End of JEAPU?
 

Probably.

How many are likely to pay the freight if there is NO chance of being selected for PBUC?

Not discounting nefarious motives at the MiLB & PBUC levels, now that they have their own, competing, school: Evan's apparent cluelessness about what his employees did wrong is just sad.

Over reach by MiLB. Dealing with the instructors, who also happen to be MiLB umpires, is justified; handing out the death penalty to the school is not.

Seems obvious that ulterior motives are at play, and with a contract, Jim is probably done. Harry's is next.

Still, if this KKK stuff did happen, it was just plain stupid.

A good friend just finished The Umpire School and was asked to attend PBUC. He told me the stats from his and the other schools the morning he finished and I was floored. 14 of the 30 students were asked to PBUC Eval! I may be mistaken but I believe that PBUC Eval takes 36 candidates. If so, Wendlestedt sent 14 (from 120) and JEA would have just 8. Any one else here these numbers?

Those numbers are incorrect.

Did you read the article? It's not quite what you think, and in my opinion doesn't warrant the punishment.

Given what actually happened Jim's low-key response actually makes more sense. I don't think he saw the sh*tstorm that was coming.

Did you read my post? I'll repeat it:

If this KKK stuff did happen, it was just plain stupid.

Oh, so you read the story and didn't understand it. Got it. Thanks. :)

No. Stop being such a child and assuming that which was never stated or even implied. Go back and read my original comment.

Stop being such a child and calling names. Go back and read the story, which answers your original comment.

Look, since you're being such an ignorant juvenile here, I'll spell it out more clearly so you can understand:

• I made NO reference to the punishment.
• I made no comments alluding to Jim's actions or comments.
• My original comment was specifically and singularly directed at the actions of those who MAY (that's the word "if" means in the English language) have dressed up as KKK look-a-likes.

So, my original comments stands: If they did that, it was stupid. Stop ASSuming that which was not stated or implied.

I read it.

I am certain that the outcome is not punishment, it's pretext: for something Professional Baseball was looking to do anyway.

I agree that Evans didn't see the sh*tstorm coming. Like I said previously, that is both clueless and sad.

Guys prancing around in [even fake-/ pseudo-/ mock-] "KKK" outfits, complete w/ pointy hats in the South [which I am a proud part of] and in front of "the lone black employee" can NEVER be "all in good fun" / "a bad joke never meant to hurt anyone". You have to have been living under one hell of a rock for the last 40 years not to get that.

That's the only thin on which I had commented--the actions by the guys donning the KKK-like outfits. If they did that, it was just plain stupid. However, some genius here began childishly railing on me for things into which I didn't even delve.

Agreed. I'm simply commenting that the connection between Klein's T-shirts (not mock KKK outfits) and the Klan was probably a secondary thing (Klein is Jewish, after all). The hats probably lasted 30 seconds. Long enough for a photo.

Once the connection was made, all concerned should have fled from it rather than chuckling. And when it hit the media, you go into full retraction and apology mode, not defensiveness. "That's not what happened" isn't cutting it.

The umpire I spoke to just finished The Umpire School. He cited 30 students and 14 who were invited to attend PBUC Evaluations. Their Facebook page quotes the same number.

The Wendlestedt School forum states that they placed 14 in PBUC Eval as well.

Please elaborate.

They were incorrect when compared to the numbers indicated in the aforementioned NYT article.

Fine. I was told a firsthand account of The Umpire School saga. I am proud of my friend's achievement and opportunity. He told of 14 students from his class of 30 being chosen. The Wendelstedt forum features some gripes about them also getting 14 out of 120. If Jim Evans' school also produced 14 from 117, those young men are also to be congratulated.

My friend said that PBUC anticipated having 36 openings. If each school pushes 14 to eval, there will be 6 who will leave unhappy, it seems. If they have more than 36 assignments, good for them. I truly could care less about numbers. I prefer to congratulate those who succeeded and praise The Umpire School for doing, what looks like percentage wise, an incredible job.

What??? How dare you dispute information found in the NYT! After all, it is the source most often cited by our president, the Left, and... :D

I predict a reincarnation: the JEACU.

Evans will use his connection with Dick Runchey to provide college umpires. The five-week school and the Classics will be replaced by twelve week-log clinics given around the country. After a decade-long grandfathering period, only Acad Grads will be eligible to work Omaha.

Then the NCAA will buy it and change the name to Arbiter Umpiring Training Services.

You and/or your friend are mistaken. Evans will also send 14. Percentages has nothing to do with it. Each school was asked for 14 regardless of size of class or past success in training. PBUC has always asked for the same number from each school. They have been careful to not show favoritism, evn though more Evans grads move on to a contract that Wendelstedt....at least in the past 12 or 13 years.


Check out which school the last five umpires promoted to MLB attended. Check out how many current MiLB umpires attended which school.

Not a bad prediction. I've said elsewhere that if he changed it to a two-week class and offered three of them over the 6 weeks, I'd look into going. Getting 5 weeks off at work is impossible; two weeks is doable.

I don't doubt it. What will happen, though, to all those MiLB Umpires who quit/are released and find themselves working post-season NCAA? After all, so many of them work the upper echelons of D1.

I envision the NCAA setting some year as a cutoff. After that, they don't care if you're Tony Thompson, Jim Schaly, Jon Bible or Perry Costello--do their training or you can't be considered for post-season play.

I'd be happier if they made the rules test closed-book, and assignors actually used the results as one indicator of who knows WTF they're doing. A vast majority of the people I partner with during the year (I don't work D1) get together and take it as a group. That probably helps explain why I have to bail out so many of them during the year when they screw up rulings.

Well, if they're taking it as a group, it's not that easy, because each person has a different set of questions. What I don't like about the test is its inconsistency or contradictions with what's actually in the book at times. In addition, there are this year numerous typos and even some questions where the answers per the NCAA are completely incorrect.

And this is not coming from someone who has had problems with the exam. I've always passed it, oftentimes with superb scores.

They all print out their questions, exit the exam, and get together to help each other. Then they re-enter and type in their answers after the group meeting. I've been asked to join the group several times, but always decline. Anyone who can't pass it on his own isn't very bright. 80 on an open-book test is a ridiculously low passing score.

And boy, are you right about the NCAA's inability to put out a test where all the "correct" answers are actually correct. While I've seen that in past years, I'm curious: How do you know it's true THIS year when the answers have't been released yet?

On the flip-side, I've seen numerous people in my profession that aced the entrance exam but sucked rocks in doing the job.

Book smart doesn't always equal street smart. To truly see how well they handle the situation, have them do it on the field. You don't have four choices in those situations.

Let's just say one can tell if you read the answers carefully (among other ways one can "know"). Dummy me forgot to print my questions before I submitted the test this year, but there was one question where THE correct answer wasn't present, so I had to choose one of the 4 given, and I did so in mild disgust.

Sounds to me like MiLB found a perfect excuse to cut ties with Evans, something they were probably already looking to do. Same as when a company uses layoffs in a bad economy to cut employees they've wanted to anyways.

A two-week would be amazing and more doable for anybody who entered umpiring outside of their teens or early 20's.

What person with a "real job" can afford to give it all up to attend a 5 week school?

Answer: Not many people who could be very, very good umpires.

And what percentage of those people are going simply to improve their own knowledge and not necessarily to get a job with MiLB?

I'd bet that if Evans ran the classes (even if he had the 5-week one), he'd find it very profitable. Charge $1,000 (or even $1,200 to make a bit more than you would with the 5-week) to be there for the two weeks; make it clear it's not to get a chance for PBUC; and put it after the 5-week classes end. The only issue is the availability of your instructors.

That's true, but it isn't really the flip side. How many people have you seen suck on the test--where it's multiple choice, open book, and unlimited time--then go out on the field and be really good at rules application? For me, the answer is zero.

Some, though, suck at rules but have great judgment, great people skills, great presence, and handle situations fabulously. Arguably, those are better umpires than those with superior rules knowledge but who lack those other characteristics. I'd rather have them as partners, because together, we make a better crew.

I had 6 questions of 60 where the correct answer wasn't obvious. 3 of them were the video questions I got. I scored a 92% (5 incorrect), but I'm curious if I screwed up the questions I got wrong or it's the questions themselves. I'll find out eventually.

I came across 6 questions where numerous typos/wrong runners were referred to, so much so that I had to keep rereading the question to make sure I understood to which runners the question was referring.

I also had 6 like that. I ended up with an 85%, so 9 incorrect. I know one I messed up on (I knew the rule, but when I went to confirm it, I couldn't find the damn thing but one that was contradictory, and, of course, someone coincidentally posted the clause I needed two hours after I submitted it.)

The question that ticked me off the most was the based loaded, home run, R2 misses 3B question, how many runs score? No mention of an appeal, yet later on, we were told to assume a legal appeal was made. How in the hell were we supposed to know that? They make it impossible to do the test individually and get 100. There is no way.

I took the NFHS Part I right after this and scored 100. Now, I think the NCAA test, in theory, could be better. The idea of having video plays is great, but the questions that go with the video must be clearer, IMO. And some of the questions are simply written poorly. There must be someone better equipped to write the questions.

I believe I got lucky in that fewer of the questions I got were completely unworkable. In the end I had 3 that I just guessed on and figured if I didn't score 80 I'd go back again.

Back to the topic:

I have been fortunate enough to go to several weekend clinics that Evans and his staff put on. Great instruction, great teaching.

The one thing I, as a 30+ year old (at the time) corporate drone thought was that the instructors seemed rough around the edges and would be an HR person's nightmare. They always mentioned that at the school that the evaluation of a person included off-the-field behavior and started when the students were picked up at the airport. Sounds like the employees of the school didn't practice what they preached.

I may just be a Charlie, but I work 3 sports and we follow certain rules about eating and drinking in public because there's a chance people will recognize us from a game or from our officiating role and we don't want the perception of us tarnished by our public behavior.

This may just have been pretext to get rid of Jim in favor of TUS, but this is a multi-billion dollar company (MLB with MiLB) who decided to cut ties with a small vendor who provided a limited service because they did something that ended up painting them with the same brush in places like the NYT and Deadspin. The school provides a dozen employees for MiLB (this year's estimate). If you remove the particulars of who it is and who it involves, would this be a surprising decision?

Who told you that? I had two such questions on my test, and did NOT assume an appeal (there was a thrid such question, and that one did indicate an appeal, so the answer was easy).

I agree with that thought but I'm also thinking;

"What person with a wife can give up two weeks to go to umpire school and still have a wife when they get back."

I could. I travel to umpire all the time.

An individual who helped author the test. I will not post the name on here since who (other than his credentials) it is irrelevant.

We had the same two questions then...the video one where the runner doesn't retouch 3B which stated the defense properly appealed, then the other one that I posted above. Out of protest, even though I got "the tip" I answered four runs scored because w/o that tip, there's no way anybody puts "zero runs score"

I would be able to do it as probably a one time thing or every few years...my wife knows how important umpiring is to me so she would let me do it. YMMV

I assumed an appeal, just because I thought they would want us to. That flies in the face of a proper interpretation of the question, though.

I'm curious to see what the correct answer will be on this one:<i>

R2, R3, two outs. B1 smashes a drive into left field, and the ball bounces over the fence in fair territory. Both R2 and R3 are awarded home and B1 is awarded second. R3 touches the plate, then R2 touches the plate. The third-base coach yells for R2 to return and touch third since he had missed the bag on his way home. R2 retraces his steps by touching the plate, then going back to touch third; then, once again, coming back to touch home. When the umpire puts the ball into play, the third baseman calls for the ball and appeals that R2 had missed third on his first attempt. The umpire agrees and calls R2 out.

a.R2 is out and R3 scores.

b.R2 is out and R3's run is disallowed.

c.R3 and R2 both score. No out can be awarded since a legal appeal may not be made if the offensive team has drawn attention to any infraction by one of their runners.

d.No out is awarded. R3 and R2 score since R2 retraced his steps properly. This illustrates the "last time by" rule. </i>

Even though R2's retouch is illegal, I'm betting 'd' will be listed as the proper response.

If his retouch is illegal then why would 'd' be right. Illegal touch, he's out R3 scores. 'a' It is an illegal retouch since he touched home ofter the ball had become dead.

It wouldn't be, but I won't be surprised if the test writers overlooked that fact in trying to illustrate 'last time by.'

Maybe they didn't, but that's exactly the sort of mistake they've made in years past, so if they did, it won't surprise me.

No doubt.

Two weeks? Easy. Five weeks? Impossible.

Thanks -- that's all I needed. I wasn't really asking for the name.

I can only hope they go back and give credit for either answer, or drop the question, or ....

I had that same question, and I assumed there was an appeal, probably because I definitely remember there were two immediately preceding questions that dealt with appeals, so my mind was in this appeal mode, so to speak. With two questions in a row about runners missing bases on appeals, this bases loaded/runner misses his next base question seemed to fit the pattern of the previous two questions.

I guess I'm one of the lucky one's. Maybe the wife likes me out of the house. Logged 16,324 miles last year.

I should rephrase. My wife would probably allow me to go away for 5 weeks. My bank account and job, though, wouldn't.

That will never happen until the good ol' boy club goes the way of the dodo.

You either haven't been married long enough nor have had enough marriages.

In less than a month, it'll be 10 years with the same woman.

If you're suggesting I can't be away due to lonliness issues, that's definitely not the issue. :)

Or you married the wrong woman. Two weeks for something like this would not be an issue for me either. Everybody is different though. We can't paint with a very broad brush on an issue like this.

OK, enough of the wifey talk. ;)

Everyone is not married and everyone does not have the same profession either. I would suspect that people's jobs, careers or business could not take them away for that period of time than a marriage. I know officials that have these problems just by doing a couple of sports, not just being away for weeks at a time out of town. It also does not help that the benefit of potential income in the immediate future is lacking big time if you become a Minor League Umpire. I am sure there are many reasons people find other things to do with their time for those 5 weeks.

Peace

We need a headslap smiley.

I felt that Matt.

Never heard that from any of my wives...

If you had maybe they would be OK with you being gone longer. ;)

Peace

I went with 'a' as well. I trusted them to get the illegal touch right, and this play doesn't illustrate the "last time by" concept.

I'll bet that's a huge shock to the 51% of married couples in this country.

It might be when you make a claim that the reason someone does not do something in a profession is because of their wife. ;)

Peace

What about the other 49% of married couples?

We have friends that aren't married.

Who said anything about unmarried people? He said 51% of married couples, I'm asking about the other 49% of married couples. :)

They're unhappily married. :rolleyes:

Well considering that more people get divorce after being married, that might be the other way around. ;)

Peace

My supposition is that marriage is the leading cause of divorce

For the record, as much as I normally agree with you and disagree with 25 - you are wrong on this one. If the actions happened as stated in the article, then the people who dressed like that acted stupidly. You may disagree, but your disagreement doesn't mean 25 doesn't understand the story.

Not my point. The story offers few details, and not enough to support the inflammatory headline. I'm not defending anybody.

Wrong again. The headline is not inflammatory, nor is it unsupported.

How was the headline inflammatory? I though it was pretty tame considering what the article actually referenced in the article.

Peace

do you ever think they put some of those answers doen to mess with people heads and to see what they will answer.. the purpose of the test is to get your head in the book.. I scored very well.. then helped a guy get a 100%.. so the test is not rocket science .. yes it could have been written better.

It literally takes me less time to take the MMPI than a FED test.

FED test took me less time than last year. There were two or three dumb questions.

What was the purpose of the "positions of the pitcher and catcher" question?

How did you pull this one off? It's not available yet through MSHSL.

Matt, check your PM's

The .pdf test is on the mshsl website.