NCAA refs vs. conference refs
 

A question has been brought up on a few SEC teams' message boards, and likewise on a state high school football message board. I figured you guys would be the best source for insight.

If the NCAA were to mandate individual conference officials be put under one umbrella where a crew would work an SEC game one week and a WAC game the next week, for example, would that be beneficial? Or would it matter? Some in the media (I know, many are idiots) have publicly said college officials should not work games involving teams from their home state. I don't think it matters, but I've never officiated before.

Likewise, should there be one state officials association for high school instead of many regional associations? Why or why not?

I actually like the idea of the NCAA ponying up the money to put all of the officials under one umbrella and supporting their travel all over. Better crews would go to the most important games, regardless of conference. You wouldn't have ridiculous mechanics which prevent you from seeing the ball while it's live, like we have on one conference. There would be less perceived bias (whether one exists or not is immaterial - it's the perception that matters here). More uniformity. Better training if there was one big clinic instead of a multitude of clinics. Etc.

I don't think it would work for high school though, as the travel becomes a significant issue. I know that in Texas if two teams can't agree on a local crew and one has to be flown in from another chapter, it's VERY expensive (compared with what they would normally pay for officials). I think it might be a bigger problem in large states than small, and perhaps some geographically small states could get by with just one association (and if they could, it would probably be beneficial). I just don't see it working in Texas, California, Florida, or even most of the midwest/west.

There is one state association in every state. Then there are local assoications that function in some form or fashion under the state. At least that's the setup in most states.

I disagree with MC on the one group idea for football. Not that its perfect now, but I think it would be worse then. There would be regional biases like there is in the NCAA basketball tournament where it seems the Final Four officials are always upper midwest and east coast (e.g. Big Ten, Big East, and ACC). Obviously, there are exceptions, but look at how many Final Fours guys like Jim Burr and Tim Higgins have worked in the past 20 years. I know guys that have complained about this for years and it is slowly changing, but I think the same thing would happen in football.

The main reason for this movement is to put all the officials under one NCAA Football Coordinator and have all the football officials in the country doing everything the same. Same mechanics, same philosophies, the game would have more consistency from coast to coast. I think it is a good idea if they can get through all the conference red tape.

That's why I like the idea. But I don't think it will ever happen, especially from a cost standpoint. The travel expenses would be much too high.

Why? It's no more expensive for me to fly to California than to State College, PA. Matter of fact, it's cheaper.

At the D-IA level, most officials are flying. So it doesn't matter if they are conference officials or national officials.

I agree, remember we are talking about a 12 game season (one game a week) with stadiums that seat from 75,000 - 110,000 per game...$$$$! How much does it cost a school or conference when a call maybe gets missed and a team may have made a BCS game...$18-20 million dollar, they can fund it no problem.

I think the reason that is a current possible problem in basketball is that those officials, while working nationally in the tournament, are still working for THEIR CONFERENCE. If there were no officials working for a conference at all - just officials working for the NCAA, there would be no reason for bias or even perceived bias.

There are times that officials drive to the game. If you make it a national conference, you will have longer travel times. This means that the officials will have to leave earlier on Fridays to get to the game site. That will impact their regular jobs. Thus chances are they would have to be compensated at a higher rate than they currenly are.

There was a discussion this past offseason of the Big 12 and Big 10 combining. One of the main reasons for not doing it was cost. That's all I know.

I don't believe this would be the case, since the supervisor has to come from somewhere and will have had to be an official in one or more conferences. In basketball, it is (or has been) Fred Barakat who worked in the ACC for years and on mostly on the east coast his entire career. Let's say in football its John Bible. He's going to train on mechanics that he and his Big 12 coharts have been doing, which may or may not agree with what's going on in the Pac 10, or on the east coast. Now, he assigns the bowl games and the big ones go to a Big 12 or MWC crew because they're better at the mechanics Bible wants.

I think in basketball, what's happened at the major D-I level is that there has been a consolodation of assigning coordinators in the last 15 years. Guys assign multiple conferences and their guys still work for multiple assignors. That's not the case in football, and it might well take years before it becomes a no-bias deal.

Cost, cost, cost!!!!! These schools have $80 million dollar athletic budgets and get $18/20 million to play in a BCS game. The cost would have little impact on the school at all. The problem will be with the Conferences and the Supervisors.