So 10 years from now Ed Hightower stops officiating D-I games because his body can no longer keep up with the speed of the game and moves town. He calls up an assignor on the phone asking to work some games.

ED: Hi, I'm Ed Hightower. I worked 11 D-I Final Four tournaments. Can I work varsity games for you this Winter?
ASSIGNOR: Sorry Ed, you'll have to hone your skills for 3 years working underclass games before I can trust you on a varsity game.
ED: But I was named the D-I men's official of the year in 1992, I know how to officiate. There is no way I should not have a full varsity schedule.
ASSIGNOR: Ed, you won't be able to get a full varsity schedule for 7 years.
ED: I worked 7 consecutive D-I Final Four tournaments. Doesn't that count for anything?
ASSIGNOR: No, skill isn't really important when it comes to who receives which games. Much more important is how long you have been around.
ED: I have been around for a long time. I worked D-I games for 30+ years.
ASSIGNOR: Well I was only talking about how long you have been around this area.
ED: So the 4th year official who has worked 85 games is higher up than me? I've worked more D-I post season tournament games than that.
ASSIGNOR: In this area having 85 underclass games under your belt counts for more than a few thousand D-I games when it comes to working varsity.


Stop denying it, the system used in your area is a complete joke. As Garth said, stop drinking the Kool-Aid. It isn't hard at all to find a good system. The goal of the system should be to put the best officials on the court (through training, evaluating, and proper assigning) instead of trying to find arbitrary reasons for holding someone back.

That's the best attitude to take. You can only take care of your business. You can't fret over what you cannot control.

I don't know of any association that refuses to put good officials on the court. A place will be found for them. I do know of plenty that make people wait a year or so before getting the premium assignments or postseason in the new area to appease the longtime locals. I am also aware that many local groups tend to keep the tenured guys around far longer than they should. That's a quite common, but unfortunate, necessity at the high school level as officials are in limited supply and without a bunch of people knocking down the door to work HS games in a particular area retaining a core group of people who may be past their prime but are sure to be in the area from year to year and can do a satisfactory, if not great, job is a reasonable strategy. It logically follows that these folks will receive better assignments than they would otherwise deserve in a true merit system in order to keep them happy and enabling the assignor to rely upon their service.

Not saying that I like it, but I understand that that is just the way it is.

All of this makes me damn glad I don't have to deal with all of the association noise.

Don,

Having moved from Kansas this summer to a state with an association and a ranking system based on test scores, peer evaluations, and other factors, I've got to disagree with you. I loved my time there, and had some good opportunities early in my career to do V games, but there is no doubt that Kansas really is an "old boys" network in a lot of areas, as well as in post-season assignments. I've found this association, with pretty clear rules and processes for assigning games, to be quite refreshing. I haven't done a bit of pandering, don't have to call every AD in the area trying to get games, and don't have to worry about pissing off any coaches...

Any state where coach recommendations carry the predominant weight in making post-season assignments just doesn't make sense to me...

I can see that there are some benefits to an association I'm sure, but I guess my vision about the whole thing s skewed. All of my VERY limited knowledge of how associations work is limited to what I've read on this board as well as browsing some websites. All I hear is griping and chirping about "good old boys" in associations as well. All I know is Kansas, so I guess I'm used to doing the legwork that a lot of you are paying the association to do for you. I've only had one time where I believe a coach has cost me games (this was in JUCO baseball, an event that still haunts me to this day, but that's another story).

While I agree that I do not have the training many of you have, as well as the large network of officials to trade war stories with, help with critiquing my game, and other things, I'm happy without the many hassles a lot of the big city guys have. I guess I'm "small town" that way.:p I'll never stand firm that one way is better as I have minimal information as to how the association guys operate, I'm just speaking basically from what I know. Reading here has helped a ton in some areas, especially with queestions that I'd never dream up on my own that would probably bite me in the butt later. I try to do my homework, do the best job I can, and let that take me as far as it may. I can truly say that it's nice being in an area where I can pick and choose my schedule and have AD's coming for more.:p

The four year wait isn't in my area. I wasn't defending it. I just said it didn't take 7 years to get some varsity. Sheez, read what I wrote, for pete's sake. And stop using that K-word. It evokes very bad images...

Nobody said anything about "arbitrary reasons for holding someone back". You're twisting my words. There are more than two possibilities here, either a really good system that puts the best people on the court, or a really bad system where everyone is treated unfairly. Our system in Portland (not the one that Billy described with the 4 year wait) has it's good points and it's bad points just like every other system in the country.

There are definitely some benefits to the system - or lack thereof - in Kansas as well, I won't deny that! I would have had a full V schedule for the first time this year had I stayed - finally would have been in the same area for a couple years.

As for being "small town", I am very much that way, and am fortunate to be in a fairly rural area here in South Carolina. The biggest difference from my time in Kansas is that, while all I work are small towns right now (one school in 4-A around here, all others are 1- and 2-A), there is a small town about every 10 miles here. I worked 21 JV and V games in three weeks in November and December and didn't ever travel more than 30 miles. Having worked NW, NC, and NE Kansas, I've got to say this is nice! :D

Oh, and as for the griping and chirping, this wouldn't be an officiating site without it, would it?!? :rolleyes:

You could be right, Dave. I was just stating a generality that I know to be true. Transfers generally DON'T get varsity games their first year. I thought no one did, but I don't know everyone.

I'm also a little surprised at the reaction my statement got. Good grief, it was just a generalization from one middle level ref to an unknown ref from across the country. We don't have a policy against transfers getting varsity, I don't think. I really don't know what would happen if Ed Hightower showed up and wanted to work some 1A girls' varsity games.

It also looks as though the various "systems" and structures that are in place in different areas are affecting people's perceptions of what I said. Just for the record, here's a more detailed description of how our association looks from my vantage point.

We have about 325 refs to cover about 7000 games per season (our association handles ONLY school ball and only during the season). Of those, a few (10?) do mostly college and get only a very few hs games, like 5 or 10, all varsity. They stay in the association to "give back" and to maintain their hs eligibility. Then there are another number (20? 25?) who do some college and some hs. These folks probably do mostly varsity, but even they aren't guaranteed exclusively varsity. I don't know for sure, but I expect most of them will end up doing at least one or two JV or freshman games, just for the convenience of the assignor.

Then there is another number of refs who do only or largely hs and lower, and are the top-ability-refs other than the college folks. THese refs will do 2 or 3 varsity games a wekk at most, but if they want more games, or have more availability, it won't come to them in varsity games. There's almost no one in our association who does exclusively varsity. And I've worked freshman and even ms games with college/hs refs who were helping out the assignor in an emergency. No one gets to say, "I don't do that."

On the other hand, when someone is moving up, and is on the verge of becoming a really top official, he or she can quickly be getting some of the best varsity games, if able and willing. But because there are so many really good officials (not just the ol' boys) there's always a lot of competition.

The unknown factor in the whole thing is our assignor. Our association doesn't "rank" or "grade" us. We are given games based on what our assignor knows about our abilities. This is a good system when you have an excellent assignor (which we do, I know, even though I don't always agree with how he does things), but can be very bad when all that power falls into the wrong hands.

Whether a transfer is given varsity games in the first year is totally up to our assignor, there's no hard rules about it. That might be good or bad, but it's how it is. Most transfers probably CAN'T prove their abilities in one scrimmage (yes we have that, tomegun), and I haven't known any transfers who got varsity their first year. But as Smitty said (same association) it may happen. I'm quite sure it's quite rare.

I expect of Ed Hightower showed up, yea he'd get varsity games, although frankly, I can't imagine him wanting them. We've got some pretty good teams around here, but it's still just high school. Besides, a year of sub-varsity might be good for the guy. Give him a chance to re-learn table management, talking to a newbie, two-whistle mechanics (used exclusively in Oregon) and a slower pace of game!

We do the same in northern VA. All "transfers" are evaluated (actual game evaluations - usually HS rec ball if off season) by some of the senior varsity officials. The system seems to work well as we have a number of military that officiate, and there is no shortage of military in the DC area.

You just reiterated my point.

I don't think it can be illustrated more plainly than that.

I'm not an evaluator nor am I qualified to be one. To measure the quality of an Official there seems to be (there might be other factors) four components:

Judgement
Rules Knowledge
Mechanics
Game Management

You can observe mechanics and you can test rules knowledge but judgement and game management are subjective. This is where the new (to the area) experienced guy has to prove himself. It might take a season to gain the trust of the assignor. Then again if you're battling the good ole boys............

Sorry, but I have to throw up the BS flag. The Cardinal board - yes I know too much about too many associations - is very much a good ole boy system. I know of several members who had varsity high school, college and military base-level experience, but couldn't get a varsity schedule in Northern Virginia. Why would "senior varsity officials" allow someone to come into their area and get some of their games.

Not many are in the situation that I've been in many times, but open your minds for a second. If someone like me moved to town, how would you classify me? Would I be a "senior varsity official" or a new guy? I'm not at the highest classification here in Mississippi, BUT you couldn't look at my schedule and tell it.

I was initially held back when I got to the DC area. I was given one JV game without any more for the future. Some of the local guys already knew me because I had attended a JUCO camp before moving there, got hired and worked some rec ball for the rec assignor. With nothing to lose, I went dual (IAABO area) and went to a scrimmage for another assignor. I had to drive almost an hour in the cold and I worked for about 6 minutes of a 12-year old game with officials who just went through the training class. The assignor said thank you and told me he would be in touch. I was like, "What the heck?" The next day he called to give me my assignments, all varsity to include some Catholic league games which are the best high school games in the Washington DC area. Literally and hour later the first assignor called me to give me some games, all varsity. I was truthful with him, told him why I did what I did and I worked between the two to work my schedule out. The next year the rec assignor, who gave me games when I first got to town, became the high school assignor and wanted me exclusively. I wouldn't do it because the other assignor gave me high school games before anybody. There have been other guys on my original board who have attempted to go dual to get better/more games, but it hasn't worked out for them. My situation was unique because I didn't necessarily do it to get better games, I did it to get games period. During all this, the griping was concerning the fact that I was new and someone had been on the board for X amount of years. It was never once about my ability to work the games I was assigned. The current assignor in Mississippi has asked me to look at some officials to give my opinion on their ability to work varsity games.

I have been blessed to receive good training (from Arizona, Nevada, DC/Maryland and Mississippi), accept constructive critism and work hard. It would piss me off to move to an area and get assignments because I'm "new" to the area, but not nearly new to high school officiating. Trust me, there are better systems and I would like to think we would step up and say something if an official was blatantly getting less than they deserved simply because of their time in the local area.

I think certain people who don't live in Portland are over-generalizing the situation here. I'm quite certain that if someone transfers in here with an impressive resume including post season games and such, our assignor will be talking to that person's old assignor to find out if they are the real deal. I'm pretty sure that person will be looked at early and given varsity games quickly here. However, just because you worked varsity games before won't and shouldn't guarantee you'll work varsity games when you transfer in. It may take you a year or two to get there, and if that makes you want to quit or find another assignor, I think you might be in this for the wrong reasons. There are literally hundreds of people who deserve to work varsity games here - too many to allow everyone get the games they think they deserve. You have to go through the system, just like everyone else. I've been in 5 associations around the country and the one here in Portland is by far the best and most fair association I've ever worked for.

Tomegun - pick up your BS flag, as there is no BS. :rolleyes: I didn't say that all transfers were given a varsity schedule. I said all transfers were evaluated. They may or may not have been qualified for varsity. I have no idea why you were "held back". I transferred from Bull Run (where I worked some single A girls varsity) to Cardinal (after my son graduated from a school serviced by Cardinal), and I was evaluated. Cardinal has the "sub-varsity" (F/JV), the "swing", (mixture of JV/V), and "varsity" (predominately V). I was put on the "swing level", and for the first year or so, I got mostly F/JV games -- I think I got 8 or 9 varsity games. The next year, I was elevated to varsity level. Even at the varsity level, I worked F/JV/V. On some nights, I would work a freshman game at one school and then work a varsity game at another school. Or, I might work the freshman game, sit out the JV game, and then work the varsity game at the same school. I did this because I was able to leave work for the early games (usually 4:00 - 4:30), and it helped the assignor. This being "helpful" usually resulted in being assigned to one of the "better" games sometime down the road. I was qualifed to do the game, and it pays to be available.:)