Two women in stripes - newspaper article

[Adam]

In a way, it's like the big Superbowl story about the first and second African-American head coaches getting to the big game. Should it be news? No. Did I realize it hadn't happened yet? No, but I'm not African-American, and I don't tend to pay attention to race.
However, it was going to be an issue until it happened precisely because it had taken so long.
Two women working this game was going to be a news story until it finally happened.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The only thing that held Melodee back in the past was the lack of coaches votes. Since she only worked girls game, she was never going to get the vote from boys' coaches and is not likely pull enough votes from girls coaches to overcome that obstacle. .

So in your Portland system, boys coaches are voting on who gets to go to girls tournaments? Boys coaches who never see this lady because she only does girls games get to have a say in whether she works a State tournament? That's ridiculous...

Portland has a tremendously out-dated "good old boys" system - I know quite a few people who work for the PBOA and every one of them would agree with that statement, even the ones who have benefitted from it and worked tournaments and championship games...

As for Melodee, Delores, and Lee Ann - they deserved to be there. Not because of their gender, but because of their ability.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

So in your Portland system, boys coaches are voting on who gets to go to girls tournaments? Boys coaches who never see this lady because she only does girls games get to have a say in whether she works a State tournament? That's ridiculous...

Yes, that is true. However, the girls coaches also have a say in who goes to the boys tourney..and there are just as many officials who they'll not see. All the votes are added together and there is no distinction between thier votes. It's not perfect....in fact, I don't think the coaches voting at all is a good idea....certainly not with the weight we give them. One thing to remember is that 4 of the 6 Oregon tourneys are combined boys/girls tourneys. An official that goes to one of them will be working both. So, both the boys and girls coaches should have a say in who goes to those tourneys.

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Portland has a tremendously out-dated "good old boys" system - I know quite a few people who work for the PBOA and every one of them would agree with that statement, even the ones who have benefitted from it and worked tournaments and championship games...

Then you have a distorted representation of the system. Call it what you will but those that work hard and continue to work hard advance. Sure, few skyrocket to the top but it does happen. There are always those who think they should be getting better games and blame it on "good old boys" when we all know that, in most cases, they're just disillusioned or merely equal to those already working the games.

There's a young guy who moved to the Portland Area last year. He's already working the top games and will likely get enough exposure in 1-3 more years to get a tourney slot....all before he's 25 and all fully deserved....certainly not the evidence of a "good old boys" system.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You might want to check, but I'm pretty sure your strawman is burning.

This might help with the burning sensation:

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

In a way, it's like the big Superbowl story about the first and second African-American head coaches getting to the big game. Should it be news? No. Did I realize it hadn't happened yet? No, but I'm not African-American, and I don't tend to pay attention to race.

This is a very telling statement. Because of what you are not, you do not have to pay attention to something like that. Many African-Americans paid a lot of attention to the Super Bowl and other similar situations because it is really odd when most of the players are of a certain race and you can only find one or two opportunities. This is really a concern at the college level (football coaching) where the numbers are even more abysmal. The myth that many do not understand it is about equality, not about something as simply as what race you were born with. If you give opportunity to everyone that is "qualified" and not just to a select group of people, this will not be an issue anymore.

Peace

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Then you have a distorted representation of the system. Call it what you will but those that work hard and continue to work hard advance. Sure, few skyrocket to the top but it does happen. There are always those who think they should be getting better games and blame it on "good old boys" when we all know that, in most cases, they're just disillusioned or merely equal to those already working the games.

There's a young guy who moved to the Portland Area last year. He's already working the top games and will likely get enough exposure in 1-3 more years to get a tourney slot....all before he's 25 and all fully deserved....certainly not the evidence of a "good old boys" system.

And how many qualified people have quit or moved out of the PBOA because they weren't "moving up"? The PBOA is controlled by one person, and if that one person wants someone to move up, they will - qualified or not...of course the opposite is also true.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

The part of the new system that makes it easier for women, and other qualified men btw, move up to tournament level is the part about people only being eligible if they didn't work a tourney last year. If that had been fully implemented this year, both Melodee and Lea Ann would have been eligible by votes, and would not have needed to be "commissionered" in.

But that would still keep them at a relatively lower postion in the ranking. The coaches vote would have a larger impact....in fact both Melodee and Lea Ann would move up exactly 10 spots by eliminating the coaches part of the vote....clear indication that the coaches vote is what is pushing them down. While the eligibility part makes for more people getting a shot, it doesn't change the imbalance in coaches votes that works more against the women than the men.

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I disagree that lack of boys' coaches' votes is the primary item in not getting into the tournaments. The problem isn't who votes and who doesn't. The problem is that once someone has been to the tournament, they have a sort of name-recognition and credibility that gets them more votes next year.

If that were true, you wouldn't have 5 new people going to the tourney (not counting the women who were put in by the commissioner's picks).

Originally Posted by rainmaker

By extending the rotation to include refs who are actually good enough, but get squeezed down the list by those who have been to tournaments in the past, not only women refs, but also refs like you, Camron, are more likely to get into the tournament.

It's not about sending someone who is "good enough". It's about sending the best officials....with some mearsure taken to cover for a statistical margin of error.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is a very telling statement. Because of what you are not, you do not have to pay attention to something like that. Many African-Americans paid a lot of attention to the Super Bowl and other similar situations because it is really odd when most of the players are of a certain race and you can only find one or two opportunities. This is really a concern at the college level (football coaching) where the numbers are even more abysmal. The myth that many do not understand it is about equality, not about something as simply as what race you were born with. If you give opportunity to everyone that is "qualified" and not just to a select group of people, this will not be an issue anymore.

It was meant to be telling. I really don't care about race, and was raised that way. My only concern is someone's qualifications and abilities. Understanding that an individual's "qualifications" may have been stunted in spite of his/her abilities, I struggle with how much weight to put on "qualifications."
That said, I recognize that this is in many ways a factor of my own race. I'm not forced to deal with it on a daily basis, and only have to deal with it on an abstract-let's-talk-about-it basis; and then only when I want to. I was only giving my perspective, as little worth as it has to most.

[JoeTheRef]

[QUOTE=jmaellis]Just as the inmates shouldn't pick their jailers, the coaches should have little, if any, say in who officiates.[/QUOTE]


I agree 100%. In our state, they may request that an official not work their games or gym, but they better have a good reason and tape to back it up. If not, too bad.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It's not about sending someone who is "good enough". It's about sending the best officials....with some mearsure taken to cover for a statistical margin of error.

I disagree completely. Tournaments are competitions for the players, and should not be for the refs. Anyone who is good enough should be able to have a turn. There's no rationale for sending the "best" officials to tournaments as often as they're eligible over 20 years, when other officials who work just as hard never get to go. If there are 50 who are good enough then over the course of several years all 50 of them should get to go. I find it incredibly offensive that certain people can have the gall to get up in front of the association and claim that if certain people go to the torunament, our reputation will suffer. That person will never get my vote again.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

..and they were a credit to their association.

And they are articulate and well-spoken also.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And they are articulate and well-spoken also.

That was pretty funny.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I disagree completely. Tournaments are competitions for the players, and should not be for the refs. Anyone who is good enough should be able to have a turn. There's no rationale for sending the "best" officials to tournaments as often as they're eligible over 20 years, when other officials who work just as hard never get to go. If there are 50 who are good enough then over the course of several years all 50 of them should get to go. I find it incredibly offensive that certain people can have the gall to get up in front of the association and claim that if certain people go to the torunament, our reputation will suffer. That person will never get my vote again.

I couldn't agree more. When I hear that so-and-so has gone 6 times to a state tournament my first thought is that 5 qualified officials got passed over so this one person could go six times.

There are hundreds of officials in each state that would do themselves and their associations proud and aren't given the chance on the big stage. When I rule the world, people will get to go once per lifetime.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Tournaments are competitions for the players, and should not be for the refs. Anyone who is good enough should be able to have a turn. There's no rationale for sending the "best" officials to tournaments as often as they're eligible over 20 years, when other officials who work just as hard never get to go. If there are 50 who are good enough then over the course of several years all 50 of them should get to go.

Hear Hear!!

These officials are being rewarded for figuring out who's azz they had to kiss to get there. That is where the difference lies, imo. It's these same ole assigners that keep putting these people into these games year after year after year. You can bet next year it will be the same people again. My idea of term limits for the assigners is what is truly needed. We need more transistion in the ranks of the individuals that are tasked to assign these games. It's that simple....

Rainmaker, in your system that looks for officials that didn't work last year. What do they do with the officials that did work, the senior tournament guys?

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I disagree completely. Tournaments are competitions for the players, and should not be for the refs. Anyone who is good enough should be able to have a turn. There's no rationale for sending the "best" officials to tournaments as often as they're eligible over 20 years, when other officials who work just as hard never get to go. If there are 50 who are good enough then over the course of several years all 50 of them should get to go. I find it incredibly offensive that certain people can have the gall to get up in front of the association and claim that if certain people go to the torunament, our reputation will suffer. That person will never get my vote again.

I agree that the "good ole boy" system is not a good one to select officials, I disagree that it isn't a competition. I think the best officials should be the ones doing the state tournament. I realize the good ole boy thing has something to do with it and like I said I don't like it. We have a little of it here in Wyoming. My thought though is this, if they truly take the best and you aren't there, you need to work harder to be in that group. I for one will keep working harder, I am not in the group yet, close but not quite. I got to work a couple state tournament games this year, but not the full slate. I need to work harder and get there.

The kids deserve the very best officials, not someone who's turn it is IMHO