Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BillyMac
Within each level (junior varsity, "split", full varsity) there are rankings that determine the number of games that you will be assigned. A junior varsity official may receive anywhere from 6 to 27 games a season depending on their ranking. A "split" official may receive anywhere from 14 to 22 junior varsity games, and from 4 to 12 varsity games a season depending on their ranking. A full varsity official may receive anywhere from 8 to 43 varsity games a season depending on their ranking.
Rankings are determined mainly by peer ratings. Rankings also depend, in a smaller part, on refresher exam scores, attendance at meetings, and availability to officiate.
Our former assigner used to say that a varsity official on our local board is not like a Supreme Court Justice or the Pope. Varsity officials are not varsity officials for life. They must prove their worth every season, or low peer ratings will lead to low rankings, which may lead to a lower level assigned schedule.
|
Well at least there seems to be a mechanism in place for quality control among the veterans, but if that's the case, why not put something in place that allows up and coming officials to work-in? If you are already ranking officials, why not just do away with the illogical, predefined "seniority" categories and just rank or categorize officials based on ability? Experience can certainly be taken into account here, as well as by the assignor. Seems to me like you have bureaucratically imposed glass ceilings, your best JV official might in reality rank in the top 25 overall officials, but it will still be no less than 4 years before he gets a full varsity schedule. That makes no sense.
While I'm at it, why would someone classified as a "full varsity official" only get 8 games??? If their ranking is that bad, why not lower their status? I still don't get this system, and in an era where there is a shortage of officials, why would you put in place a system that doesn't reward achievement?