Quote:
Originally Posted by CJP
I think a good way to chose post season officials is to do it while all stakeholders are sitting at the same table. AD's and coaches can all sit in the same room and pick from the pool of available officials. Coaches or AD's can nominate who they feel are the best and any objections should be discussed. The minutes of that meeting should be made available to the officials. Objections should be noted in detail so the official can use the feedback to get better.
I think doing it in a open forum will eliminate some of the politics.
Evaluations from coaches are not a bad thing but I would not allow them in the decision process to chose post season assignments. I would welcome feedback anyway I can get it.
|
I do not mind getting ratings from coaches, but not an evaluation. They know nothing or not enough about officiating as much as I or most of us would know little to nothing about actual coaching. We know coaches do not like officials for some silly reason or for following the rules, so why would I want to know what a coach thinks of me that I have little or no respect for?
And your suggestion would still be political. It would make people realize who does not like them either way and likely be seen as held against one or the other. Then if we had a coach that was on the record not valuing our ability, then anything we did with them moving forward would be held against us even if we did not really care or pay attention. There is a reason politicians have closed-door meetings about policy. The public knowing how the sausage is made only would cause a problem in many cases for the person making the comments or the result to be accepted.
Ratings are fine but do not tell me that a coach knows when I should rotate or who actually should have made a call or not. They often think we are all looking at the same play when we clearly are not.
Peace