On a cool February afternoon at the Oakland Athletics' spring training camp in Chandler, Arizona, umpire Phil Benson took his stance behind home plate. A University of Missouri, Columbia, pitcher wound up and hurled a fastball to the plate.

Thump.

"Strike one," Benson announced.

With that strike, the NCAA signaled a new day in its baseball umpiring improvement program. Benson, along with 35 other umpires, was part of a training program designed to educate and improve umpiring at the collegiate level.

Dave Yeast, the NCAA's national coordinator of umpires, set up the program in three sessions (one in Phoenix and two in Homestead, Florida). Each site had early season tournaments in which organizers agreed to let the NCAA handle the umpiring for the events. That allowed umpires to officiate actual games, and it created an environment in which evaluators pointed to specific situations and offered useful feedback.

"This allows us to touch on the finer points of umpiring that we simply can't reach in a larger clinic setting," Yeast said. "It's great to be able to talk about a situation immediately after a game and see how the umpires thought they handled it and offer constructive criticism for the future. This is the part of umpiring -- and officiating, for that matter -- that makes the difference between being a really good umpire and being an average umpire."

Real-time experience

Throughout the weekend, the umpires were put into four crews, which allowed the groups to become comfortable together. The fact that the crews worked actual games -- mostly Divisions I and II teams -- gave a different perspective than some umpire camps.

"The live competition was part of the fabric of the clinic," said Benson, who is on the Pacific-10 Conference officiating staff. "The coaches, fans, emotions, errors -- it was all part of it. There were no staged plays or situations, so it was very much your reactions and instinct. No two crews were tested or instructed in the same way because the game situations were different."

The reactions umpires made were evaluated by veteran umpires and conference coordinators who also attended to observe. The evaluators, like the umpires, thought the live action was a key to the success of the clinics.

"The main positive, as far as I'm concerned, is that the game situations are real," said Joe Burleson, a veteran College World Series umpire and an evaluator at two clinics for the NCAA. "It's all live. That is a much more effective way to learn than just classroom settings or mock situations."

Yeast designed the clinics after attending a National Basketball Association camp developed by Ed Rush, the director of officiating for the professional league. At the NBA camp, 12 officials attended for four days and received a mix of game action, classroom instruction, videotape review and one-on-one feedback sessions.

While the current budget does not allow Yeast to incorporate video in the clinics, he hopes to include some use of video in the future.

"That is such a great tool and the feedback from our umpires supported that almost to a person," he said. "Basically, the NBA camp was the right amount of time, people and sessions to make for an effective learning atmosphere. I think we had a good start."

While large clinics are effective in reaching many umpires, the techniques presenters can use in those situations differ greatly from those in smaller settings. For example, critiquing an umpire's strike zone is not appropriate for a group of 100 -- but in one-on-one discussions, it is more plausible.

"We were able to watch a full game and critique an umpire's strike zone," Yeast said. "In a large setting, we assess in a batting cage with pitching machines, not live games. You also have to be very careful not to lead the discussion or clinic down a path that is not productive, while allowing as many questions as you can from the floor."

Noticing the distinctions

The difference between umpires in the upper echelon and those that are above average is slight. Attitude, hustle, attention to detail and professionalism are focus areas for evaluators.

Game management and handling situations are crucial pieces of an umpire's resume. Fans and, to a certain extent, players and coaches, do not always notice how well an umpire manages a game. Good evaluators do.

"An umpire that keeps the game moving and has a good flow makes the game better," Burleson said. "Now, that doesn't mean rushing things or being overbearing. The rules committee has put emphasis on limiting the down time in the game. The little things -- like making sure batters understand they aren't to step out after they take a pitch -- make a big difference in the long run."

Those small differences add up to a positive grade for an umpire.

"There is a fine line between a NCAA championship umpire and a good regular-season umpire," Burleson said. "Usually, it's the way you handle game situations and administrative issues. To get to this level, you should know the rule book and the basics. The big difference is situations and how you react to them."

Perry Barber, an umpire who also is a woman, was placed in one of the Homestead clinics by the Eastern College Athletic Conference. A college umpire for 20 years, Barber has rooted herself as an umpire -- her gender notwithstanding.

"Establishing yourself as an umpire takes many years of dedication, hard work, a certain willingness to experience rejection and contempt, all while staying positive," Barber said. "All of that has much less to do with being female and more to do with being strong, to a certain extent. Most definitely you have to be stubborn to a degree. And probably a little crazy."

Bigger picture

Any opportunity to be on the field and practice umpiring -- be it Little League or professional baseball -- must be seen as a chance to improve, Barber said.

"Programs like the NCAA's are set up to dissect you and to see what you need to work on," Barber said. "Attending the NCAA camp is one of the best things I've done to upgrade my skills. I have seen a marked improvement in my performance this year."

The NCAA clinics marked another step in a growing partnership between the NCAA and Division I conferences. The Collegiate Commissioners Association's involvement in umpiring has increased dramatically in recent years.

"The developmental camps are another example of the cooperation we've seen in recent years among the CCA, the Division I Baseball Committee and the NCAA in general, to improve the accountability of collegiate umpiring," said John Iamarino, commissioner of the Northeast Conference and member of the Baseball Rules Committee. "Conferences have made it clear that a higher level of efficiency needs to be attained, particularly in the training and identifying of skilled umpires. The camps are a significant building block to achieving that goal."

Two years ago, the CCA endorsed the idea of creating a mechanics manual for baseball that each league agreed to follow. The mechanics were developed with each conference coordinator providing input and a vote.

"Having one set of mechanics nationally has made a big difference for me in evaluating umpires and it has helped the conferences to better train umpires," Yeast said. "There are things in the book that not all coordinators agree with -- but we came together and everyone is umpiring under the same set of mechanics, which is, to me, the most important thing. The conference involvement has been tremendous. If they did not embrace the idea, we would not have been able to do this."

Selecting umpires for the NCAA clinics was under the purview of each conference. Leagues were asked to fill the available spots, and the NCAA intentionally did not give guidelines on what type of umpire should fill the spots.

"Coordinators could send whomever they felt were their best umpires, or the umpires they feel need more feedback and training," Yeast said. "We felt like it was best not to give any parameters or preconceptions."

Most conferences sent umpires who had a few years of experience but hadn't broken through and worked the Division I championship. For example, at the Phoenix camp, only one umpire of the 12 had experience in the tournament.

"But some of the umpires we saw are certainly capable of reaching that level," Yeast said. "They just need a little more refining and some points to improve upon. All umpires that step on the field want to be better, no matter what level they have reached. If you're not looking to improve, then you shouldn't be out there."

Making the grade

Before the clinics started, the umpires were asked to set realistic goals for themselves. Some participants just wanted to improve and receive a conference tournament assignment. Others hoped to be considered for the College World Series.

"We had a wide range of attendees, from those who have worked the Division I championship in the past, to umpires who are new to the college game," Yeast said. "I think the mix was great at all three clinics, and we really saw the camaraderie build among umpires in a short period of time. They all learned something from one another."

Part of the feedback the participants received was a frank, honest assessment of things the umpire did well -- and things they didn't. The final grade, so to speak, is the level that the evaluator would consider the umpire for assignment. For example, one grade might be: "Division I Super Regional."

That final assessment gives the umpires a decent impression of where they are -- and how much improvement is needed to step up to the next level.

"I think it is an honest and open process," Burleson said. "We give feedback that I wish I would have received many years ago. I think the end result is that the umpires have improved and have plenty of things they can improve upon, while also showing them the things they're doing very well."

Yeast and the NCAA hope to build on the success of these clinics and improve next year's camps. The positive feedback and genuine appreciation from the umpires involved is encouraging.

"If we've made a few umpires better and renewed their enjoyment of the game, then we've done our job," he said.