|
Well, let's put it this way--I've been doing this for 32 years, since the early 1990s at the NCAA level. I've witnessed a lot of things on and off the field. Because I have not umpired consistently in other parts of the country, I personally can't compare this area's umpiring politics to other areas. The persons to whom I have alluded seem to have had experience in this area as well as others. Those who have not know major assignors or other persons in this area and have heard many accounts of what goes on in this area.
I assign games myself and work for 5 other assignors as well during the course of the year. Most of us NCAA guys do the same, so we have experiences with multiple assignors. I often am party to many umpires who have shared with me their frustration over things their assignors have done. Some umpires probably shouldn't complain, as they tend to think they're much better than they really are, but others have, in my opinion, legitimate beefs. I hear a lot of what goes on and just shake my head. For one thing, I'm amazed by how many officials here think of umpiring as a zero sum game; that is, if John Doe is getting a plumb assignment, then it must be at the expense of James Smith. In addition, too many guys here don't compliment those who succeed. Instead, they find it better to talk not about how good a certain umpire is but how bad he is or how he has this or that problem; and they often say this to assignors to get that guy to look bad in an assignor's eyes. Too many are way too worried about others rather than themselves.
I'm not naive to think that politics doesn't play a role in a lot of things in life, and I'm sure there's some of it in a lot of areas of the country involving umpiring, but around here, it seems rampant. There's a lot more than just these menial examples I've given, but time and space don't permit me to elaborate.
|