How about an opinion:

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

A peer review system is possibly even worse. The pettiness and jealousy involved in this kind of system kills any chance it has at being effective. If a superior or a small team of superiors is doing the evaluating, then it has a chance of yielding some accurate assessments and helpful results.

Are you implying that evaluators aren't able to be petty or jealous?

[Kevin Finnerty]

... No, I'm not.

But there's just a better chance that a unit's leaders will do what's better for the unit, and a unit's members will more often do what's better for themselves. And by rating a peer highly, an individual's own rating might suffer.

[JRutledge]

Guys,

The system that you are under might be the issue. NO system is ever perfect. But I like our system because it limits the input of coaches and even limits the peer evaluations. You have to do many other things to be successful and if you can work, someone will find you. But the reality is most of us are not honest with themselves about their abilities and cry about evaluations when they do not get where they want to. Someone is always going to have some say and someone is can is always going to decide who should or should not get opportunities. Work within your system and get over it.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

A peer review system is possibly even worse. The pettiness and jealousy involved in this kind of system kills any chance it has at being effective. If a superior or a small team of superiors is doing the evaluating, then it has a chance of yielding some accurate assessments and helpful results.

And that's not just in the umpire fraternity; peer reviews are similarly ineffective most everywhere else they're tried. It's the easy way out for an organization that doesn't want to take the time or make the effort at properly training and evaluating its employees.

Is it really? If you work a lot of games and you are evaluated fairly by most of the people you work with (assuming you're in the same peer group as your partner), you can dismiss the statistical outliers. If you're not in the same peer group as your partner, then the system can eliminate that evaluation completely -- and transparently, if the assignor or state association wishes.

Here, with coaches, they really aren't required to submit a rating. Some take the process seriously, others only rate when they want to "get even" with an official. I've never had a sport (other than football) in any season where more than 50% of the coaches even bothered submitting a rating.

In an association, peer evaluation can be made as a requirement (do it, or don't get paid). While some people will downgrade others to boost their own rankings and others will collude with regular partners to boost each other, those things can be easily spotted by those that look at the numbers.

It's better than a system where coach who gets ejected has the right to rate an umpire who's just doing his job.

[Blindguy]

We are still speaking about how to rate officials, rather than how to enhance officiating. Tee started this thread because, I believe, he has just entered the coaching ranks. I would be interested in Tee's opinion; on if he believes coach's ratings enhance officiating.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by Blindguy

We are still speaking about how to rate officials, rather than how to enhance officiating. Tee started this thread because, I believe, he has just entered the coaching ranks. I would be interested in Tee's opinion; on if he believes coach's ratings enhance officiating.

Well...it's kind of a loaded question if Tee would be doing the ratings. Personally, I'd welcome a rating/evaluation from Tee...he could rip me apart and really help me improve versus getting the screws on a rating because of an ejection, one bang/bang call that could've gone either way, etc...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Blindguy

We are still speaking about how to rate officials, rather than how to enhance officiating. Tee started this thread because, I believe, he has just entered the coaching ranks. I would be interested in Tee's opinion; on if he believes coach's ratings enhance officiating.

Evaluations should always be done by people that know the "business" in some capacity. Ratings are always going to be done to help choose who works playoffs or certain levels. They work if you use them correctly and will not work if you do not.

Peace

[HokieUmp]

Originally Posted by Blindguy

Tee started this thread because, I believe, he has just entered the coaching ranks.

Actually, given his silence 6-7 pages later, Tee started this thread to get us all to turn on each other, while he laughs maniacally from the keep of his castle overlooking [some body of water in Oregon*]. With thunder and lightening ominously in the background. While twirling the ends of his mustache**.

Or something.

*I don't know geography outside the Eastern US.
**Mustache optional.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by HokieUmp

*I don't know geography outside the Eastern US.

You do at least know Oregon is bordered by the Pacific Ocean, right? As far as castles, I'm not sure.

[HokieUmp]

Originally Posted by yawetag

You do at least know Oregon is bordered by the Pacific Ocean, right? As far as castles, I'm not sure.

Sure, I knew about the Pacific Ocean, but I wasn't going to be so bold as to predict Tee's Castle O' Doom* would be THAT grandiose!

*trademark pending

[Tim C]

Why does there need to be some type of nefarious reason for the OP.

I thought it was a rather mudane topic that would roll over and die quickly.

I did have a reason for asking the question:

I am currently writing an article for the NFHS publication High School Today that deals directly with this issue.

Nationally more and more coaches, at the high school level, get fired for their win/loss record. Many times these same coaches complain that their loss of employment was due to poor officials (something that they have no control over).

I wanted to get the feeling of officials. I have already talked to several assigners, several athletic directors, a number of coaches and many school board members. This was just the best way that I could get a good cross section of the people I respect: the officials that put their butts on the line for very poor wages.

T

[LMan]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

It's better than a system where coach who gets ejected has the right to rate an umpire who's just doing his job.

Yep. That's like having felons' evals be part of a cop's appraisal.

[JRutledge]

T,

There was nothing wrong with your question. I am on the committee for an Official's Conference that is run every July and the main topic of conversation with officials are ratings and how it affects them personally. And we even invite other association members to attend from other states and the conversation always seems to come back to how officials are assigned games and how their ratings/evaluations factor.

That is the problem with the internet and these sites. People always want to find the conspiracy in whatever someone brings up a topic.

Peace

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Nationally more and more coaches, at the high school level, get fired for their win/loss record. Many times these same coaches complain that their loss of employment was due to poor officials (something that they have no control over).

Any coach who blames his record on officiating should be fired just for that. Bad officiating doesn't even cost you a whole game, much less a season.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Nationally more and more coaches, at the high school level, get fired for their win/loss record. Many times these same coaches complain that their loss of employment was due to poor officials (something that they have no control over).

T

Fired coaches want to blame officials?

Most often, the teams that took first and second in the league had the same officials as the team who finished last.

What a crock.