WNBA Officiating, Part II: "They say this is the best of all possible worlds, and sometimes I'm afraid I agree."
Having kicked around some thoughts about what it means for refs to be bad, now it's time to ask: are WNBA refs bad?
Clay Kallam, who runs Full Court, said recently that "the quality of officiating at all levels of the sport is abysmal, and especially on the women's side..."
Perhaps Clay was just being hyperbolic, but I find the first part of that claim to be so puzzling that I have difficulty ascribing any coherent meaning to it. All basketball reffing is abysmal?
I'm not sure what standard Clay is using, or how good he thinks refs can and should be. Refs have human limitations of perception and cognition. Human refs are going to make mistakes.
Calling refs terrible because they're imperfect is like calling basketball players terrible because they're imperfect. Calling refs terrible because they're not as good as Dick Bavetta is like calling basketball players terrible because they're not as good as Michael Jordan.
Let's start with a more realistic standard for officiating. Let's start with the NBA generally. The job of NBA ref comes with some fame and fortune; it's a highly-coveted position. The NBA is able to choose its small, elite cadre of refs from a huge pool of candidates. The NBA has a rigorous system of rating, review, and training for its refs, and if refs do poorly, they get fired.
In short, NBA officiating, while imperfect, is probably about as good as human basketball officiating can be. (I suppose you can still say that it sucks because it fails to live up to whatever Platonic ideal of officiating you have in mind... but what's the point?)
Using the NBA as a measuring stick, we can ask: how does WNBA officiating compare to NBA officiating, and if it's worse, how can we close the gap?
From watching both leagues, my own subjective sense is that WNBA officiating is materially and noticeably worse than NBA officiating. The same deficiency, though less stark, is evident at the college legel as well.
I recently asked some refs about this. Here are some possible reasons for the disparity between the men's and women's games in the quality of officiating:
1. Pay
At the college level, it seems that some conferences pay men's refs the same as women's refs, but some pay men's refs more. Although some people have suggested that Title VII or Title IX would forbid such a disparity, I don't think that's true.
At the pro level, there's a clearer and larger disparity. I can't confirm the numbers, but I've heard that WNBA refs make about $750 per game. NBA refs, unlike WNBA refs, are unionized employees under a CBA that pays them a salary somewhere in the low- to mix-six figures.
2. Prestige
Even aside from pay differential, men's basketball offers greater prestige in the eye's of many refs. Men's basketball is more popular. It's a bigger stage. It's a faster, more challenging game to ref. Some refs simply believe that men's hoops is where it's at, and women's hoops ain't.
3. Progression
Refs sometimes use the women's game as a stepping stone to the men's game. The NBA apparently still has some control over WNBA reffing, and it uses WNBA (as well as the NBDL and the CBA) as a source of talent — as a farm team.
Several current NBA refs — Matthew Boland, Tony Brown, Derrick Collins, Pat Fraher, Courtney Kirkland, Violet Palmer, Jason Phillips — started in the W before moving over/up to the men's side.
4. Affirmative Action
Folks who hire refs at various levels of women's basketball have made some effort to hire female officials. That may be the right thing to do for a variety of important reasons, but it may also mean that we end up with less experienced refs than we otherwise would.
All of these factors taken together mean that women's basketball ends up with less qualified and less experienced refs than men's basketball. It's easier to get hired and to advance in the women's game.
Said one ref: "If you ask me everyone is advancing too fast on the Women's side." Said another: "It is somewhat frustrating to see women moving up way faster than they would if they were men on the men's side... I've seen officials who have lots of potential but don't have their foundation in place before they're thrown into the fire."
None of this is terribly surprising, and perhaps none of it can realistically be changed. But by isolating these factors, we can talk more seriously about what (if anything) can be done to make officiating in women's game better. More on that tomorrow.
Having kicked around some thoughts about what it means for refs to be bad, now it's time to ask: are WNBA refs bad?
Clay Kallam, who runs Full Court, said recently that "the quality of officiating at all levels of the sport is abysmal, and especially on the women's side..."
Perhaps Clay was just being hyperbolic, but I find the first part of that claim to be so puzzling that I have difficulty ascribing any coherent meaning to it. All basketball reffing is abysmal?
I'm not sure what standard Clay is using, or how good he thinks refs can and should be. Refs have human limitations of perception and cognition. Human refs are going to make mistakes.
Calling refs terrible because they're imperfect is like calling basketball players terrible because they're imperfect. Calling refs terrible because they're not as good as Dick Bavetta is like calling basketball players terrible because they're not as good as Michael Jordan.
Let's start with a more realistic standard for officiating. Let's start with the NBA generally. The job of NBA ref comes with some fame and fortune; it's a highly-coveted position. The NBA is able to choose its small, elite cadre of refs from a huge pool of candidates. The NBA has a rigorous system of rating, review, and training for its refs, and if refs do poorly, they get fired.
In short, NBA officiating, while imperfect, is probably about as good as human basketball officiating can be. (I suppose you can still say that it sucks because it fails to live up to whatever Platonic ideal of officiating you have in mind... but what's the point?)
Using the NBA as a measuring stick, we can ask: how does WNBA officiating compare to NBA officiating, and if it's worse, how can we close the gap?
From watching both leagues, my own subjective sense is that WNBA officiating is materially and noticeably worse than NBA officiating. The same deficiency, though less stark, is evident at the college legel as well.
I recently asked some refs about this. Here are some possible reasons for the disparity between the men's and women's games in the quality of officiating:
1. Pay
At the college level, it seems that some conferences pay men's refs the same as women's refs, but some pay men's refs more. Although some people have suggested that Title VII or Title IX would forbid such a disparity, I don't think that's true.
At the pro level, there's a clearer and larger disparity. I can't confirm the numbers, but I've heard that WNBA refs make about $750 per game. NBA refs, unlike WNBA refs, are unionized employees under a CBA that pays them a salary somewhere in the low- to mix-six figures.
2. Prestige
Even aside from pay differential, men's basketball offers greater prestige in the eye's of many refs. Men's basketball is more popular. It's a bigger stage. It's a faster, more challenging game to ref. Some refs simply believe that men's hoops is where it's at, and women's hoops ain't.
3. Progression
Refs sometimes use the women's game as a stepping stone to the men's game. The NBA apparently still has some control over WNBA reffing, and it uses WNBA (as well as the NBDL and the CBA) as a source of talent — as a farm team.
Several current NBA refs — Matthew Boland, Tony Brown, Derrick Collins, Pat Fraher, Courtney Kirkland, Violet Palmer, Jason Phillips — started in the W before moving over/up to the men's side.
4. Affirmative Action
Folks who hire refs at various levels of women's basketball have made some effort to hire female officials. That may be the right thing to do for a variety of important reasons, but it may also mean that we end up with less experienced refs than we otherwise would.
All of these factors taken together mean that women's basketball ends up with less qualified and less experienced refs than men's basketball. It's easier to get hired and to advance in the women's game.
Said one ref: "If you ask me everyone is advancing too fast on the Women's side." Said another: "It is somewhat frustrating to see women moving up way faster than they would if they were men on the men's side... I've seen officials who have lots of potential but don't have their foundation in place before they're thrown into the fire."
None of this is terribly surprising, and perhaps none of it can realistically be changed. But by isolating these factors, we can talk more seriously about what (if anything) can be done to make officiating in women's game better. More on that tomorrow.
posted by Ted at 5:46 PM
