination there they would be wrong?

Peace

[Judtech]

I'm from Amish stock so.....
Was I the only one who watched the game?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Judtech

I'm from Amish stock so.....
Was I the only one who watched the game?

Probably. I know I did not see a minute of the game. And if no one is talking about the game and other issues, there you go.

Peace

[APG]

Originally Posted by Judtech

I'm from Amish stock so.....
Was I the only one who watched the game?

Flipped to the game every now and then...saw it was a blowout. Kept it on the channel for the final 8 of the game.

[Nikki]

Originally Posted by Judtech

I'm from Amish stock so.....
Was I the only one who watched the game?

I was working and while I could watch the men's game last night because it was streaming online, the women's game was not, so i only got to listen to the radio version, wasn't very exciting just to listen to.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Exactly. I love when a certain group that has always been getting the opportunities are finally shut out and all of a sudden there is some "reverse discrimination." What was it when no Blacks or Women ever worked those games? And heck I still see an entire staff in many conferences that look nothing like the players, but if people were to cry discrimination there they would be wrong?

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I can't honestly see what's wrong with that.

Affirmative action, value in diversity, glass ceilings, reparations. I'm not saying that I fully agree, or understand, any, or all, of these, but some people do see some value in these.

Do the officials have to look like the players? I can't answer that question, but I'm willing to listen to both sides of the issue.

For example. What if there were a little corner in some little state where 50% of the players were female, but only 10% of the officials were female. What if the assigner wanted to recruit more women as officials, and decides that the way to do it was to have a lot of females officiate the girls games, thus providing female role models for the female players, in essence, showing the girls that they can continue to be active in basketball after their playing days are over.

Now switch it around to African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Muslins, transgenders, gays, etc.

Discrimination? Illegal? Wrong?

Is the most important thing in officiating to get the best official in the best games, assigning blindly in regard to color, gender, etc.? Is it important to get a diverse group of people participating in the best game in the world, and to have a diverse group of competent officials?

For me, lots of uncomfortable questions, and not a lot of comfortable answers, especially good answers.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

Here is the thing. In the history of most situations, white males got all the opportunities to be in authority positions, whether that was politics, coaching, education unless the individuals were regulated to their group through legal segregation. And I am sure in Women's basketball there were not many women working in the early years as officials just like you did not see many African-Americans or other races officiating games. I do not think it is wrong to make sure you have a staff of people that reflect the participants. For one if you have women officiating, they can and likely will relate more to the players in the Women's game than many men. Just like if you have African-Americans officiating the players might feel like they can say things to those individuals that they would not say to other races. Right or wrong that is certainly the case in my experiences and other officials I know that are Black. Sometimes when I work with two Caucasian officials, the Black players will not even address directly the my partners, even when they call things. That is where I feel Nevada misses the boat. White males have been dominating long before now the assignments and I am sure most HS assignments that is the case in most situations and when the NCAA goes out of their way to find women that is somehow a problem. Now we can debate if those that are picked are capable to work or go through the same hoops as others, but I have no problem with them picking women to work those games. And I do not feel it is discriminatory when there are no women working Men's basketball and no women coaching Men's basketball either. If you do not like that fact, either raise the same fuss on the Men's side or work only Men's ball if you want equal opportunity. Because I think there are more than enough women that would be qualified and do just as well of a job on the Men's side. We cannot have it both ways.

Peace

[icallfouls]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Disagree, and have every right to. I've personally seen female officials selected over more deserving male counterparts at both the HS and college levels for no other reason than their gender. It happens and it is wrong.

+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.