postseason, votes, and technicals

[biggravy]

I want to hear how things are done in other states.

In Kansas, officials are selected for post season play by the number of coaches votes they receive. Coaches have a form to list officials and it is mandatory they send it to the state by a certain date or face a fine. In my area (southeast KS) we've been told for two years straight that there are not enough officials in our area doing post season. Officials from outside the area are brought in to do our substates. That tells me that coaches in other areas of the state are voting for officials. The problem is that opinions I hear from coach friends is that most coaches here feel officials suck across the board and therefore will only vote for a couple officials. It is like an us versus them mentality. The other problem is we have been hammered for two years straight by the state, our assigner, and our supervisor that we are not enforcing penalties for unsporting behavior. I have yet to see a coach happy about getting a T, and it seems every coach you T is one more coach that isn't listing you for post season.

How do other states do things?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by biggravy

I want to hear how things are done in other states.

In Kansas, officials are selected for post season play by the number of coaches votes they receive. Coaches have a form to list officials and it is mandatory they send it to the state by a certain date or face a fine. In my area (southeast KS) we've been told for two years straight that there are not enough officials in our area doing post season. Officials from outside the area are brought in to do our substates. That tells me that coaches in other areas of the state are voting for officials. The problem is that opinions I hear from coach friends is that most coaches here feel officials suck across the board and therefore will only vote for a couple officials. It is like an us versus them mentality. The other problem is we have been hammered for two years straight by the state, our assigner, and our supervisor that we are not enforcing penalties for unsporting behavior. I have yet to see a coach happy about getting a T, and it seems every coach you T is one more coach that isn't listing you for post season.

How do other states do things?

This is one of my biggest complaints. Allowing the coaches to select the post-season officials is absolutely absurd. It compromises the integrity of the game and makes the officials more worried about collecting the coach's vote than properly enforcing the rules.

Fortunately, in my state the coaches have no part in the process. The state office allocates slots in the regional and state tournaments to the various associations in the state and those associations select the officials. My association uses a peer ranking process for the selection and the executive board and commissioner handle assigning which games those who are selected get to work.

[representing]

Originally Posted by biggravy

I want to hear how things are done in other states.

In Kansas, officials are selected for post season play by the number of coaches votes they receive. Coaches have a form to list officials and it is mandatory they send it to the state by a certain date or face a fine. In my area (southeast KS) we've been told for two years straight that there are not enough officials in our area doing post season. Officials from outside the area are brought in to do our substates. That tells me that coaches in other areas of the state are voting for officials. The problem is that opinions I hear from coach friends is that most coaches here feel officials suck across the board and therefore will only vote for a couple officials. It is like an us versus them mentality. The other problem is we have been hammered for two years straight by the state, our assigner, and our supervisor that we are not enforcing penalties for unsporting behavior. I have yet to see a coach happy about getting a T, and it seems every coach you T is one more coach that isn't listing you for post season.

How do other states do things?

I think coaches should be allowed to express their opinion about certain officials, but I don't think they should be given the right to pick and choose who officiates their games. I think it's too much control, and it would be too much pressure on me to know that Team A preferred me. It would be like "well, that team thinks I'm gonna be doing them some favors since they've preferred me to do their game" if you know what I mean. We have a ridiculous system in our chapter where coaches can pick and choose their officials, but I left that to be in another thread so I don't hijack your thread.

[zm1283]

Our state uses a rating process where coaches are required to rate their officials, with 5 being the worst and 1 being the best. They average your number out at the end of the year. I'm not entirely sure how much stock they put in your rating for district/playoff assignments, but it's pretty obvious that some officials refuse to TCOB because they fear a bad rating from a coach.

[representing]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Our state uses a rating process where coaches are required to rate their officials, with 5 being the worst and 1 being the best. They average your number out at the end of the year. I'm not entirely sure how much stock they put in your rating for district/playoff assignments, but it's pretty obvious that some officials refuse to TCOB because they fear a bad rating from a coach.

Agreed. +1

Coaches have too much power these days, it has become a political thing. It has been confessed to me by some officials that they haven't given out warranted Technical fouls because of the fear of being scratched. Me, I don't care. You get a T if you deserve it.

[JRutledge]

I like our current system. Coach’s ratings are a factor, but it is a very small part of the overall process. Officials make a bigger deal out of it than the state does, but that is because most people cannot read the information they are given. Oh well, that is the way it is sometimes.

Peace

[LocDog249]

To expand a little on how IL does things..... They have a power rating of 40 pts max. Each school, assignor and officials association is allowed to submit a top 15 list. The state then takes all the top 15 lists, and ranks everyone in the state based on how many they have been on in the past 3 years. If you are in the 90th percentile, you get 5 points, 80 = 4 points and so on. Then, each certified official is allowed to rate other officials. Coaches also rate officials each game. (1=best, 5=worst) these scores are added up and you are ranked again based on your percentile 90%=5, 80%=4 etc. In IL there are 3 different levels of advancement as official, certified=5, recognized=3, registered=1. You also get up to 5 points based on previous tournament experience. You get points based upon how recently you went to clinics, and a few other things that I don't remember. The state says that postseason assignments are made based on your power rating. They do take things like geography into consideration also.
Frankly I like the way IL does it. A few bad ratings from coaches won't kill your rating because your peer votes can balance it out. There are always things you can do to bring your rating up, like going to clinics to try to become better.
Where I am now, it is also a combination of coaches and officials votes for playoffs, and the commissioner gets a few picks also. The only weird thing to me is that you can't work playoffs back to back years here. Although from what I understand, this is just for going "down state"

[Larks]

Ohio

There are six components to the OHSAA officials tournament selection process: average coach ratings; a favorite 15 officials list from athletic directors; a favorite 15 list from assigners; a favorite 15/30 list from local associations (those with 125 members or less provide us with 15 names); a favorite 15 officials list from each district athletic board member and a favorite 15 list from the OHSAA. The coaches ratings average is used as a multiplier with the number of times an official was placed on a favorite 15 list. This is the official’s raw score and is used to rank officials in each district from highest to lowest.

The rankings determine the level of tournament at which an official is eligible. There is a pool of officials eligible for the state tournament and all levels below. There is a pool of officials eligible for the regional tournaments and below. And there is a pool of officials eligible for the sectional/district tournaments and below. Lastly, there are a number of officials listed as alternates for sectional tournaments. The pool of officials is approximately three times larger than the number of officials needed to work at any given level of tournaments.

All sectional and district tournament assignments are made under the supervision/direction of the district athletic boards. The regional and state tournament assignments are made under the supervision/direction of the OHSAA Commissioner’s Office. Actual assignments are made after considering additional factors such as diversity (geographic location, race, gender, and years of experience), type of regular season schedule, availability and, in some sports, position officiated. State rules interpreters and others who are knowledgeable about officials are consulted and assist in the assigning process.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Larks

Ohio

There are six components to the OHSAA officials tournament selection process: average coach ratings; a favorite 15 officials list from athletic directors; a favorite 15 list from assigners; a favorite 15/30 list from local associations (those with 125 members or less provide us with 15 names); a favorite 15 officials list from each district athletic board member and a favorite 15 list from the OHSAA. The coaches ratings average is used as a multiplier with the number of times an official was placed on a favorite 15 list. This is the official’s raw score and is used to rank officials in each district from highest to lowest.

The rankings determine the level of tournament at which an official is eligible. There is a pool of officials eligible for the state tournament and all levels below. There is a pool of officials eligible for the regional tournaments and below. And there is a pool of officials eligible for the sectional/district tournaments and below. Lastly, there are a number of officials listed as alternates for sectional tournaments. The pool of officials is approximately three times larger than the number of officials needed to work at any given level of tournaments.

All sectional and district tournament assignments are made under the supervision/direction of the district athletic boards. The regional and state tournament assignments are made under the supervision/direction of the OHSAA Commissioner’s Office. Actual assignments are made after considering additional factors such as diversity (geographic location, race, gender, and years of experience), type of regular season schedule, availability and, in some sports, position officiated. State rules interpreters and others who are knowledgeable about officials are consulted and assist in the assigning process.

Well stated, Larks. This system has been modified several times over the past 10 years or so. Until the latter part of the soccer season, we were able to see our "officiating ongoing rating (1.00 to a top score of 5.00) that we have been receiving from the coaches. This was very helpful to get the feedback throughout the year.

Unfortunately, some officials apparently took the liberty of complaining DIRECTLY to ADs about perceived poor ratings by the AD's coach using the timeframes their ratings dropped in relation to when perceived "problem games" were played. Thus, we no longer get to see our current ratings.

There is no doubt that officials are very aware of the coaches' ratings. Interestingly, since the numbers are not being posted now, there is less discussion about ratings after a game. But, I am sure that some officials alter calls (Ts on coaches especially, but some other calls late in a game as well) due to the negative ratings that may result. Of course, this is always a slippery slop. You don't "T" ONE coach and the OTHER coach may lower HIS RATINGS.

While our current system is less "political" than in the past, many still feel as though the current system is very much slanted toward the "good ole boys" in the system. This is due to two major factors. In many cases, human beings (ADs, coaches, officials, salesmen, etc.) have a hard time remembering names. Therefore, the ADs and officials' associations tend to go more by name recognition when completing their 15s list. Human beings also tend to resist change. Therefore, they tend to be more comfortable rating a familiar face (eventually, they do remember officials names -- sometimes not until the officials 5th or 6th game at that school) higher than an unfamiliar person.

There is no perfect solution, most officials think that PEER RATINGS should be more important than the other ratings. Further, if fellow officials rated ALL officials with which they are familiar (not just voting for 15 or 30 of their friends as some now do), a stronger pool of officials would result.

[Larks]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Well stated, Larks.

Well, I'm pretty good at copy / paste - If you look in the myohsaa system, I pretty much scraped what was on the "Ratings Information" page.

[Rich]

In Wisconsin coaches can rate you from 1 (should not be assigned contests) to 6 (should work state finals). Then the commissioners and schools hire whomever they want and the state assigns whomever they want and seemingly ignore the rankings entirely.

[Chess Ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Fortunately, in my state the coaches have no part in the process. The state office allocates slots in the regional and state tournaments to the various associations in the state and those associations select the officials. My association uses a peer ranking process for the selection and the executive board and commissioner handle assigning which games those who are selected get to work.

Same in my area of Norcal.

[dbking]

I have worked in a number of states due to real job. I will give them the ranking that I perceive them to be with some editorial remarks.

KY - Assigning is a state run thing for all games by region. You can only work your region. B+ Playoff assigning process is done by region assigner / state, B+

CT - IAABO is the ruling organization and have a fantastic rating system used for assigning games and playoff, A+ ( a lot of work to tabulate and evaluate )

IL - You have seen the details. From my perspective, home grown officials in local associations and some associations skew results. It is very difficult to move in from out of state and be seen by enough assignors and leagues. I worked in suburban Chicago area and had schedules from 8 assignors. Difficult process to manage. Assigning, C- State Playoff, C+

KS - Assigning is all done by conference. Many fewer schools that IL. I work for one HS assignor who has 31 schools. Plenty of opportunity, decent ball, B+. State playoff assignment, C-

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by LocDog249

Frankly I like the way IL does it. A few bad ratings from coaches won't kill your rating because your peer votes can balance it out. There are always things you can do to bring your rating up, like going to clinics to try to become better.

The ratings itself are divided by the total number of ratings you get. So it is beneficial to get a rating no matter what it is. The worst thing coaches or (certified) officials can do is not to rate you at all. And this is only 5 points in a 40 point system and as you said the other things you can do to raise this level. It also must be noted that the actual number does not mean anything in the end. You also might be observed and other actions or decision can be made on your behalf. In other words you have to compete against people in your "region" as opposed to someone in another part of your state. I live in the Chicago area, I might have a higher Power Rating than someone in Southern Illinois, but they will go farther in the playoffs because there are not as many officials in that area to compete with. Also I could have a lower Power Rating than someone and go farther than they do in the playoffs because I am following all the procedures (this is just an example) and someone else is not wearing the right uniform or doing the right mechanics. So the actual Power Rating is only a guide for the administrator to have some objective information. That does not mean he/she has to live by that and that they are not capable to make decisions based on other factors.

Peace

[Mark Padgett]

Having coaches help pick the officials for the playoffs is like having criminals help pick judges.