|
It is true that no rating system is perfect. In an ideal world there would be no rating systems and it would be all evaluation-based, but the nature of high school basketball is that there are too many officials, too many schools, and not enough money to send an observer to every game. So in order for there to be at least some attempt at objectivity, that's where rating systems come in.
You could live in South Carolina, where your on-court ability means (literally) nothing for advancement.
25% statewide exam score (closed book, everyone takes in Columbia)
25% peer ratings
25% experience points (5% per year until maxed out after 5 years)
20% administrative (combination of meeting attendance, clinic participation, camp once every three years)
5% cooperation (lose points for turnbacks, etc.)
Most officials, in my experience, don't take the peer ratings seriously (we rate 1-10 in six different categories) and will give every partner a 9 or 10. Most officials receive all the other 50 points. What that leads to is the fact that the statewide exam is basically what determines your position in the rankings. An exam, not your on-court ability, determines where you're ranked as an official.
All varsity games, regular season and postseason, statewide are assigned centrally using the ranking list computed by this formula. There are officials at the top who have no business calling a varsity game and officials in the middle of the pack who are good enough to work state finals. Typically that's because the former group consists of good test-takers and officials whose only redeeming quality is knowing the rules really well.
All this to say, trust me when I say that every system has its flaws.
|