Post season

[M&M Guy]

The Lodged Ball thread made me think we need to carry on a new topic.

Ok, here's a list of Sweeping Generalizations. Do you agree with any, all, or none of the following?

1. - Officials who work 20 HS games are more qualified to work post-season than those who work the minimum of 10.
2. - Officials who work 40 HS games are more qualified to work post-season than those who work 20.
3. - Officials who work college-level ball should not be allowed to work HS post-season, because they aren't focused on the HS game.
4. - Officials who work college-level ball are more qualified to work HS post-season because they are working at a higher level.
5. - Post-season assignments are a reward to officials for putting in their time during the season.
6. - Only the best officials should work the post-season.
7. - Only the best HS officials should work the post-season.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

The Lodged Ball thread made me think we need to carry on a new topic.

Ok, here's a list of Sweeping Generalizations. Do you agree with any, all, or none of the following?

1. - Officials who work 20 HS games are more qualified to work post-season than those who work the minimum of 10.
2. - Officials who work 40 HS games are more qualified to work post-season than those who work 20.
3. - Officials who work college-level ball should not be allowed to work HS post-season, because they aren't focused on the HS game.
4. - Officials who work college-level ball are more qualified to work HS post-season because they are working at a higher level.
5. - Post-season assignments are a reward to officials for putting in their time during the season.
6. - Only the best officials should work the post-season.
7. - Only the best HS officials should work the post-season.

Are you joking, or serious?

I think post-season refs should be the best of the refs who've been working similar games throughout the season. That seems pretty basic.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

1. - Officials who work 20 HS games are more qualified to work post-season than those who work the minimum of 10.
2. - Officials who work 40 HS games are more qualified to work post-season than those who work 20.

The amount of games you work should have no bearing on working the post season in HS. Maybe there should be a minimum, but after that you should not be in a better position simply because you work a few more games than another guy.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

3. - Officials who work college-level ball should not be allowed to work HS post-season, because they aren't focused on the HS game.

That would be absurd. Many college officials are the better officials. Why? If feel that many college officials usually have more training and go to more camps. Many HS only officials settle (for where they are at this might be a generalization but that is the point of the statement). College officials are always working hard to keep their spot. Of course this does not always apply, but this is what I have witnessed.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

4. - Officials who work college-level ball are more qualified to work HS post-season because they are working at a higher level.

Being a better official and being more qualified can be two different things. At least where I live it seems that most officials that have had some college experience, tend to get more opportunities and in turn get more post season opportunities. I am not talking about all over the state, just in the general vicinity that I currently live.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

5. - Post-season assignments are a reward to officials for putting in their time during the season.

6. - Only the best officials should work the post-season.

7. - Only the best HS officials should work the post-season.

Yes and no. The best officials that are available should work the post season. The problem is not all the best officials make themselves available for HS playoff games. Some do not want to work HS playoffs because they have other obligations and opportunities. For example I know a couple of guys that are very good HS officials, but they work a lot of college ball or even some D1 ball. If I was in that position I would not turn down a D1 opportunity to work a HS post season game. It comes down to whom the assignors has to choose from. If they are available and they are the better officials, someone that has college experience should definitely get a post season shot. After all it is about the kids and they high schools deserve to have the best officials working their games despite how much college they work.

Peace

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Are you joking, or serious?

I think post-season refs should be the best of the refs who've been working similar games throughout the season. That seems pretty basic.

I'm (mostly) serious. This is actually in response to the other thread where this subject was brought up. I have noticed these types of discussions pop up in our association, especially around post-season time. There are the people that say only HS officials who are focused on the HS game should be rewarded with post-season assignments. We have had officials who only work HS boys during the regular season do girls post-season, while many officials that work girls' game during the season don't get any post-season assignments. Is that fair? What if the the officials that were picked are actually the better officials?

I really am curious as to what other people think. Eastshire brought up a point that I think many people share - why should those officials that only do the minimum number of games get to work post-season assignments, while the others that work more often and focus on the HS game get left on the sidelines. Is that fair? Should we care? What should we do about it? What is it like in your area? What about Naomi?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

The Lodged Ball thread made me think we need to carry on a new topic.

Ok, here's a list of Sweeping Generalizations. Do you agree with any, all, or none of the following?

1. - Officials who work 20 HS games are more qualified to work post-season than those who work the minimum of 10.
2. - Officials who work 40 HS games are more qualified to work post-season than those who work 20.
3. - Officials who work college-level ball should not be allowed to work HS post-season, because they aren't focused on the HS game.
4. - Officials who work college-level ball are more qualified to work HS post-season because they are working at a higher level.
5. - Post-season assignments are a reward to officials for putting in their time during the season.
6. - Only the best officials should work the post-season.
7. - Only the best HS officials should work the post-season.

HS playoffs should be worked by the best officials who concentrate on the high school game. So I agree with 7 only actually (which may surprise you).

I disagree with 1 & 2 because quanity does not always equate to quality.

3. Gets a partial agree. The exception I make here is for officials make the initial transition into the college game. An official who still works the majority of games at the HS level should still qualify for the HS playoffs.

4. is an absolute disagree. College ball only or majority officials are less qualified for the HS game because they work a different level which has different expectations on play.

5. Playoffs are awards for excellence in officiating at that level as well as dedication to that level. It takes both.

In short the best officials at that level should have the playoff assignment (with "at that level" meaning majority of work at that level).

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

In short the best officials at that level should have the playoff assignment (with "at that level" meaning majority of work at that level).

So, an official who works 10 HS games and 9 college games would be eligible, but an official who works 10 HS games and 11 college games wouldn't be eligible? I'm just trying to be sure I understand what you are saying.

My take on the orignal questions: An official should be required to work some minimum number of games at that level. The minimum should be roughly the number of games in the season for a team. Officials who work more games at that level should revceive "credit" for that, and this credit should offset some small difference in "quality".

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

4. is an absolute disagree. College ball only or majority officials are less qualified for the HS game because they work a different level which has different expectations on play

What are those expectations? How are those expectations in conflict with doing HS games? If anything game management skills, being consistent and getting calls right sound pretty much an officiating issue across the board. I am not sure how those things are so drastically different from the college game to the HS game.

Do you work any college ball?

Peace

[Kevzebra]

I have a general comment to all of the situations listed. Just because you are primarily a "high school official" or primarily a "college official" should not make you eligible or ineligible for post season play. Being able to work the games that you are given (according to level ect) in that one can evaluate the play at that level is a much better indicator of an official's talent.

Just because one works a certain number of games would not ever qualify them as a good official. One has to be able to stand out and make calls that fit the game and level for that particular situation. I know people that were not working HS varsity games in his/her respective association, but worked small college ball.

In short, ability should win out over everything else. Being able to control the game and let the players decide the outcome is paramount.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

We have had officials who only work HS boys during the regular season do girls post-season, while many officials that work girls' game during the season don't get any post-season assignments.

This is one of my pet peeves. Don't even get me started.

Our association is working on our selection process right now, and it's just plain tough. No matter how you set it up, someone gets screwed. At least it seems that way.

It's especially hard to be objective. I want to go to the post season. I want to see to it that I go. It seems that everyone else does, too.

In theory, I think the best people with recent experience at that level and gender should be the ones that do the post season. That seems the fairest to the players.

[mick]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

The Lodged Ball thread made me think we need to carry on a new topic.

Ok, here's a list of Sweeping Generalizations. Do you agree with any, all, or none of the following?

1. - Officials who work 20 HS games are more qualified to work post-season than those who work the minimum of 10.
2. - Officials who work 40 HS games are more qualified to work post-season than those who work 20.
3. - Officials who work college-level ball should not be allowed to work HS post-season, because they aren't focused on the HS game.
4. - Officials who work college-level ball are more qualified to work HS post-season because they are working at a higher level.
5. - Post-season assignments are a reward to officials for putting in their time during the season.
6. - Only the best officials should work the post-season.
7. - Only the best HS officials should work the post-season.

M&M,
I vote for "none of the following".

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

So, an official who works 10 HS games and 9 college games would be eligible, but an official who works 10 HS games and 11 college games wouldn't be eligible? I'm just trying to be sure I understand what you are saying.

My take on the orignal questions: An official should be required to work some minimum number of games at that level. The minimum should be roughly the number of games in the season for a team. Officials who work more games at that level should revceive "credit" for that, and this credit should offset some small difference in "quality".

Yeah, it looks kinda ugly at that point doesn't it? In my mind I was thinking more of a super-majority like 60%. But I also find myself amiable to your take.

Here in Kansas the season is 20 games and the minimum mentioned in the other thread was 10 games. This "I only work half a season in order to get the playoff games" was the concept I didn't like. Working a "full season" without regard to work at another level would seem like an equitable measure.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

This is one of my pet peeves. Don't even get me started.

Our association is working on our selection process right now, and it's just plain tough. No matter how you set it up, someone gets screwed. At least it seems that way.

It's especially hard to be objective. I want to go to the post season. I want to see to it that I go. It seems that everyone else does, too.

In theory, I think the best people with recent experience at that level and gender should be the ones that do the post season. That seems the fairest to the players.

This is where the discussion gets interesting. Where do we draw the line?

You mention that "the best people with recent experience at that level and gender should be the ones that do the post season. That seems the fairest to the players." Ok, but what if the "best people" happen to be a crew of varsity boys officials? Wouldn't you think the fairest to the players would be to have the "best officials" on that game, not just the "best girls officials"?

I know the issues of college officials vs. HS officials is muddied a little due to some rules and mechanics differences. But would it be fair to say that the higher an official moves up the ladder, the "better" they are? Are HS varsity officials considered better as a group than primarily grade school officials? Are college officials considered better as a group than HS officials? Are D-1 officials considered better as a group than juco officials? Obvious generalities, but is it still fair to say? If so, should those "better" officials be excluded from HS post-season because they worked a lesser number of games than others? Or, are the HS officials better suited to work HS post-season because they have a better feel just for the HS game? What's fair to the kids? If Ed Hightower or Jim Burr showed up to work a HS game, would you think, "Oh, cool, we've got good refs tonight!"? Or would you say, "Oh, crap, it's going to be a disaster because they don't know HS basketball."?

Let me be the first to say I don't have an answer. And I've been on both sides of these issues, so I'm pretty much confused as to what's best. I was curious as to what others feel about this.

[Scrapper1]

I think the best qualified officials who meet the state association's requirements should get the playoff assignments. You can't keep people out because they "only" did the required number of games. If you think the state should require 20 high school varsity games to be eligible, then get your association to try to make that happen. But around here, 20 varsity games is a VERY good schedule. The most I've ever had in one season was 27.

And now. . . I'm going to get myself in trouble.

Why does the state association set the minimum number of games so low? Because they want to have the college officials who can only work 10 HS games in a season. Because those officials are probably some of the best officials in the state. That's why they can only work 10 HS games. The best officials tend to move on from HS to college. Not always; some can't due to work/travel/family issues. But generally, officials who work hard and want to improve move up.

So if you want the best officials in the state to work the post-season, you have to find a way to get them in. And they do that by only requiring 10 games (just as an example) to be worked in the regular season. JMO

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

This is where the discussion gets interesting. Where do we draw the line?

You mention that "the best people with recent experience at that level and gender should be the ones that do the post season. That seems the fairest to the players." Ok, but what if the "best people" happen to be a crew of varsity boys officials? Wouldn't you think the fairest to the players would be to have the "best officials" on that game, not just the "best girls officials"?

I know the issues of college officials vs. HS officials is muddied a little due to some rules and mechanics differences. But would it be fair to say that the higher an official moves up the ladder, the "better" they are? Are HS varsity officials considered better as a group than primarily grade school officials? Are college officials considered better as a group than HS officials? Are D-1 officials considered better as a group than juco officials? Obvious generalities, but is it still fair to say? If so, should those "better" officials be excluded from HS post-season because they worked a lesser number of games than others? Or, are the HS officials better suited to work HS post-season because they have a better feel just for the HS game? What's fair to the kids? If Ed Hightower or Jim Burr showed up to work a HS game, would you think, "Oh, cool, we've got good refs tonight!"? Or would you say, "Oh, crap, it's going to be a disaster because they don't know HS basketball."?

Let me be the first to say I don't have an answer. And I've been on both sides of these issues, so I'm pretty much confused as to what's best. I was curious as to what others feel about this.

This is why I work only Boy's games. I do not want to have to make these many choices like many officials I know have to make. There was a guy that worked a State Final last year and complained because he did not get a Boy's assignment which in his case would have been impossible to work two places at the same time. And for those that do not know, Girl's playoffs take place first in our state and state by class. So the Class A starts one week and the Class AA follows the next. So before the Boy's playoffs start, the Girl's playoffs are in full swing. So if you want to advance on the Girl's side, you likely might have to give up working up Boy's post season at some point. The problem that I see is that can eliminate you from getting other opportunities because you are not making yourself available for what may or may not happen in the future.

Also because of some of what I have stated the state was looking for around 20+ Girl's assignments because officials would rather work Boy's games or college games instead of working Girl's post season. It is also not uncommon to have an official that has hardly worked any Girl's regular season games that did not put in for Girl's playoffs, but were available when the state called to fill some dates. It is not just about what you did during the year. You cannot work if you do not want to work.

Peace

[Junker]

I just don't think there's a real great way of assigning post season games. I doubt if any state has enough staff to go see the officials they want to look at. There are a ton of variables. There are games that even a great official can't get to look good. My take on post-season assignments is that it is out of my control so I'm not going to let it worry me. I'm happy with my regular season schedule and the handful of college games for now. I work hard at each of those games and hopefully someday my hard work will pay off. I try to focus on the things I can control.