tweeterhawk
Well-Known Member
Ted Valentine has a serious credibility issue continuing to officiate games in the B1G and many other conferences. I am wondering how he can continue to be assigned to games, and why the NCAA continues to use him based on comments published in his local newspaper more than a year ago naming his "favorite coaches," including U-Conn's Jim Calhoun, Duke's Mike Krzyzewski and Michigan State's Tom Izzo.
(NOTE: This is not sour grapes about Valentine's officiating of the Iowa-MSU B1G quarterfinal this afternoon; overall I thought it was a decently-officiated contest. The men in black- and white-striped shirts bear no responsibility for the huge talent disparity between those wearing the green and white jerseys and those wearing black.)
As was posted earlier today on HawkeyeNation, Valentine was asked by his local paper, The Post and Courier of Charleston, S.C., to identify his "favorite coaches" in more than 15 years of officiating. His answer:
"All my favorites are blue collar-type guys. Gene Keady, who used to be at Purdue. Tom Izzo (Michigan State), Gary Williams (Maryland), Jimmy Calhoun (Connecticut). Coach K (Duke's Mike Krzyzewski) is a blue-collar guy. Leonard Hamilton of Florida State. When the game is over, it's over. They're not on the phone whining and crying about some controversial thing."
You can read the full interview here and a blog mildly questioning his comments here.
While at first blush his comments seem innocent enough, bear in mind sports officials carry a heavy burden of impartiality in the games they officiate. You do not publicly talk about the teams, the players, the coaches. There is a strong tendency by many officials -- if not outright restrictions from the leagues in which they work as well as their referee associations -- to avoid commenting on anything about past or upcoming games or the participants for fear of not coming across as favoring a team, a coach or a player over another. For a recent interview with a top soccer referee, I had to wait several weeks for clearances from United States Soccer and FIFA.
Just this month, Barry Mano, publisher of Referee magazine, dealt with the issue in a column titled "Please, Just Shut Up!" In part he wrote: "As impartial arbiters, why should we ever share insights on teams that we work with anyone other than league administration or other officials? What is to be gained, other than to feel, even anonymously, that we are big-timers, that we have all this special insider knowledge, that we are cool?"
Referee is circulated to the more than 19,000 members of the National Association of Sports Officials working in a variety of sports -- football, basketball, baseball, softball, soccer -- at multiple levels. Referring to an ESPN The Magazine story in which several college officials gave their insights anonymously on the upcoming BCS football championship game, Mano continued: "If the men who chose to share the insights ... do not understand that they have crossed a line, time is at hand to help them with that understanding. If I were their coordinator (and I am not) I would flush them out and then perform surgery. There is no conversation to persuade or to teach. What I would say is this: 'If you think that being quoted anonymously exempts you from a core officiating principle, that saddens me. If you think that what you did was harmless, I have serious question about your intelligence. In any case, you aren't the type of person I want on this staff.' (Emphasis mine.)
"I know that sounds harsh, but there it is. If you are working in those leagues, it means you have been an official for a long time. You are a journeyman and that means you have been schooled in the mandate that is officiating, to wit: no stake in the game other than impartial enforcement of the rules. No "insider trading," no swag, no autograph-seeking, no pandering for memorabilia. Forget that stuff. We come in, we do a job, we leave, we shut up. It ain't that complicated. When is the last time you read, even anonymous, comments by a sitting judge about the merits of a case that will be coming before the court?"
Or, when was the last time you read comments by a sitting judge about his or her "favorite" attorneys who appear before them? I don't remember ever seeing such a story; perhaps you do.
Did Valentine's stated feelings for Izzo produce the foul call in front of the Michigan State bench that led to Fran's outburst and technical in this game?
Maybe. Maybe not.
Valentine's lack of impartiality does nothing to buttress any view, however, that was a purely a justified foul call.
Does it help that even as the game was still being contested, Valentine reportedly walked by the MSU bench, said something to Izzo and they both laughed? It could have been innocent -- that happens a lot in athletic competitions. But against the backrop of the above quote, Valentine's action allows it to come into question. As The Register's Rick Brown tweeted at the time, "Don't think that's gonna happen at the other bench."
This is not a small issue involving what is presumably a respected Division 1 college basketball referee working in multiple conferences. Ted Valentine's impartiality has been compromised by his own words.
The NCAA and the leagues in which he works must explain why, in that case, they continue to employ him.
(NOTE: This is not sour grapes about Valentine's officiating of the Iowa-MSU B1G quarterfinal this afternoon; overall I thought it was a decently-officiated contest. The men in black- and white-striped shirts bear no responsibility for the huge talent disparity between those wearing the green and white jerseys and those wearing black.)
As was posted earlier today on HawkeyeNation, Valentine was asked by his local paper, The Post and Courier of Charleston, S.C., to identify his "favorite coaches" in more than 15 years of officiating. His answer:
"All my favorites are blue collar-type guys. Gene Keady, who used to be at Purdue. Tom Izzo (Michigan State), Gary Williams (Maryland), Jimmy Calhoun (Connecticut). Coach K (Duke's Mike Krzyzewski) is a blue-collar guy. Leonard Hamilton of Florida State. When the game is over, it's over. They're not on the phone whining and crying about some controversial thing."
You can read the full interview here and a blog mildly questioning his comments here.
While at first blush his comments seem innocent enough, bear in mind sports officials carry a heavy burden of impartiality in the games they officiate. You do not publicly talk about the teams, the players, the coaches. There is a strong tendency by many officials -- if not outright restrictions from the leagues in which they work as well as their referee associations -- to avoid commenting on anything about past or upcoming games or the participants for fear of not coming across as favoring a team, a coach or a player over another. For a recent interview with a top soccer referee, I had to wait several weeks for clearances from United States Soccer and FIFA.
Just this month, Barry Mano, publisher of Referee magazine, dealt with the issue in a column titled "Please, Just Shut Up!" In part he wrote: "As impartial arbiters, why should we ever share insights on teams that we work with anyone other than league administration or other officials? What is to be gained, other than to feel, even anonymously, that we are big-timers, that we have all this special insider knowledge, that we are cool?"
Referee is circulated to the more than 19,000 members of the National Association of Sports Officials working in a variety of sports -- football, basketball, baseball, softball, soccer -- at multiple levels. Referring to an ESPN The Magazine story in which several college officials gave their insights anonymously on the upcoming BCS football championship game, Mano continued: "If the men who chose to share the insights ... do not understand that they have crossed a line, time is at hand to help them with that understanding. If I were their coordinator (and I am not) I would flush them out and then perform surgery. There is no conversation to persuade or to teach. What I would say is this: 'If you think that being quoted anonymously exempts you from a core officiating principle, that saddens me. If you think that what you did was harmless, I have serious question about your intelligence. In any case, you aren't the type of person I want on this staff.' (Emphasis mine.)
"I know that sounds harsh, but there it is. If you are working in those leagues, it means you have been an official for a long time. You are a journeyman and that means you have been schooled in the mandate that is officiating, to wit: no stake in the game other than impartial enforcement of the rules. No "insider trading," no swag, no autograph-seeking, no pandering for memorabilia. Forget that stuff. We come in, we do a job, we leave, we shut up. It ain't that complicated. When is the last time you read, even anonymous, comments by a sitting judge about the merits of a case that will be coming before the court?"
Or, when was the last time you read comments by a sitting judge about his or her "favorite" attorneys who appear before them? I don't remember ever seeing such a story; perhaps you do.
Did Valentine's stated feelings for Izzo produce the foul call in front of the Michigan State bench that led to Fran's outburst and technical in this game?
Maybe. Maybe not.
Valentine's lack of impartiality does nothing to buttress any view, however, that was a purely a justified foul call.
Does it help that even as the game was still being contested, Valentine reportedly walked by the MSU bench, said something to Izzo and they both laughed? It could have been innocent -- that happens a lot in athletic competitions. But against the backrop of the above quote, Valentine's action allows it to come into question. As The Register's Rick Brown tweeted at the time, "Don't think that's gonna happen at the other bench."
This is not a small issue involving what is presumably a respected Division 1 college basketball referee working in multiple conferences. Ted Valentine's impartiality has been compromised by his own words.
The NCAA and the leagues in which he works must explain why, in that case, they continue to employ him.
Last edited:
