Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RichMSN
Those who talk like the OP tend to forget the basic economic principle of supply and demand.
At the amateur level, despite the "great pay," there is a great shortage of officials across all sports. If there wasn't a short supply, those who simply "draw breath" wouldn't get to work or would work less games. In good associations, top umpires work the top games. In places where officials contract directly with schools or league commissioners, it becomes a "fill the spot" kind of game and anyone can work just about any game...
...Would certification give us better umpires? I don't know. It would have to be meaningful, not just some hoops people jump through just to get a star in a box on an Excel spreadsheet.
|
One thing people tend to forget (even those with basic training in economics) is that "shortage" is an economic term, and it is something that occurs at a given price level.
Rich, I think (I don't KNOW) certification would provide better umpires. The flip side of the coin is there would be fewer of them. Many officials who see their schedules downgraded (due to their relative standing in a certification environment) would quit. I know I would. I don't think it would happen to me, but if at this point in my career the coaches and eavluators think I'm worse than 4 of 5 umpires they see (per the system below), either they'd be right and I'd need to quit, or they'd be wrong and I'd want to quit. Umpiring's fun, but not that fun.
An idea I proposed several years ago that was shouted down--literally-- was to rate the umpires at three levels, paying the middle level a standard rate, the lowest level 80% of standard, and the highest level 120% of standard. Sort of a master/journeyman/apprentice system. It was to be a 20/60/20 split of the umpires tested. The home teams were to decide what level umpire they wanted that day. If the level they wanted was not available (e.g., demand for top-rated umpires or bottom-rated umpires exceeded supply on a given day) they paid the standard rate for whoever they ended up getting, because likely it was going to be a mid-level umpire being moved up or down.
The biggest complaint was among the top umpires, who protested the schools would "game" the system by never requesting the highest level. That could have been remedied by requiring the schools to request the game officials based on the same split (i.e., highest level for 20% of their dates and lowest level for 20%), but as soon as folks become emotional, logic seldom carries the day.
The second-biggest complainers were those at the bottom, who complained that they could grade out at 95%, and if 80% of the umpires graded higher than that, they'd be in the lowest tier. I said, "Yeah, so what?" The guys in the middle said, "If we're at the bottom of the middle (75th-80th percentile) and the lower guys quit, we could be pushed down into the lowest tier." I said, "Yeah, so what?" My position was that if you wanted to be PAID better than your peers, you had to BE better than your peers.
The masses are seldom in favor of merit pay. Even those that stand to benefit seem to prefer tranquility and egalitarianism over conflict and meritocracy.