College basketball officiating would be better if centralized

Nicole Auerbach | USA TODAY Sports

NEW YORK — Imagine a typical Saturday in February, a day full of college basketball games that all reach their final buzzers without a single officiating controversy.

It's hard to imagine … because it simply does not happen. There's always outrage over some call or another, or a non-call. None of that is surprising.

There are inconsistencies in rule interpretations and/or enforcement — from league to league, or even individual referee to individual referee.

Officials work as independent contractors, often for multiple leagues and on as many nights in a row in various cities as they wish. Officiating on the whole has made strides toward more consistency in recent years, as conferences have combined to form three- to five-league consortiums, which allow leagues in the same geographic regions to monitor officials and coordinate training/feedback as one. That's helped.

But the next step in the right direction is centralization.

"We're a game of rules; I don't make them even," NCAA coordinator of officials John Adams told USA TODAY Sports on Monday. "I'm just trying to get my arms around trying to create predictability for everyone in our game in how our games have been refereed."

Predictability means consistency, something that could be achieved by a centralized model. The NBA's officials are full-time employees, and part of a union. College basketball could try to mimic that, or perhaps a better option is making referees part-time, seasonal employees. No matter what, it's clear there are options and ways to make this happen if those in power want it to.

"At some point, someone's going to make the argument that there ought to be a centralized officiating program," said Adams, who is retiring after next month's Final Four. "One message is important — about how to officiate."

A singular message has helped at the consortium level. For example, the Big Ten is in a consortium with the Mid-American Conference and the Summit League. Jim Delany, the Big Ten commissioner, told USA TODAY Sports he's seen "a lot more consistency in the game" in part because of the consortium. Technology is shared, as are similar messages and points of emphasis. Training can be shared, too. Officials' travel may be decreased because officials can stay within a region if they wish. "It's a very good step," Delany said.

Still, Delany doesn't believe college basketball should compare itself to the NBA in any area, but particularly in regard to its officiating model.

"We have 10 times more games every day than they do," he said. "We don't have the same players. We don't have the same coaches. … Consistency and uniformity are harder to achieve in a more diverse environment.

"The decentralization probably adds to the diversity and the inconsistency. But it also adds to the interest. … Leagues play different (styles). There's a beauty to that, too."

But surely there must be a way to have coaches teach unique systems, and players play differently — all within one, consistent officiating framework. Consider an alternate college basketball universe in which an arm bar is an arm bar, no matter if the game is played in California or North Carolina. Or a world in which the block/charge call is called consistently and appropriately.

Adams has tried to move officiating toward this ideal of consistency and predictability, and he's appreciative of success consortiums have had in that regard. He expects consortiums to continue to grow in future years, in fact. On a national scale, Adams has also relied on technology. This season, he's required that officials watch online educational videos to be eligible to work the NCAA tournament.

"The quality of the videos are good; the message is consistent," Adams said. "Tie that back into centralization and a consortium then you can get a more predictable outcome. I really believe there ought to be higher expectations on how games will be officiated, what I refer to as predictability, than there is. It benefits everybody."

Is that attainable?

"Yes," Adams said. "Yes. Better is relative. I'm not saying it has to be perfect, but it can be better. It's a needle that slowly can be moved toward closer to getting all the calls right, which we're never going to get to because we're humans."