http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/colu...php?ntid=70817

I have my opinions, but for once am just going to keep my mouth shut.

Crazy
 

I think scheduling officails two and three years out is crazy! It also can cause serious problems.

Scheduling far in advance is common in the smaller schools in my area. Everybody wants to work in the 4A conferences, so the little guys feel like they have to lock officials up in advance. I have a Varsity contract right now for December of 2008. I worked at a school last month where the AD told me he was trying to book his 08-09 season. So it can be tough to get varsity games. If you were to start trying right now, you may not find anything available until 07-08 at the earliest. The 4A conference here hasn't even put out availability sheets yet for next season, but again, they have no trouble finding guys who want to work for them.

I'm with you Rich! What a CROCK!

What's a crock? The article; or the practice of assigning games 3 years in advance?

In SW Ohio for the most part we are being assigned now for next year. In most cases, its just holding dates. In some cases, its committing to actual games already. Depends on how organized the league is.

A couple leagues are taking some Friday dates for 2007/2008 but usually just from the top dogs.

IMO, there are several points in the article that are a "Crock!": 1) scheduling 2-3 yrs out; 2) the fact that Wisconsin doesn't use 3-person crews yet; 3) the mindset that losing coaches will evaulate an official unfavorably based on the outcome of the game (in Illinois that effect has been shown to be statistically insignificant); and 4) the typical mindset that third official will not add to the quality of the officiating.

I'll keep my mouth shut too.

BOTH!

One thing I don't understand is how an official could agree to take a specific game 2,3,4 years in advance, let alone how one can actually be assigned. Personally, I don't know where in my life I will be 2 years from now, what may come up professionally and personally. What if I get injured the day before the game, do I feel an extra obligation to work it injured because I committed to the game 3 years ago?!? From an assignor's perspective, you can't know for a fact who the top officials will be 3 years from now, nor do you even know what type of matchup you'll have and it becomes impossible to match a crew to a game. Do you put an "A" crew on a game between two top teams now, only to find 3 years later they're both rebuilding? What about top officials who move to the area or up and comers? I wonder how many turnbacks there are... This whole system in my opinion is a joke and it does a disservice not just to the officials, but to the teams as well.

First of all any of us will work whatever system we have to if we want to officiate. So officials take games in this system I am sure no different than any other system. I do not see what that would be difficult to understand. If you love officiating, you will take games within the system you are given. What might happen 3 years from now I would think is a minor issue? I agree that things can change, but if that is how you are going to get a schedule, I will assume most of us will take the games. The part of the equation that should not like the system is the schools if you ask me. The schools are assigning games based on something that might change. They might have a game with an official that is tough and now they are locked into that agreement (with some exceptions of course) for a couple of years.

Now I can tell you I have been given games in this capacity and it is really not that big of a deal. The major difference is not every school was doing this so it did not really matter that much to me as it would an entire state. When I started football officiating this was the process that we had to deal with. It really was not that big of a deal in football because you are only talking about 9 weeks and mostly Fridays. I would see this as a bigger problem in basketball where you have several games in a week and not all games are on the weekend.

Peace

There is no logical reason to schedule that far in advance. There are way to many variables that can change so you will still be making change after change during the current season anyway and for what?

So you can lock up the "top" officials who may not be the "top" dogs next year, much less 3 years from now. It's stupid, it screams of the good old boy system, it discourages promising young officials, it will lead to a lack of mentoring younger officials, and closes the door on worthy officials that move into the area.

I'd love to respond to this and some of the other posts, but I'm keeping my mouth shut.

[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Feb 1st, 2006 at 06:45 PM]

Rich, why won't you respond? Do you work in an area that assigns far in advance like this?

On one hand, an AD could use this system to lock up what they consider to be good officials at the time.
On the other hand, those officials might not be the best officials when the games actually are played and it could keep a better/more deserving offial from getting games. I could see this being the cause of officials quitting or only doing college games after moving to a new area.
Like Rut said, we have to work within the system where we live. I'm glad I don't work in an area like this; I don't mind competition but this system doesn't seem to leave room for someone to compete.

I wish our school district could schedule games a year in advance. They don't even finalize their schedule until a couple of days before the season and then change it on a daily basis. This is very unfair to officials as a whole, but different areas do different things. The good old boy system is still alive and well most everywhere.

I live in Madison. The article is posted in my local paper.

This is my 4th season in the area. I've been scheduled for 16, 40, 41, and 42 varsity games (in a state where teams play only 20 games). My first year (2002)I didn't even decide to work basketball until September.

Too many assumptions being made in this article are assumed to be fact.

[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Feb 1st, 2006 at 07:27 PM]

The point isn't can someone get games if they jump through the correct hoops and kiss the right behind, it's is the system flawed?

It is.

Officials move, retire, get injured, and die.

Schools close, change classifications, or change game times and dates.

There is not a logical reason to increase the likelihood of those things happening by setting up a schedule 3 years in advance.

It is an abuse of the power that assignors have, and an abuse of the system to attempt to lock up officials, and it's wrong.

Sure those that live there must play the game to get along, but that does not make it right.



[Edited by blindzebra on Feb 1st, 2006 at 07:33 PM]

But what it does mean is that people shouldn't complain that they "can't get games" when many of those sit by the phone hoping someone will call.

I won't disagree with your comments at all.

Three years ago in my area of WI, I worked a full (for me) schedule of 20-25 Varsity games with approx. 15 different partners. Almost all the games were turned back by others for various reasons (illness, work, etc.)so it's not impossible to get assignments. As Rich alluded to, the phone isn't going to ring all on its own. Officials need to be active in networking thru their "association" to be visible/get noticed. Is that considered butt kissing? I don't know, but that's the way the system is set up here.

If a person can do the job well, I would be stunned if they would completely fall through the cracks. They may not get a bunch of assignments the first year, but it won't take long for them to start coming.

The one thing in the article I do agree with is the lack of mentoring or evaluating of officials. Up here, it's non existent.

How is this system in Wisconsin the "good ole boy network?" I understand that the appearance can give that impression, but why is this any different if they give out games a year in advance? In the area we get games about a year in advance. Guess what, the assignments are given to the people the assignors want to give them to first. Then the rest of the assignments are given to who is available or who is next on the list. It really does not matter if the assignments are done a year in advance or 5 years in advance. I know in the Wisconsin system there has to be some changes or people move up to other levels and might you might still need to fill games that were previously contracted. Hell people change jobs and family situations change, I am sure there are a lot of openings 3 years down the road when availability will change.

Peace

Kiss the right behind? Since when does approaching the assignors, giving them open dates, and telling them of your credentials mean "kissing behind?"

EVERY system is flawed. Very few officials degrade so much in 2 seasons that it affects their work to the point where they can't handle a varsity date.

I travel for my job and I have to turn games back occasionally. Most commissioners understand that this is a flaw of the system and have no problem with this. Some have told me point blank that "work comes first cause you can't feed your family on a $50 game."

I don't want anyone to think I'm defending the system. I'm not. But those who have been here a long time and complain that they can't get games either (1) aren't doing what they need to do to get hired or (2) think they can handle the level, but can't.

Like I said in my original post, I probably should just keep my mouth shut. I get in enough trouble on the floor without running my mouth :)

[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Feb 1st, 2006 at 10:29 PM]

So, you don't worry about taking games from rival assignors, turning back games, feeling obligated to take a game anytime they need somebody, or have it in the back of your mind if whacking a coach or keeping them in their box will effect your schedule if your assignor gets a call?

If they have all that power, you are forced to stay in good graces, in other words pucker up.:)

None of those things enter my mind. I accept games first come, first served. I have games in 2008 and I accept games when they come. When other assignors assign, they get a list of closed dates. There is no rivalry, but some of the more distant conferences assign earlier to entice people to drive.

I take extra games when I can. I say no when I have to.

I whacked 2 coaches in 5 days in January. That's never affected my schedules and I don't expect it to. The only place it really affects you here is during nonconference games assigned by the home school. And I have lost schools for whacking coaches and my attitude has always been that there are more schools than games I can work. I will say it does affect other people who actually give a sh!t.

Step back a second and look at the single assignor model. It's even worse there in some ways, isn't it? You have to stay in that one person's good graces, don't you? Feel obliged to help that one person out? Me, if I did lose an assignor (hasn't happened yet), I'd still have plenty others and I could extend my "willing-to-work" radius farther, if necessary.

I pucker for two people. My wife and my daughter.

Rival assignors? What the hell does that mean?

Peace

If two assignors are both wanting the same officials to work their games, what the hell else would you call them?:rolleyes:

I obviously know what you mean, but I do not think you have the right perspective on the situation.

I personally do not care if an assignor does not like the other or wants me to just work for them over someone else. I am the gatekeeper to my schedule, not the assignors. I work for them when I work for them and when I do not work for them. I work in an assignor system and there really is not that kind of drama going on. I do not know one person that is going to fill my entire schedule and I work for them when I make myself available. I might not make myself available to everyone the same way. So there is no issue with many officials dealing with "rival" assignors. I do not know many assignors that have 45 varsity dates to give anyone. I am lucky to get 4 from assignor.

Peace

Rich....

Thanks for saying what has to be said!

My partners and I were discussing the Hernandez story the other night on our way to our game. We're what the article referred to as "older" officials. We like to be classified as "veteran" or "seasoned" officials. Our "3-Crew", between us have 94 years of service at all levels from pee-wee to college. We work very hard to maintain our fitness level because we know and understand that the game, indeed has gotten faster. None-the-less, we feel very comfortable that we can compete with the best of the crews & teams out there. We are also of the opinion that we will gladly leave the avocation the moment we feel unable to do the job for the players.....isn't that the primary reason for our work?

I'm sure you agree with me, Rich, that "we" are in a generation of people who want the spotlight before earning it with hardwork, commitment and "learning the craft" at the lower levels and eventually moving up. I am also proud to say that I have served as a mentor for several talented young people who have gone on to earn the right to work the State Tournament. That's my thanks.....because I did something that made a difference!

The Hernandez story was so limited on facts and made some really erroneous assumptions and generalities. I know you have worked hard and paid your dues in getting the schedule you have! And that's to your credit. Us "veteran" officials should not be ignored by the "new" thinking that you can climb the ladder without the work! I agree that new officials need more opportunities....but, you need to make those opportunities by developing a good work ethic and committing yourself to getting noticed! Our crew has always been receptive to mentoring young officials into a rotation with us so they can experience the "Games of Consequence"....but, I'll be hell bent to take on someone in our crew who isn't committed to working hard and putting in the time to earn the opportunities that come with their hardwork!


"end of editorial".....now I'll shut up!

Imaref, I think your crew has the right attitude and nobody would be able to argue with what you guys are doing. Have you noticed other crews who aren't taking care of business like yours?

Part of what I failed to mention was that I had 15 years of experience before moving here. That probably greased the skids a bit with the local commissioners. Regardless, I had to make the contact with them.

I've taken on one of the 7-to-10 year officials and have worked a number of games with him the past few seasons, offering him pointers about moving up and being aggressive. Earlier this season, I talked to him and found out he's gotten a regular partner and a 20-game schedule this season. It's about attitude and mindset. You've hit the nail on the head, wl.

Why should veteran officials who work hard be punished? Since when should youth and inexperience trump veteran knowledge and experience?

Everyone is pointing out the person who should pack it in and the person who can't run the floor, but this "movement" is going to catch good, solid, veteran officials.

Why? Because those doing the evaluating during the games (for the most part) have very little idea what makes a good official. Many commissioners are not officials, but principals and athletic directors. Many of the evaluations are coming from coaches and the evaluations vary depending on who won the game.

I have a game tonight. 2-person. Boys varsity. In 2006. It's a sorry state of affairs when a lot of people think that the 3rd official is a waste in a game that is likely to be very fast paced. Unfortunately, I've seen all too frequently that officials are seen as the necessary evil. In other words, they'd hire one if they could get away with it.

I do know officials that have been working less than 10 years that are a lot better than officials that have 15+ years working. Not to say that applies to you, but not all veteran officials are what I would call quality officials. How good someone is can be very subjective.

Peace

It's subjective, so how can you possibly know who's "better"?

Sorry. I know what you mean.

I also know people who have been working 3 years who think they should be working 50 varsity games and the vets are just "old." Few officials are willing to pay ANY dues anymore. It took me a good 6-7 years before I worked a full varsity schedule. I seriously thought I was ready earlier, but I stuck with it regardless.

--Rich

I agree with you on this for the most part. I think a lot of officials use excuses like "old boy network" or "kissing butt" as the reasons they do not achieve and others do achieve. That is the case in your system or my system. I work around assignors that take the word of one coach and do not show tape or but an evaluation that is based on nothing but an opinion. There is a D1 official that moved into our area and the last I heard he cannot get hardly a game or two from assignors that have evidence that he currently works D1 ball. Unfortunately that is how human beings operate.

Peace

It is subjective....just as you say Rich. They say it's objective....but, just look at the tourney assignments. I know this year we were told to show commitment and initiative. We've jumped through all the hoops....I saw you doing the same things. ie: getting certified for NFHS "3-Person" Mechanics....going to camps and clinics....all to meet the criteria of being considered for post season assignments. Hey....look who got the most assignments. The philosophy is changing and it appears earning your stripes means absolutely nothing anymore. Me thinks....like the NCAA....there's a "look" that is more important to the "Powers that Be" than the veteran service record. Because the state association isn't responsible for the training and recruiting of new officials....they have left that up to us and forget to show their appreciation in the long run!

Ahh....I've said too much....I better shut up....I'm done!

You've got my respect, Rich! Take it easy.

imaref, you guys have my respect for dealing with that system, but I don't think the ncaa has a 'look.' Have you seen games on TV lately? The officials are good, I know some of them personally, but there are plenty of officials on TV that do not fit any look. Actually, the JC conference I'm in is the toughest nut to crack, and I'm sick of it because it has nothing to do with officiating!

I understand your opinion regarding NCAA and that's OK.....

I am, however,with you 100% on the JC situation. You are absolutely correct on the "politics" involved here!

"Ahhh....the patient whistle!"

Amen, amen, amen, amen, amen, amen, and amen. Halleluia.

:)

Now I really better bite my tongue...

wl, I know what you mean. I went to camps and worked 12-15 3-person games and worked hard at all my assignments and my playoff assignment total went DOWN this season from last season when I was an L5 (Master this season). I'd like to know why, but you just can't ask. And frankly, I've put too much importance already on things I can't control by caring about this as much as I did at the time. I'm over it.

I don't begrudge those who have worked hard to get their state assignments, Mark, and I know you have put in your dues. All the WI officials that posted here have earned all the respect they get and in many cases more. Coming to Madison again this season, Mark? I may be in town this time.

Furthermore, I've decided to stop evaluating my worth by counting up the playoff assignments and big games in big conferences. I truly have little control over that.

BTW, I had a GREAT game tonight -- Dodgeville/Platteville boys, tied at the end of 3 quarters after Platteville outscored Dodgeville 15-2 in the third. Dodgeville pulled away late, but it was a fun game to work. Great flow, no big game interruptors from us (fouls were 2-2 with 4 minutes left in the fourth quarter after we called a total of 8 in the first half) and the players and coaches were great. I'd rather judge my season on how I felt after working games like that.

--Rich

[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Feb 2nd, 2006 at 11:55 PM]