Congrats!!!

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

So the school (read as Coach) vote is worth more than twice as much as your peer votes or evaluation? Why????

I've questioned that too!

In fact, the way the equation works is that the coaches votes as a group are weighted equal to the officials as a group based on the number of ballots submitted from each...so the number changes from year to year.

Last year it was nearly 4:1 and near 3:1 the the year before. So, we really hounded the coaches this year to get it down to what it was. I also rewrote the process for getting coaches votes submitted through RefTown (so they had easy and clear access and also had picture ballots). We got the best turnout from the coaches ever....but still less than half voted.

We have about 230 eligible officials and 160 eligible coaches. If the same number of each voted, it would be 1:1, however, we'll always get better turnout from officials than coaches....so it will never get close to 1:1.

I had, when we revamped our tourney selection process 2 years ago, proposed keeping the ratio but with a cap of 2:1 based on the fact that in a lower turnout year, 1 or 2 coaches votes could completely reshuffle the list. I was shot down.

[Smitty]

Were you shot down by the old guard who have become chummy with the coaches over the years, but know they can't keep up with some of the younger guys moving up in the Association?

It's a system that could never be perfect, but as it is now, it is more flawed than perfect. It is what it is, though. I was surprised that the coaches votes were so much more significant.

[rockyroad]

So coaches vote for ALL officials, even ones that might not have done one of their games this season? And if one coach really, really dislikes an official, that one bad vote can REALLY damage that official's chances of going to State??

I have said this before, but here it goes again - the rating system in Oregon is messed up. As far as I'm concerned, coaches should have little, if any, say in determining who works postseason games. Too much emotion, too much baggage...

[Smitty]

There are no "bad votes", only votes. So you either get a vote from a coach or you don't. And yes, the coaches vote for the same list of officials as the rest of the Association votes on. Whether they worked a game at their school or not. Doesn't exactly seem right, does it?

[rockyroad]

Ahhhh, so they can't vote "No" on anyone. I see...But they can leave a name blank, which ends up hurting the official also. Still too much power in the hands of the inmates, imho.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Ahhhh, so they can't vote "No" on anyone. I see...But they can leave a name blank, which ends up hurting the official also. Still too much power in the hands of the inmates, imho.

I have to agree.

That is why I like our system. Coaches have input but their input can be trumped by fellow officials. And post season assignments are not decided by the input, it is the only a very small consideration of a larger scale.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

So coaches vote for ALL officials, even ones that might not have done one of their games this season? And if one coach really, really dislikes an official, that one bad vote can REALLY damage that official's chances of going to State??

I have said this before, but here it goes again - the rating system in Oregon is messed up. As far as I'm concerned, coaches should have little, if any, say in determining who works postseason games. Too much emotion, too much baggage...

As smitty said, there are no "No" votes. The coaches got a list of 78 officials (parred down from ~230 by the association alone). The coaches then select up to 15 they'd like to see in the tourney. So, one coach with an axe to grind leaving the name of one really good official out doesn't have much impact....especially at the top...the seperation between positions the top few was more than 1-2 votes. Presumably, those sorts of things average out as the turnout improves.

I do think the coaches have more say than they should...its too much of a conflict of interest for them to have a substantially more strongly weighted vote. However, I also see the sides of those in favor of coaches having a say...it forces the officials to work more "with" the coaches than default to being their adversaries. It forces officials to communicate more and be more approachable. At the same time, it also opens the door for politicing and such.

Of course, no matter how you slice it, someone will not like it (that someone who'd do better under what they'd prefer).

[icallfouls]

Thanks to everyone for taking a moment to offer congratulations.

It is a great opportunity/honor/responsibility to be selected. I am grateful that my peers think that I am good enough to represent them. As far as the coaches, I think that they respect my ability to communicate, adjudicate a fair contest, and work hard to get plays right.