Womens championship game
 

Does Anyone know the crew working tonight?

Personally? No.

Will be three females. The reverse sexism in the officiating of the women's game is sick. After all the complaining about not getting a decent shot at men's games, it is ironic to see how those in charge completely shut out males with their choices.

F1 on UCONN...contact or flop?

Brenda Pantoja is from out west. Don't know the names of the other two, but I recognize them.

Seriously??
 

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?

Slight contact, but FLOP.

My thoughts exactly.

Great held ball call at 4:27. Classic women's game.

Classic only in that UConn is blasting the opposition by 20.
This has frequently been the case over the past two decades. The top team is far better than the rest of the competition and it makes for an anti-climatic finish to the season. How many something and 0 teams have there been in the last 20 years in the women's game?

The ND/UCONN game was the Championship game. UL is not being allowed to beat on players like they were against certain teams from Texas. They can't match up any other way with UCONN

They certainly played very well the first half!

Guess they're trying to play spoiler and break-up the Louisville double-championship that UCONN enjoyed a few yrs ago. ;)

18:11 mark UL player hopping on one foot

to answer the question - its Brenda Pantoja, Lisa Mattingly, and Denise Brooks who are working the game. . .

And in response to Nevada's rant - the moment that the NCAA gets out of the dark ages and allows women to regularly work mens' games at the Div I level, including the tournament - no MAN has any right to say squat about how we get the short end of the stick. . .

Geno wants to DESTROY Louisville. If he doesn't win by 40 I think he'll still be angry.

The problem is there just aren't as many high level D-1 caliber female players as there are males, so the talent pool is going to get thinned out after the UConns get their top picks.

The same phenomenon happens at the high school level, and you see the same half dozen or so teams winning championships and winning with a few 60 point margins in the season.

In many ways, it's not much different than the state of the men's game 30-40 years ago.

7:17 hard foul. Flagrant ?
Someone forgot to tell UL they had to play defense tonite

By itself, I didn't think it was a flagrant foul but I haven't watched much of this game.

Except that this is totally inaccurate in regards to this year. The top team all season was Baylor, the defending champion, who was beaten in the sweet 16.

And then the UConn beat a ND team that they were 0-3 against this season.

The announcers are killing me. I thought it was a good patient whistle before they went F1. You can always upgrade but you can't downgrade. Thought it was a good F1.

100% agreed.

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.

See what I did there?
 

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

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.

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

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. :D

Peace

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.

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.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
CT blew the garbage off the floor.

Just a point of information: Yes, all three officials for the D1 champioship were female both this year and last. Also, 7 of the 9 officials on the court in the D1, 2 and 3 title games this season were female. However...last season 5 of the 9 officials on the court for those games were men, including an all-male crew in the D3 championship game.

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.

Interesting conversation given my situation in NYS. Since boys' and girls' HS work under different codes if you're working both it's because you want to work both. You definitely don't have to since there are more than enough games to go around, at least in the NYC area.

Also...the alternate was Joe Vaszily, aka, the guy who gave Geno the T for his midcourt dance against Maryland in the Sweet 16.

[QUOTE=JetMetFan;890267]No ESPN360? That's the one spot where you could watch it.QUOTE]

For some strange reason I could watch the mens games on the march madness site all day, but the ESPN 360 is a blocked site at my job...must be sexism ;)

I think it just shows which games your IT department thought to open up so they could watch them.

:D

.jjj.

My Brain Hurts ...
 

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.

hmmm...maybe :D

Yes.

The Best ...
 

So. Let's see if I've got this straight. If the most important thing in officiating to get the best official in the best games, assigning blindly in regard to color, gender, etc., then the best official in your little corner of Maine should be working every single night that he is available when there is at least one high school game being played? He's the best. Right? Why assign a second best official to a game when the best is available? Why should the best be sitting at home when he's available, and there is a game being played?

There has got to be some other practical considerations besides being the best? Maybe not related to color, gender, etc., but there has got to be some other practical considerations in assigning games? Right?

Disclosure: I am not an assigner, nor do I play one on television, nor do I ever want to be one, either a real one, or one on television.

Because who the best is will always be based on someone's opinion. And I believe who the best is for a certain game is not always going to be the best for every game.

I would say experience does not always make you a better official.

Nope. The best games aren't played every night.

But, Nikki raises a good point. If an assigner knows his crew and potential game situations well, he can assign the right crew to the right game, based on a number of factors: speed/style of play, personalities, etc. That way, you can still cover as many games with solid assignments, rather than blindly following the numbers.

You do get the jist of what I am saying. But I do not feel that having a racially mixed crew would still not be based on equality when in many cases the players on the floor would look like the players, coaches and fans. There are a lot of qualified officials of all colors and races that can work games. And in a sport where a certain segment in many cases dominates or are some of the better players, it would be advantageous to have officials that look like the players somewhere. And considering that rarely do I see three Black officials work two all-white teams very often (when it has happened, coaches made notice of it to the officials because it is so rare). Again that is my experience here. It might be different in other places. But I would say that Chicago and the suburbs are about as racially and socially segregated as any place I have seen in an urban area. For the record, it is not the white coaches that I have the most problems with, but that is another discussion for another day.

Peace

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

This is actually a pretty good point — not sure that I had ever thought about it that way.

Jeff are you essentially advocating the black officials for the black teams / conferences and the white officials for the white teams / conferences?

There are more than a few games where I'll be the only non-black person on the floor. I've never considered that a bad thing and I can't say I've ever heard a negative thing about it from players or coaches (fans are another story).

Rut and I come from the same place on this one. I've dealt with this since I was an intramural official in college, for crying out loud. My boss would put me on certain games involving all-White and all-Black teams for two reasons: He felt I could handle it and I'm Black. And no, I didn't have to guess, he told me. The reason? Some of the Black teams complained they weren't getting callls from my White colleagues so he wanted that potential gripe dealt with.

Flash forward to my BV/GV life and I can tell you it makes a difference. I'm part of an organization in NYC that works rec leagues in mainly non-White areas all over the five boroughs. We see these kids from the time some of the are 6 or 7 all the way through HS. When they see us on the court in HS it's as though they're seeing a relative and there's lots of stuff they won't do or that we can stop them from doing that officials from other areas can't (I've used the line, "You know better than that" a bunch of times).

Funny story about not adapting from two years ago during a BV game. A White male from Brooklyn was sent up to East Harlem to work a game with me. He truly looked like a fish out of water in the environment, he had all kinds of trouble with the coaches (all of whom were White, BTW...he had to ring up both of one team's ACs but he waited way too long to do it) and ended up stopping a 10-point game with six seconds left because he "saw something in the eyes of the players that told him we were going to have trouble." The players - all Black - were the only ones we didn't have an issue with during the game. I think it was a simple case of him not being comfortable in the environment and I doubt he's been out of his comfort area since. He's not the norm, believe me, but an assignor needs to know who's working for him/her.

In terms of access, well, that's why that NYC organization was created 50 years ago. Non-White officials weren't getting high-level games, regardless of the race(s) of the teams involved. It has changed over the years on the public school side but not so much on the private/Catholic school side. I know guys - no joke - who have been working NCAAM ball for years who are still Frosh/JV in the Catholic leagues.

All this to say that sometimes you have to force the action in terms of race, gender, whatever even in our vocation to find some of the better people. I know it helped me last month but I also know if I'd fallen on my face I would've been SOL. My assignor is a reasonable guy but he's not into charity cases.

Good, Better, Best ???
 

I'm playing devil's advocate here: Let's say that there is only one high school game being played in a little corner of Maine one night. That's the best game being played that night. Shouldn't the players get the benefit of the best official?

All I'm saying is that maybe there are other considerations in assigning games besides getting the best official in the best games? Maybe some assigners want to consider giving young officials some experience in a "big" game. Maybe some assigners want to consider keeping the "unwashed" happy, so that there are always enough officials to cover all the games on a busy night. Maybe some assigners want to consider saving some officials some gas money by avoiding some long road trips. Maybe some assigners want to consider race, gender, etc. as one minor consideration. Maybe others don't.

Once again, I am not an assigner, nor do I play one on television, nor do I ever want to be one, either a real one, or one on television.

I'm fine with all of those, except the last one. The bottom line is we will never truly have equality until we dismiss the aforementioneds from consideration.

No. I am saying there is nothing wrong with having a diverse staff racially just as you would have a diverse staff on a geography basis. And because we have people with certain stereotypes or comfortably, you need people that will not get freaked out if they go certain places. There are a lot of officials in my area that get freaked out when they have to go places they have never been or that have a certain "reputation." You need officials that can handle that and work the game and understand the underlining situation.

I will put it this way, the 2A State Finals in my state was a perfect example of 3 guys that had little understanding of the dynamic of the game. If you had picked 3 officials from the Chicago area they might have been better prepared than what was assigned. But if you had one or two Black officials on that game, you might have not had these racial accusations that took place after the game.

Peace

Amen, especially to part two. Right or wrong the reality is the guys working in Chicago - just like guys in my area working in NYC - will have seen and heard different things during their games on a normal basis so they know how to handle them. I won't doubt the ablity of the guys on that 2A championship to call a game but they may have been thrown into the deep end in regards to other things. Assignors have to be able to see that sort of thing coming. You may not have your best rules guys on the game but you'll end up with the best managers.

Do you really believe that? I could give you so many examples of this NOT being the case.

Sure...and I could give you a bunch of examples of this being the case.

We all know it happens to an extent - someone is promoted quickly because of a demographic. Most times it works out because they can actually ref the game too. When you get a bunch of people promoted quickly because of a demographic, and it turns out they are lousy refs also, that supervisor isn't going to last very long.

Common Ground ???
 

Agree. But do we truly have equality in 2013? I don't believe that we do, but that's just my opinion. But I certainly agree with you that when we truly do have equality, be it in 2014, or 2114, then all officiating assignments should, rather must, be made based solely on the competence of the officials, not their race, gender, etc.

Rocky,

You can give examples and I can give examples. However, one of my examples is one too many. Your examples would be of a supervisor doing the right things which should be the point right? Part of the problem with any argument like this is the group that normally has smooth sailing fails to see the problem.

It really comes from a place of ignorance. I am ignorant to ever being able to show up and be part of the preferred group when it comes to camps, clinics, etc. I take that back, I did go to the SWAC camp one year. Others are ignorant to the struggle of being black and an official.

Some examples:
I know of one state where there is about a 99% chance that someone black will be on the highest level state final championship.

I know of one association that must have a white and black in the the assigner/assistant positions. Most of the officials are black in this association.

I know of a deceased supervisor that pushed white male official clones big time. He had a camp system (starting with a state in the middle of the country) and you could tell one of his guys by the way they ran.

I know of a guy that was coddled/protected at a major D1 camp and after several years of protecting him he is a NCAA tournament official. When I say coddled in camp I mean coached while he was on the court, "_________what are you doing? Don't call that..." in a hushed tone. I heard it with my own ears.

One beef I have had with one area I have lived is that established black officials want another black official to be perfect before they will speak up for them. That speaks to how those established officials are viewed - they have to present a near perfect official to the supervisor.

I could go on and on. I have seen the politics in three different parts of the country that all have different racial makeups. It is an interesting thing to see. The one thing I wish would happen is that people that have never been in the group without privilege would really think, listen and show empathy before opening their mouth to say these things don't happen.

Title IX On Steroids ???
 

For a few years, our state interscholastic athletics association tried to have only female officials work the girls state championship games. That didn't last too long because back then, maybe fifteen, or twenty, years ago, there weren't enough truly competent female officials.

Title IX has nothing to do with who officiates or coaches a game.

Peace

tomegun,

I can't say much about your experiences. I can tell you flat out that I was NOT in the "privileged" group of what went on out here. Neither was icallfouls. In our situation, the supervisor was not doing things "properly" and was advancing people into situations they were not ready for. Some of them pulled it off. A bunch didn't. That supervisor was dropped by multiple conferences as a result.

Where did anyone mention Title IX in this thread?

You did not see BillyMac's title?

Peace

That's why I made my earlier comment regarding my BV assignor. I think every assignor will try to help people for various reasons. However at the end of the day, if they want to keep assigning they have to send competent officials to games.

Doh! No, I missed that. My bad.

I should have quoted it originally. Otherwise you were correct.

Peace

I blame Billy for my confusion.

Yeah, get in line. :D

Peace

Agreed.

And I think that was the point I was trying to make earlier. Not sure if I didn't say it well, or if tomegun just misunderstood me.

I don't understand the argument/discussion here. We seem to be nitpicking general human nature that effects all fields and functions across all walks of life. There is no solution and there will never be a consensus. This is one of those things that just is what it is. Fair and unfair is really just an opinion formed from a specific perspective relative to the one doing the observation. The same goes for right and wrong.

The ideal solution would be that all humans behave honestly and with integrity in all instances, and when called upon do their job to their best ability. Many can say they do this but in reality they don't, and they fail this tenet when they promote one, not because of ability, but because of many external factors.

I do think most things in life averages out over time and I just do my best to adapt to changing climates.

I don't want only black officials to work games with black players, or only women to work the women's game. But I agree with JRutledge and JetMet and tomegun completely. Everyone has different experiences and can relate differently to different people. Not everyone can do this. The example of that 2A game in IL is the perfect example. Those 3 officials may have been really good officials worthy of working a championship, they should not have been working that championship game, not the 3 of them together.

I am the first to admit that I was hired in my first NCAAW conference because I was female, but that wasn't the only reason, and some people would say I didn't deserve the chance. (A lot of people actually said that) But the supervisor told me that he saw potential in me. If I was male and he saw the same exact potential and the same ability would he have hired me? Maybe not. I had been officiating basketball for years - though only 2 years of actually being certified to work high school. I grew up officiating games at the boys club. I didn't have great mechanics ,I had never worked 3 man before, but I had worked some good ball and I knew the game. I took in everything I could and learned so much that first summer of going to camps and I have been very successful.

I honestly don't think that there are any conference supervisors out there hiring someone JUST because of their race or gender alone, not saying it can't give you a leg up if all things are equal but you have to bring something else to the table. I had a supervisor tell me that he would much rather hire someone with little to no officiating experience and mold them and teach them and mentor them than to hire someone with a lot of high school experience that was already set in their ways.

Well said Nikki.

Peace

I can only control the factors I can control. Whining about others isn't going to help me reach any goals.

Was someone whining somewhere in this thread? Seems to me that we were having a fairly logical conversation about things. Oh well...

See msg #3.

Sounds like whining to me.

Peace

Ahhhh...I had forgotten that that was how the thread started out.

Maybe, maybe not. There is a bit of irony. It's ironic, after being raised to believe that people should be judged on merit rather than skin color or gender, to see people defending the idea that skin color should be considered when making officiating assignments. I'm not saying the idea doesn't have any merit, but the irony is there.

Just as it doesn't do any good for me to deny the merits of the assignment practice in question, it doesn't do any good to discount the irony, either.

tomegun is right, I don't understand. I'm trying, but sometimes the irony is easier to see. I'll just say this, responding with "you have no right to question" is counter-productive to the discussion.

I've seen shades of it in this discussion, but not enough to ruin a very good discussion on a very difficult issue.

Other than a few posts responding to Nevada that have been deleted b/c of quoting him, I have just been reading and not contributing to this thread. It's of great interest to me but commenting on it reminds me too much of my day job.

I will say that I am pleasantly surprised with the quality and depth of the discussion, and the seeming willingness to listen to differing thoughts and perspectives.

I agree with much of what has been said. What started off on post#3 could have become very ugly very quickly, and apparently did. But thumbs up to those who kept it on track and constructive.

Adam,

I just said it sounded like whining, I am not saying the discussion should not be had.

All I have mostly read in this specific discussion was comments that suggest there are considerations to race and gender. And I do not feel that is a bad thing when the participants want to be comfortable with who is on their games and in many cases certain people do not take the game seriously or look down on the situation because it is not where they want to be. I know I do not like girls and women's basketball and I know many like me. They should choose the people that want to be there most of all, but should consider things that will make the game go smoothly.

Peace

I agree. I just find it unfortunate that players have been led to feel that if they get refs of the opposite race, it can negatively affect their game if they're playing a team predominantly of the opposite race. I would much rather disabuse them of these "out to get us" notions as opposed to caving to their desires to be represented.

I recognize, however, that's easier said than done, and coming from a guy represented by a majority of the population (maybe, depending on how hispanics are counted), I understand it's a bit weak. The odds of having an all-black officiating crew are significantly slimmer than an all-white crew. Both have been known to happen in my association, but I think we have a pretty fair mix here. Not that I've counted, but I'm going off of my observations of attendance (and leadership) at our association meetings.

From my experience it's much more players and teams' own reaction from cultural experience and history than it is anyone "leading them to feel" anything.

And what you call "caving to their desires to be represented" would be what others feel is simply being inclusive, smart, and considerate in terms of assigning or managing the official, coaches, players, overall game dynamic that goes into it.

He might take things too far often but I agree with his sentiment. Many groups cry so hard for equality that they then start to over compensate in their benefit when they are finally given what they have fought/complained/whined/cried/argued about.

I am also sure that the officials that worked the game were deserving but you cannot cry for equality and then completely go the route that serves your group best when it fits your need(s). You just can't have it both ways. Yes, it frustrates me and no I don't have to like it.

So your, and Nevada's, issue is that black and women officials "cried" to get more opportunities and assignments, particularly for games involving majority black and female participants respectively, and where they were typically underrepresented AND now you feel (or are crying) they are overrepresented at the expense of qualified non black female officials? And you're somewhat angry about it?

I can understand that perspective but IMHO it's short sighted and misplaced.

No more misplaced that then games with predominantly white athletes get mostly to all white officials. What you are defending is affirmative action. Which I think is a bunch of baloney.

For the record I am not white, nor am I black or Hispanic. Its like saying that being a Black, female, and gay is hitting the genetic jackpot in officiating.

If the deciding factor over who gets selected is race/ethnicity/gender then that's just hog wash. I would like all qualified officials to be entered into a lottery and 3 names selected at random, and 1 for the alternative. However large that pool be is up to the deciding bodies. But it's not more short sighted and/or misplaced then going overboard with ones new found freedom/equality at the expense of exactly what they were fighting in the first place.

I do defend affirmative action and would welcome an intelligent debate on the policy, not that this is the right forum for that. And since you thinks it's "baloney" and "hogwash" I'll just agree to disagree with you on that here since I doubt it would be a constructive conversation. If being being black, female, and/or gay is hitting the "genetic jackpot" in officiating then I'm sure there are other areas in life that go the other direction on that. I can think of a few.

That said, doing the bolded would run into the same problems. The grievances would just move to deciding who makes up the pool of "all qualified" officials.

Officiating and evaluating it is very subjective by nature. There will always be multiple considerations to be made in assigning games. And there will always be people who are bothered by, and disagree with those considerations. Whether they are related to race, gender, sexual preference or other things such as personal relationships, connections, or even who and what people use to judge/determine who is qualified. And the validity of their judgement itself.

And that is where I think the words of Rich are wise. In controlling what you can control and not whining about others.

Of course, there are times when "whining" is justified (depending on your perspective). Fortunately, in those instances it usually works itself out. Unfortunately it can take a long time to do so.

The majority of officials I see are white in the first place. You do not have to make a case for more white officials wnen most of the officials offiating almost everything are already white. And this could be the case in just about any level and any sport. And in basketball the sport is dominated at least on the Men's side with African-Americans. We need Affirmative-Action to prove that we can excell in basketball officiating, while dominating in other aspects of the sport? Give me a break!!!

No one said it was the deciding factor. But let us be frank for a second. Many but not all for sure whites often do not even want to go into certain communities for their sterotypes and so-called assumptions about certain communities. I hear it all the time when I have been assigned place and my white counterparts have more negative things to say than I would. As if I feel comfortable to go to certain communities, but I never complain. At least at the HS level I have no problem with people that can handle the sitaution as an official and not worry about other things while going to officiate. Unless we are employees, no one can really make us go anywhere. And if I was assigning I want officials that can handle the issues in that game that might take place. That is why I have openly said that the 2A state finals the offiicals appeared to be totally overmatched as they did not seem to address the extra-ciricular activity that took place in that game. And I am sorry, three rural officials was not the answer. Heck they all could have been from Chicago and white and that would have been better than what was working that game because I did not see officials aware of the underlining situations that could arise. And yes, players and coaches talk to their "own" differently than they do other races or even genders.

Peace

I don't make any assumptions on what is reality versus what is ideal. I was just defending the position that equality is what it is, and groups that fight for equality when they get it tend to overcompensate lose credibility in my opinion.