Wanted, Reward, Dead Or Alive ...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SC Official

In South Carolina you get five "experience points" in your rating for each of your first five years of experience until you reach the full 25 points. And until a couple years ago, it was seven years until you got full experience credit. The current system is such that an official likely won't sniff a varsity game until at least his/her fourth year, and even that might be too optimistic. And all that is assuming the official performs well on the statewide exam. District directors can "accelerate" an official's experience but it's not done that often.

That sounds about right. I've rarely seen a person that is ready for varsity in much less than that. Many think they are, but they're mistaken. There are, of course, exceptions, but they are just that exceptions.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Do you have trouble "keeping" officials, or do they get impatient and move on?

Just depends on the area. We're certainly an "old" state overall and the shortage talk has come up, but the way varsity games are assigned prevents it from being too much of an issue as it relates to simply covering the games.

I know more than one official who got hired for college ball before getting his first varsity assignment. Say what you want, but in my state if you're competent enough for that level, there's no reason you can't handle a high school varsity game. I bet over half of the officials getting full varsity schedules statewide wouldn't get hired by a college assigner, if you just look at ability.

I haven't heard of a young official getting impatient and just quitting, but a lot of the college students end up moving out of state for their real jobs, or just deciding they don't like officiating. Thing is, most young officials getting into college ball don't have the luxury of just quitting high school altogether if they want a full schedule.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That sounds about right. I've rarely seen a person that is ready for varsity in much less than that. Many think they are, but they're mistaken. There are, of course, exceptions, but they are just that exceptions.

I'm torn. I understand "paying your dues" but think that has to be balanced with getting officials on varsity games when they are ready, if you really want to keep them and aren't just paying lip service. When 30-year veterans that haven't improved since their third year talk about how they've "earned" the right to work big games, that's an issue and discourages young officials who, quite frankly, are better. At the same time, I don't agree with pushing out the veterans who are competent and respected to make room for the "new generation."

So, somewhere there's a sweet spot but I'm not sure where that is. I think five years is too long as a general rule. I think being varsity-eligible in one's third year would be a good solution; if someone isn't ready then don't use him/her, but don't hold back the officials who are getting college schedules after two years (as I have seen).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SC Official

I haven't heard of a young official getting impatient and just quitting, but a lot of the college students end up moving out of state for their real jobs, or just deciding they don't like officiating.

People moving shouldn't be an issue since people move both ways. In general, for every person moving out, someone moves in.

Originally Posted by SC Official

I'm torn. I understand "paying your dues" but think that has to be balanced with getting officials on varsity games when they are ready, if you really want to keep them and aren't just paying lip service. When 30-year veterans that haven't improved since their third year talk about how they've "earned" the right to work big games, that's an issue and discourages young officials who, quite frankly, are better. At the same time, I don't agree with pushing out the veterans who are competent and respected to make room for the "new generation."

So, somewhere there's a sweet spot but I'm not sure where that is. I think five years is too long as a general rule. I think being varsity-eligible in one's third year would be a good solution; if someone isn't ready then don't use him/her, but don't hold back the officials who are getting college schedules after two years (as I have seen).

Think about the effect of having a pipeline to put most new officials on varsity games in <5 years. To make room for them, you have to push people out the other end (those would mostly quit rather than step back to JV). Then, when the next generation of new officials wants those varsity games, you'll have to push the last group of "new" officials out too. You'll effectively force careers to be no more than about 10 years and will need an entirely new set of officials every 4-5 years. With as shorthanded as many groups are, you really can't afford to do things that reduce your numbers. You have to keep the older generation in just to cover your games. It is a balancing act. It is more of a problem with the younger generation expecting to shoot to the top fast. It isn't unique to officiating, it is a problem everywhere.

[JRutledge]

I went to a camp on the East Coast for a college assignor and I was the oldest official when it came to years of experience. Most officials there had been officiating under 5 years and had college assignments. So we are either going to have to face the reality that some people progress faster or live in the world thinking it takes everyone more years than we once thought to get to those opportunities. All I am saying is be very careful what we assume as we move forward. There are more resources available for officials now than there was when many of us started. That does not mean that there are some unrealistic officials out there both newer and older. But some arbitrary year of experience for varsity is silly. I worked with a guy this year at a camp that was his first college camp and he was better than 90 percent of the guys I have worked with over the last 5 years. Now his downfall might be his youthful look and dealing with certain situations, but there are officials that have 15 years or more experience and are not as competent to deal with similar situations.

Peace

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Think about the effect of having a pipeline to put most new officials on varsity games in <5 years. To make room for them, you have to push people out the other end (those would mostly quit rather than step back to JV). Then, when the next generation of new officials wants those varsity games, you'll have to push the last group of "new" officials out too. You'll effectively force careers to be no more than about 10 years and will need an entirely new set of officials every 4-5 years. With as shorthanded as many groups are, you really can't afford to do things that reduce your numbers. You have to keep the older generation in just to cover your games. It is a balancing act. It is more of a problem with the younger generation expecting to shoot to the top fast. It isn't unique to officiating, it is a problem everywhere.

Well, both our perspectives are good arguments for why mandatory experience requirements are dumb. In a perfect world, assigners should be able to use their discretion to decide when officials are (not) ready for varsity, or whether certain officials need to move down or move on. Every situation is unique.

It would never work in my state. The rating structure is too ingrained in the culture.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I went to a camp on the East Coast for a college assignor and I was the oldest official when it came to years of experience. Most officials there had been officiating under 5 years and had college assignments. So we are either going to have to face the reality that some people progress faster or live in the world thinking it takes everyone more years than we once thought to get to those opportunities. All I am saying is be very careful what we assume as we move forward. There are more resources available for officials now than there was when many of us started. That does not mean that there are some unrealistic officials out there both newer and older. But some arbitrary year of experience for varsity is silly. I worked with a guy this year at a camp that was his first college camp and he was better than 90 percent of the guys I have worked with over the last 5 years. Now his downfall might be his youthful look and dealing with certain situations, but there are officials that have 15 years or more experience and are not as competent to deal with similar situations.

I'm with you. Ideally there shouldn't be any "mandatory" experience years and it should be up to the assigner to use whatever criteria (s)he values (like college officiating). One-size-fits-all policies just don't work. But unfortunately with states/associations that have rating structures like mine, experience requirements are unlikely to go away.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

I'm with you. Ideally there shouldn't be any "mandatory" experience years and it should be up to the assigner to use whatever criteria (s)he values (like college officiating). One-size-fits-all policies just don't work. But unfortunately with states/associations that have rating structures like mine, experience requirements are unlikely to go away.

We have a structure too. My point was that we are going to structure ourselves out of having officials to cover games and keeping officials. Or what should be the most important thing, get the very best on the games regardless of who they are or where they might come from. Now here any assignor or conference can hire anyone they want that is licensed. They do not have to use any criteria officials to hire someone for any level game. But for the playoffs we have a structure where the longer you have been in the game, they hire those with certain experience criteria. I do not have an issue with that policy to some extent, but waiting for people to get 20 years in before you assign them major tournament games should not be a standard. Telling official that they should only work so many state finals and now we move on from you is not the best way to have the best officials in the most high profile situations. Standards are great, but let us not have standards that automatically make the deck stacked against some people when they might be the most talented.

Peace

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

We have a structure too...

The difference between your rating structure and ours is that ours impacts regular season and postseason assignments.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I've rarely seen a person that is ready for varsity in much less than that. Many think they are, but they're mistaken. There are, of course, exceptions, but they are just that exceptions.

One big exception is the "new" guy who is only new to the association (transfer) because he moved from another association. Locally, it used to be that such a guy, if he was not affiliated with IAABO in his previous association, would have to start at the bottom, waiting seven years to get full varsity schedule, even if he worked a state final while with his previous non-IAABO association. That can't happen now because now we use trained observers to place officials at the appropriate level.

I'm pretty sure that Camron Rust was referring to the first few years of a true rookie. He's right that experience is important, but sometimes somebody comes along who's just seems ready for the big time. Played in high school, and/or college. Coached at the interscholastic level (we have several guys who switched from coaching to officiating). Got their pizza money in college officiating basketball intramurals. Officiated other interscholastic sports (it's all about game management). Guys with some of these credentials on their resume may be able to "move up the chart with a bullet".