(06-03-2014 10:35 PM)grol Wrote: But, unfortunately, college umps aren't that good. I would guess that the error factors quoted in the article are doubled in the college game.
How much of a skill differential between college and MLB umpires would be reasonable? Surely we should expect that there is some differential. But what differential indicates a genuine (and hopefully correctable) problem, as opposed to simply the drop-off one would naturally expect when comparing the highest-paid, best-supported practitioners in a field to others in the field?
If there is a genuine problem in the skill level of college umpires, what is the underlying reason? Some possibilities might be:
a. The techniques taught are not effective
b. The techniques might be effective, but are poorly taught
c. The incentive structure is out of whack -- accuracy is not sufficiently rewarded
d. The job is so inherently difficult that very few people can do it "well" -- there never will be enough "good" umpires to go around
e. There are plenty of people who could do the job supremely well, but they aren't going into umpiring -- leaving the ranks to be filled with dimwitted, inferior people
If the root problem is (e), then what should be changed to ensure that smarter, more capable people go into umpiring?
(My hunch is that many fans, at least subconsciously, believe a specific variation of (e), along the following lines: "I personally would be much better than the dimwits who are out there -- but of course I personally have uniquely excellent reasons for not subjecting myself to that test")
