Full Court's Jim Clark blows up at the refs: "Lousy officiating drives marginal, but knowledgeable, fans away." (At least the W's refs aren't gambling. So far as we know.)

Ted looked at the WNBA's zebras at some length two years ago, and got some useful feedback.

As Ted, Pilight and others have pointed out, it's hard to improve officiating without creating more and better officials-- there would have to be a talent pool of qualified people who could ref WNBA games but don't.

Clark suggests that there may be such people: college ball officials (men's or women's) who choose not to ref in W games now. (NBA refs are apparently prohibited by contract from officiating elsewhere; they're also paid way more than the W pays, though it's hard to find out what they make. The best WNBA officials can get promoted to the NBA, which is a structural problem the W can't solve.)

Most college refs have day jobs. Would those who now take the summers off from basketball change their plans if the money were better? If the W raised its rates (now $600-800 per game) to what BCS conferences pay ($1,200 or so, Clark says), would that be enough? And would they be much better than the officials (many of them college-game vets) we have now?