Congrats to Camron Rust

[Smitty]

For Oregon, there's a 2-phased approach to voting for a tourney bid. First there is a vote among all the "Regular" membership of the association. There are 3 types of members: Probationary, Associate, and Regular. Once you achieve Regular status, you are eligible to work varsity. To get to be a Regular member, you either get awarded it by the comissioner if he thinks you're ready, or you automatically get it after 5 years in the association.

All Regular members get to vote for who gets to go to the tourney from the entire list of Regular members. Someone will correct me, but I think you get to vote for up to 25 members in the first vote. Then the top 70 are put on the second ballot. Of those 70, the Regular members then get to vote for at least 10 but no more than 15 (I think). At this point, the varsity coaches all get to vote as well. Here's where it gets fishy. From all those votes, the coaches votes are counted as 1 point each. And a Regular member vote counts as some percentage of one vote. It's based on how many of each types of votes there are (there are always a lot more Regular member votes than coaches votes). It's disturbing that coaches votes count for so much more than the association (peer) votes. Usually only the better school's coaches vote regularly (since they are the ones more likely to even get to the state tourney) and not everyone gets to work at those better schools, so the coaches votes can be very skewed. This makes it difficult for up-and-comers to break into the state tourney.

I had always been against the votes counting differently - I think all the votes should count as 1 point - forget the percentages. It's been a point of contention in the association. The old timers and top echelon want to keep it the way it is because they benefit from it. But the up-and-comers see it as unfair. Who knows if it will ever change.

Camron can explain the process in more detail as to how the percentage for membership votes gets determined. That's it in a nutshell, though.

[Loudwhistle]

Thanks Smitty! Coaches should never be allowed to vote for the officials. I wonder how coaches would like it if we (officials) could vote for them?

[tjones1]

Congrats to Camron!! Knock'em dead.... best of luck and have fun!!

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by Loudwhistle

Thanks Smitty! Coaches should never be allowed to vote for the officials. I wonder how coaches would like it if we (officials) could vote for them?

As an assignor, my crew chiefs provide a rating after each game regarding coaches behavior. Both the conferences and school administrations are very interested in that. Most schools do not want coaches that cannot behave.

Congrats on being selected to all.

[JRutledge]

Congrats buddy. Well deserved I am sure.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Smitty

For Oregon, there's a 2-phased approach to voting....



I had always been against the votes counting differently - I think all the votes should count as 1 point - forget the percentages. It's been a point of contention in the association. The old timers and top echelon want to keep it the way it is because they benefit from it. But the up-and-comers see it as unfair. Who knows if it will ever change.

Camron can explain the process in more detail as to how the percentage for membership votes gets determined. That's it in a nutshell, though.

Smitty's description is right in concept....with minor, but insignificant, errors in the numbers.

As for the coaches votes....Basically, if 100 officials vote and 33 coaches vote, the weight is 3x to give the body of coaches the same total weight as the body of officials. In some years, an individual coach's vote has counted 4x the officials vote. This year, it was about 2x.

I've pushed hard over the years to minimize the overly powerful influence of thier vote....and the primary way that it has been accomplished is to get more inolvement from the coaches. We're having record numbers of coaches participate. That reduces the value of a single coach's vote relative to the peer vote. It als minimizes the effect of a rougue coach having a dramatic impact or, even more important, lessens the value of an official "working" coaches for votes. With more coaches voting, there is less room for a on official to successfully practice that sort of behavior.

[Camron Rust]

It should also be mentioned that our own "icallfouls" has also been selected the work Oregon State Tourney....@ the 6A level (Oregeon's top classification).

This is his second trip to that level and his third tourney overall. He is a good friend and someone who has helped me tremendously over the last few years.

Congrats to him.

(I'll let him reveal his name if he chooses since he uses a screen name).

And to answer if it was my first...no. I went in 2008 as an alternate after another official withdrew after having a work conflict come up. (In our assocation, you can't be selected 2 years in a row so no one that went in 2008 was eligible for 2009, and so forth).

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It should also be mentioned that our own "icallfouls" has also been selected the work Oregon State Tourney....@ the 6A level (Oregeon's top classification).

This is his second trip to that level and his third tourney overall. He is a good friend and someone who has helped me tremendously over the last few years.

Congrats to him.

(I'll let him reveal his name if he chooses since he uses a screen name).

And to answer if it was my first...no. I went in 2008 as an alternate after another official withdrew after having a work conflict come up. (In our assocation, you can't be selected 2 years in a row so no one that went in 2008 was eligible for 2009, and so forth).

My belated congratulations to both Camron and icallfouls (I won't reveal his identity either).......been way too busy and haven't had much of a chance to check the board in the last week or so. They're both great officials and very deserving of the honor.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by Smitty

...the up-and-comers see it as unfair.

I think this is probably a theme that is abundant in many associations around the country.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

It's the way of the world, though.

In school, athletics, politics, work, life, etc., etc., etc......

[Rich]

Originally Posted by grunewar

In school, athletics, politics, work, life, etc., etc., etc......

Yup, and it's just the way it is.

One day I would like to ask the following question, though:

Rather than picking the same people for the 6th or more time, wouldn't it be better to identify qualified people who never got to reach out for the brass ring to work?

I mean, this is a very, very subjective business that we're in -- there's no way that someone can be SO good at this that it's a no brainer to take that person 6, 7, 8 or more times and there are people who are well qualified and do a great job on the court that it would hurt the quality of officiating to pick the person that never went.

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

take that person 6, 7, 8 or more times

Rich, are you saying that officials are calling State Finals many times in a row or that they are part of the playoff tournament year after year?

I thought most States had rules like Camron describes Oregon's. I believe my state is two State Finals and you are done. You have to go back to the beginning and work 2 years at each level of the tournament before advancing to the next. It would take at least six years to get back to a State Championship game.

[Rich]

Here, state (currently) is the semis and finals (and the quarterfinals in the big school division) played over the course of 3 days at the end of the season (boys play one week and girls another). If chosen, you get assigned to one game there. And that's what I was talking about.

The people that are selected are great officials, but there are other great officials who never get the call. I worked with 2 this year with over 30 years in who have dotted every i, crossed every t, and work a solid 3-person game who probably will never get chosen. And that's too bad.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Here, state (currently) is the semis and finals (and the quarterfinals in the big school division) played over the course of 3 days at the end of the season (boys play one week and girls another). If chosen, you get assigned to one game there. And that's what I was talking about.

The people that are selected are great officials, but there are other great officials who never get the call. I worked with 2 this year with over 30 years in who have dotted every i, crossed every t, and work a solid 3-person game who probably will never get chosen. And that's too bad.

In Oregon, the state begins with the quarterfinals at all 6 classifications. At each classification, both boys/girls are held at the same venue in the same week and includes 11 games each (the 7 towards the championship and 4 on the consolation side of the bracket). 12 officials are selected for each classification. Those 12 officials work all of the games through the finals....including consolation games...either 3 or 4 games each. Those 12 slots are allocated to each association proportional to the number of schools they service in each classification. Ours get 19 officials out of a total of 72.

The state (Oregon) limits officials to no more than any 2 tourneys in a 3 year period. There is no maximum.

Associations can choose to select their allotment of officials any way they wish. Ours has chosen to be more restrictive than the state....no more than 1 tourney every other year. Aside from that, we have a requirement that effectively says that of our allotment of 19 officials, 6 can not have been in the last 2 years. The first 13 are chosen by vote. The other 6 are independantly selected by the commissioner regardless of their vote position....as long as they meet the other state requirements (90% on the test and have taken the state training class). Our commissioner often uses some of those 6 picks to select people like what Rich described....great officials that have just not made it through the vote after many years...but also up-an-coming officials that just haven't gotten the recognition yet.

[stripes]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Yup, and it's just the way it is.

One day I would like to ask the following question, though:

Rather than picking the same people for the 6th or more time, wouldn't it be better to identify qualified people who never got to reach out for the brass ring to work?

I mean, this is a very, very subjective business that we're in -- there's no way that someone can be SO good at this that it's a no brainer to take that person 6, 7, 8 or more times and there are people who are well qualified and do a great job on the court that it would hurt the quality of officiating to pick the person that never went.

I guess I sit on the other side of this argument. I hear this quite often in my area and generally from officials who want a chance to work at a level that, IMO, they are not read to work. I have no problem with identifying officials who have never had the chance, are qualified and talented enough to be there and giving them a chance (that's how I broke in), but I think there is a misperception that a group of "qualified officials" exists that is being systematically denied opportunities. I don't believe that happens in my neck of the woods.

I have been fortunate to work at the state tournament several times and have worked several times to the Semifinals and beyond. Last season, due to several circumstances, I worked the 5A (largest classification here) boys semis with two guys who had never worked that far into the tournament before. Our pregame was interesting because one of the guys was so nervous that he could barely get dressed and the other guy was faking indifference to being in the game. Trying to deal with both of them and to get their respective heads into the game (as the R) was a challenge. One was hard enough but two took effort. They are both good guys and good refs, but neither was ready (IMO) to be there. They got a real opportunity to show what they could do on a big stage. Things turned out ok, but both coaches said something to me about who my partners were before the game started. Apparently, they like seeing the same guys when it really counts.

BTW, congrats Camron!