Coaches evaluating Officials

[bgtg19]

In Michigan, coaches ratings of officials are, basically, everything in terms of advancement to tournaments, etc. There is a requirement that an official attends a rules meeting before the season, and then works a minimum number of varsity games ... and ... that's it. The rest is all based on coaches' ratings. You get rated better by coaches and you go further in the tournament.

This is, however, slowly beginning to change. This year, for example, Michigan is introducing an online rules test which is voluntary but which will be "considered" by the committee which makes tournament assignments. Also -- and Bud will be interested in this -- Michigan officials are about to begin a ratings process where we evaluate the schools (game management, coaches, players, fans, facilities, etc.).

That's how things are done, now let me express my opinion. I think that coaches *comments* would be useful. Yes, some comments will be misguided. You just dismiss those. But even if there is a perception problem, it may be helpful to know that there is a perception problem. Comments, great. Unfornately, in Michigan, we don't get any comments. We only get *ratings*? And ratings don't seem to communicate much; at least not clearly. This last year, I had a season with four highly-charged games and my ratings went down due to four "poor" ratings. I don't *know* that there is a direct correlation, but the previous year I did not have ANY "poor" ratings. What confuses me about the ratings is that this past year I had more top AND bottom rankings and less in between rankings than in previous years. (E.g., in 2005, I had 5 ratings of "excellent," 9 ratings of "good," 7 ratings of "average" and 0 ratings of "poor" -- in 2006, I had 10 ratings of "excellent," 4 ratings of "good," 3 ratings of "average" and 4 ratings of "poor"). Did I get better or worse?

Coaches ratings of officials in Michigan is "here to stay," as an MHSAA administrator put it, but at least they are trying to introduce a few other pieces to the overall picture.

I happen to subscribe to the outlook that Jeff articulated above. Only worry about what is in your control. Do the best you can and that's it. Let the rest take care of itself. Unfortunately, that does mean, IMO, that biases (race, weight, hair, etc.) enter into the picture.... *Most* of the bias against me is that I'm not quite as good as that other official....

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bgtg19

This last year, I had a season with four highly-charged games and my ratings went down due to four "poor" ratings. I don't *know* that there is a direct correlation, but the previous year I did not have ANY "poor" ratings.

What confuses me about the ratings is that this past year I had more top AND bottom rankings and less in between rankings than in previous years. (E.g., in 2005, I had 5 ratings of "excellent," 9 ratings of "good," 7 ratings of "average" and 0 ratings of "poor" -- in 2006, I had 10 ratings of "excellent," 4 ratings of "good," 3 ratings of "average" and 4 ratings of "poor"). Did I get better or worse?

That is precisely my point made above. In all probability, your poor ratings came from the losing coaches in those "highly-charged" games...while the winning coaches probably contributed 4 of those excellent or good votes. When there are close, controversial calls that you get right, only one side is going to agree with you. If there are 2-3 of them near the end, one coach is almost always going to think you're a poor official.

While it is possible for many (maybe even most) coaches to rate officials objectively, there are few enough ratings that those that can't can really pull down the average....which can be a big deal when such ratings are a factor in tourney advancement.

[Raymond]

Probably off topic, but we have a coach at one of our local high schools who is a former college official and now is an evaluator for a D1 conference try-out camp. The conference supervisor is an employee at the high school.

No pressure ref'n at that school.

[budjones05]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Probably off topic, but we have a coach at one of our local high schools who is a former college official and now is an evaluator for a D1 conference try-out camp. The conference supervisor is an employee at the high school.

No pressure ref'n at that school.

Now, thats one coach I wouldn't mind evaluate me!

[budjones05]

Originally Posted by bgtg19

In Michigan, coaches ratings of officials are, basically, everything in terms of advancement to tournaments, etc. There is a requirement that an official attends a rules meeting before the season, and then works a minimum number of varsity games ... and ... that's it. The rest is all based on coaches' ratings. You get rated better by coaches and you go further in the tournament.

This is, however, slowly beginning to change. This year, for example, Michigan is introducing an online rules test which is voluntary but which will be "considered" by the committee which makes tournament assignments. Also -- and Bud will be interested in this -- Michigan officials are about to begin a ratings process where we evaluate the schools (game management, coaches, players, fans, facilities, etc.).

That's how things are done, now let me express my opinion. I think that coaches *comments* would be useful. Yes, some comments will be misguided. You just dismiss those. But even if there is a perception problem, it may be helpful to know that there is a perception problem. Comments, great. Unfornately, in Michigan, we don't get any comments. We only get *ratings*? And ratings don't seem to communicate much; at least not clearly. This last year, I had a season with four highly-charged games and my ratings went down due to four "poor" ratings. I don't *know* that there is a direct correlation, but the previous year I did not have ANY "poor" ratings. What confuses me about the ratings is that this past year I had more top AND bottom rankings and less in between rankings than in previous years. (E.g., in 2005, I had 5 ratings of "excellent," 9 ratings of "good," 7 ratings of "average" and 0 ratings of "poor" -- in 2006, I had 10 ratings of "excellent," 4 ratings of "good," 3 ratings of "average" and 4 ratings of "poor"). Did I get better or worse?

Coaches ratings of officials in Michigan is "here to stay," as an MHSAA administrator put it, but at least they are trying to introduce a few other pieces to the overall picture.

I happen to subscribe to the outlook that Jeff articulated above. Only worry about what is in your control. Do the best you can and that's it. Let the rest take care of itself. Unfortunately, that does mean, IMO, that biases (race, weight, hair, etc.) enter into the picture.... *Most* of the bias against me is that I'm not quite as good as that other official....

Sounds like a plan to me. !

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

... when such ratings are a factor in tourney advancement.

Which, in my opinion, they never should be. Precisely the for the reason that you articulated to bgtg19 about his experience.

[refnrev]

In our system, as Rut said, we're rated after every game. The last time I saw the ratings difference between winning and losing coaches it was very small. I'm not sure of they still do, but if they gave you a worst possible rating they used to have to explain why. Coaches also have to state if they won or lost the game. I also think that have to explain if they base their ratings on one big call in te game or not.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by refnrev

In our system, as Rut said, we're rated after every game. The last time I saw the ratings difference between winning and losing coaches it was very small. I'm not sure of they still do, but if they gave you a worst possible rating they used to have to explain why. Coaches also have to state if they won or lost the game. I also think that have to explain if they base their ratings on one big call in te game or not.

A simple yes or no is insufficient to me.
What coach is going to say "yes" here?
May as well ask people to voluntarily admit if they've been convicted of child abuse.