Open Mic: The Way Officiating Should Be

Ryan Fritsche — Thu, 22 May 2008 13:49:07 -0400

It's easy to blame the officiating for the loss of a big game.

I've done it. You've done it. If you are sitting there in front of your computer shaking your head—then I'm just going to go ahead and call you a liar.

Ask any referee these days about a big game they officiated. They will sit there and admit to you that they made mistakes.

They won't admit it on the field, but the first thing they remember after the game is a mistake they made in judgement.

There is one sport that sticks out as one of the easiest to officiate: Soccer.

An official only has to run for over 90 minutes watching 22 players kick around a ball. The obvious fouls make this is the easiest sport to officiate.

But, certain officials attempt to make soccer one of the toughest sports to officiate by allowing frustrations to escalate throughout the game.

I find that soccer refs always seem to be at the right spot at the right time to make a call. It is hard to be at a wrong spot on a field that big.

On the other hand, the toughest sport to officiate actually comes to a tie in my mind. I believe that hockey and baseball are the two toughest sports to officiate.

The pace in hockey is so quick that officials must have eagle eyes to see the close offsides and to follow the flight of a hockey puck that travels upwards of 105 mph. The penalties are also some of the toughest to call—especially the delay of game call when a puck is knocked out of play.

Baseball is tough because of the little rectangle we call "the strike zone."

Different umpires, different night, different strike zone.

What makes it that much harder is the fact that an umpire's strike zone can change from game to game and sometimes, inning to inning.

Baseball umpires receive more flak than other officials about a called third strike or a close call for ball four.

There has even been talk of replacing the home plate umpire with a computer that has a consistent strike zone. Where is the fun in that?

Some pitchers that live or have lived on the black (Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux, John Smoltz) may actually have less wins and fewer strikeouts with a constant strike zone.

This is something that must not happen in the MLB. If it does, I hope fans boycott the game.

I feel basketball has the farthest road to travel than other sports. Basketball referees may be the worst officials in the world.

The reason I say that is simple—watch a game and feel the momentum. A team with momentum rarely gets called for fouls, while the other team seems to take a foul every possession.

Referees in the NBA do not know the difference between a total el floppo and an actual foul. Take for example game two of the playoff series between the Houston Rockets and the Utah Jazz.

At the end of the game, the Rockets were called for an offensive elbowing foul. They lost possession instead of hitting the game tying 3-point shot. For those that did not see the foul, I'll break it down to you.

Luis Scola and Andrei Kirilenko were battling in the corner as the Rockets were passing the ball around the perimeter. Scola bumped Kirilenko and Kirilenko flew, and yes I mean FLEW, backwards like he had been shot.

All three referees had their heads turned towards the ball until Kirilenko threw his arms out and took a major dive. The ref on the sideline looked back and then, in what seemed like a delayed reaction, called the foul.

Everyone agreed Kirilenko took a dive and as a result the Jazz won a game they shouldn't have. I believe basketball referees determine the outcome of games more often than they think.

No matter how much we complain about officiating, it won't get much better. Believe me.

My school is in the Southland Conference and our conference is supposedly the "training conference" for Big XII officials. There have been many questionable calls in almost every game I've attended.

Officials have different qualities for the different sports they oversee and regulate. Sometimes I hate them and sometimes I like them, but you have to hand it to these guys and girls sometimes.

They are almost always the butt of ridicule, yet they are always respected. I know because I am one.

BCS v. Playoff System—Which One is Better?

Ryan Fritsche — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 12:03:22 -0500

Ok ok...the 2007 College football season is now officially over.

LET THE DEBATE BEGIN!!!! (again)

Which system is better, the BCS or a playoff system?

I wrote an earlier article about this very same topic back in November called "Bowl Championship Mistake Why College Football Needs Playoffs"

In my last article, I used the idea of March Madness and how it is something that most every sports fan can get into and enjoy.

However, in this article, I move away from March Madness and into the debate that will rage until either the BCS has been completely made over to favor more teams or until a playoff system becomes the new Road to the Championship.

Let's look at why the BCS has been successful or at least somewhat successful:

-The BCS has provided fairly good television as far as match-ups are concerned.

-Majority of the time, the BCS chooses 1 of the 2 teams in the National Championship Game correctly.

-The BCS National Champion is automatically recognized as the Champion no matter what the AP poll or USAToday poll says.

Now for the bad:

-Too many one-loss and no-loss teams can cause a complete meltdown as to who belongs.

-There have been only 3 true national title games (Texas vs. USC (2005), Ohio State vs. Miami (2002) and Florida State vs. Virginia Tech (1999)) in the 10 year history of the BCS.

-Since 2000, Ohio State, USC, LSU, Oklahoma, and Miami have all played multiple National Title games. Not good for a football division composed of 117 teams. And yes I do realize that these teams are national football powers.

-The BCS has snubbed undefeated teams out of the National Championship game due to "Strength of Schedule" while allowing teams to sneak into the National Title game that got there by luck (see: Nebraska, 2001; Ohio State 2007; Florida 2006)

Those are just some of the reasons being thrown around for the BCS, both good and bad. Onward to the Playoff System!!!

Before, we jump off into why the playoff system is the best option or why it just wastes the nation's time, let me give you a background.

Anyone who attends a Division I-FCS school (like myself) or a school lower than Division I, understands that their team's path to the National Championship does not lie within a jumble of information that flows through a computer.

The path to the Championship, however, is by qualifying, either by winning your conference or by at-large bid.

No computers and no human polls select the Top 2 to play in just one game for the National Championship. Each team in the playoff system knows that you must win 4 more games to be crowned National Champion.

Here are some of the reasons why a playoff system would be good for the FBS teams:

-First and foremost, a playoff system will crown a true National Champion and will silence most every critic.

-A playoff system would not force the season to extend into the next year, which gives athletes time off from their respective colleges and allows them to relax and rest any injuries before Spring Training.

-Playoff games can be played at host schools or at neutral sites.

-There is the possibility of a Cinderella team (which is why March Madness is so popular)

-The 11 D-I FBS Conference Champions are automatic bids into the bracket with 5 possible at-large bids (similar to FCS playoff system).

-Gives the little guy recruiting power (MAC, Conference USA, WAC, Mountain West).

Ok, now here are a few of the reasons why a playoff system would be bad for FBS:

-The Independent colleges must have affiliation with a FBS conference.

-There will be no Rose, Cotton, Fiesta, Gator, etc. Bowl games.

-Colleges may complain about Finals weeks which would occur around the Quarter and Semi-Final games.

-Top 25 Rankings are only relevant to those seeking at-large bids

-101 college teams will not play a post-season game.

Now, I know I might have missed some on the good and bad of the BCS and the Playoff System but these are just some of the more talked about reasons that I have heard from people in this great nation of ours.

If left up to me, I would immediately dump the BCS and institute the Playoff System only because I know it works but that is just me. The only tragedy would be to get rid of the prestigous bowl games that we have all grown up with.

I have written this article not to tick people off but to let you, the readers, decide for yourselves which system seems best.

Bleacher Report - Articles by Ryan Fritsche

Open Mic: The Way Officiating Should Be

BCS v. Playoff System—Which One is Better?