As you all are aware, camps will be starting soon and some officials will have to make a choice as to whether they wish to officiate men or women's b-ball. I don't think that I will get picked up for a conference, but on the slim chance that I do, I need to have a preference. My question is: besides preference, what all do you consider when making that choice? And after you have made the choice is it set in stone or can you switch.
I am a young official and I am going into my third year, and I am just looking for some advice from the veterans who have made that decision. Thanks for hearing me out!

I will try.
 

<b>My question is: besides preference, what all do you consider when making that choice?</b>

Which one I like doing the most.

<b>And after you have made the choice is it set in stone or can you switch.</b>

It is never set in stone. You can always change your mind, depending on the assignor or the level you are moving to. If you are trying to go to the NBA/WNBA, your background is not always going to matter. The NBA will train you to their "style" of officiating.

<b>I am a young official and I am going into my third year, and I am just looking for some advice from the veterans who have made that decision. Thanks for hearing me out!</b>

No problem, good luck.

Peace

Re: I will try.
 

Um, isn't that the same as "preference"? ;)

Besides preference, you might consider that it is generally easier to advance on the women's side. This is especially true for women, but it is also true for men to a lesser extent. I think (and I could be wrong) that there are more people who prefer to officiate men's ball. This means that there are fewer quality officials vying for the spots on the women's side.

I think the travel and compensation are generally similar, regardless of whether you work men's or women's. One thing I don't like about working girls games in HS is that the logistics of getting changed and showering make it difficult to have a good pre-game or post-game discussion.

You can always try to switch. My concern would be that if I started out on the women's side, then men's assignors would view me as a "women's official" and not want to give me a shot. It's also almost impossible to both at the same time (at the college level), from what I understand.

Good luck at camp. We'll expect a full report ;)

Uhhhhh...Chuck? Why are you showering with the players? And why do you shower with them BEFORE the game? :eek:

Re: Re: I will try.
 

Chuck, the question was <b>"what all do you consider when making the choice?"</b> If I like doing one over the other, that is enough for me. Some folks do it because the games are not as physically demanding as the other. Some do it because I can advance faster in one over the other. Some do it because they have friends that have advanced in a specific side of the ball, so they want to try that side.

So for me, I like doing Men's Basketball over Women's Basketball, just because I like the Men's game over the Women's game. No money considerations. No advancement considerations. I just like doing one type of ball over the other. It is that simple for me.

Peace

Re: Re: Re: I will try.
 

You just can't ever say, "Ha ha, I guess you got me that time" and have a good-natured laugh at yourself, can you?

No, it wasn't. You even quoted the question. I really can't believe you sometimes. The question was "besides preference". . . See it, right up there? It's even underlined for you.

I don't care what your preference is, boys or girls, that's your business and it's as valid as anybody else's preference. You like boys? That's fine, it's GREAT. No problem.

My only point was that the question specifically said "beside preference" and then the only answer you gave was your preference. I thought that was kind of funny. But no, you have to try to rationalize it somehow. Good thing you don't care what anybody on this board thinks :rolleyes:

Can't you see the smiley and take it as a joke, the way it was intended? Jeez.

I chose Women's ball for 1 reason: The butt kissing and egos involved with Men's ball is typically absurd. I have little patience with this. Women's ball has become pretty competitive, particulary at the D2 and up level.....Plus, the weekday start times are usually around 5:30, so you can get home before midnight even with a 2-3 hour drive.

Good grief Rut...the original questions said BESIDES PREFERENCE, and then your only answer is that it is your preference. Good one...

And to Brianp134, some things to consider - what type of people will I be working with? i chose women's collegiate ball because the officials on the men's side around here (I can only speak for 'around here") did not seem to have the friendships and desire to help each other out that I saw on the women's side...I chose to work where I would have partners who would travel with me, go out to dinner after the games, etc...just something else to think about or look at...are the men's officials in your area jerks? Or maybe are the women's officials jerks? Who would you rather work with?

Boy - I'm glad with all this talk about preference that Michael Jackson isn't an official. :p

This is a great point, Rocky. I haven't seen it as much, but I have heard this about the men's side around here, too. The guys at "the top" don't really want the new guys to move up, so there's not a lot of help. I've been lucky and have had a lot of help and had people say good things about me, but that is definitely a consideration that I hadn't. . . uh. . . considered :)

Hey! Is that the same thing as a preference that you prefer??? :)

A little off subject, but in my position, my officiating friends are calling me crazy. I have a SOLID chance of going D1 Womens next season. My thing is I absolutly love working a good HS boys game over a college womens game. I like the play better, and not to open another can of worms, but working in front of sold out gyms and arenas is awesome. I think the only way you'll work in a sold out gym for women's is to work at UConn, Tenn, Duke........... My thing is if I do get picked up on the Men's side this year, I will be starting at the bottom again and probably have to work my way up the ladder a little bit longer. Anybody ever been in this sitch? Any comments would be appreciated.

Re: I gave an answer...............
 

I'm very happy now, Rut. I tried to make a joke. You didn't get it. No skin off my nose. I will move on.

I have not been in your situation. And I wouldn't call you crazy. However, I think that if I had a solid shot at D1 women's and only a long-shot at D1 men's, I would probably take the women's spot. If I thought that I still had a decent chance at D1 men's (which I'd have to give up for the women's spot), then I would pass up the women's spot.

I want to work D1. If I can only do that on the women's side, then that's what I'd do. If I felt that I still had a chance on the men's side, I stick with the men.

That's just me. Good luck on your decision.

There is not "besides."
 

Good grief Rocky, ya think there is not a "besides preference" in my decision? Ya think I might just made a decision on one and only one factor? Or because you cannot make a decision without several factors being made, I have to be just like you?

There is no other reason except for my perference, that is why I answered the question the way I did. Sorry that does not fit your way of looking at the world. I am sorry it is not about the money, assignor, mechanics or anything else for that matter have anything to do with why I just want to do Men's Basketball at the college level. Plain and simple.

Peace

This is better than Springer. :p

...and in the meantime I still want to know why Chuck was showering with the girls HS basketball team. Before the game!!!

Forget why! I want to know how he was able to shower with the girls HS basketball team and how can I go about doing it!?! :D

On the off chance the FBI (or my wife) is monitoring this thread:

"I can't hear you!!! I can't hear you!!!"

:D

Zebra,
2 things to consider
i. The ball is round and the cash is green. Two is Two and Three is Three. It is the game of basketball and it is at the highest level. Getting 325 for a women's game is a lot better then getting 55 for a boys varsity game. Maybe I am a hopeless romantic (Hey I did get married in Vegas) but basketball is basketball and if I have a chance to work the highest level I would do it.
ii. The old addage "A bird in the hand is worth to in the brush" applies here. You may NEVER get the chance to work D1 men's. Why give up a sure thing?

Also, when we are talking about "preference" or "preferance" between boys and girls, could we use the word "basketball" after them? It just sounds odd saying "I prefer boys over girls". Same with men or women, unless we are talking about dating styles. Thank you.

another question
 

Thanks for all of the responses to my question. I appreciate all of the replys that have been listed. It has made my decision a little easier. While most of my friends will be applying for mens ball, I will try for womens ball. In this area (MD, DC) there seems to be more officials trying to get into mens ball vice women. That is not to say that the competition is not as stiff with women ball, but I feel my chances are better. My next question is: Is it harder for a man to advance in womens ball vice a woman advancing in womens ball?

Brian,

Not that it's "harder" for a man to advance in the Women's game, but the reality is that Supervisors and Coaches want to see women working the Women's game! Makes sense.
So if there's a choice between the two, the woman may be given first priority. Not always, but still something to keep in mind.

Re: another question
 

Assuming equal ability, yes.

the stupid elvis link still didn't work. never mind :mad:

[Edited by ChuckElias on May 13th, 2003 at 09:59 AM]

Re: another question
 

That depends on who you talk to. But when I look at the top games in the Women's games, I usually do not see many men. I think it is easier for women to advance, because that is what the assignors and coaches seem to want. But then again, it depends on who you talk to.

Peace

Re: another question
 

I will answer that by telling you what a D-1 Women's Supervisor told me (and this is close to an actual quote): "If I have a choice between three officials - all of the same skill and ability level - and one is a white male, one is a woman, and one is a minority male, I will hire the woman first, the minority second, and the white male third."

I am not trying to make any type of political statement here, just repeating what this supervisor told me. That's all part of the "game" of getting hired and moving up... good luck with it, and keep us posted on how it turns out...

And a minority woman (with superior ability, like Violet Palmer) is a "home run".

Re: Re: Re: another question
 

I totally agree with you. But you realize you started some sh!t now? :D

Peace

Yes you did start some stuff, because that statement makes no sense whatsoever. And of course JRutledge "totally agrees" because he is used to arguing points that make no sense as well.

What does the color of ones skin or the plumbing in ones body have to do with whether or not someone has the ability to officiate a game? There are many fantastic officials at all levels that are of all races and genders. I would venture a guess that these are not the reasons that this assignor has developed this criteria for hire with all factors being equal. S/He probably has developed it because the amount of females and minorities calling ball or disproportiate. If the numbers were more proportionate, I would guess that this criteria would not play as big a role in hiring decisions and others factors would play in. This hiring order is not all that different from what you see in business today, therefore I would expect it to be the same here. Also, let me say that I am not opposed to this practice either. I believe that all things being equal, females and minoriities should be considered for positions over white males if the data shows that these populations are under-represented in the organization. Everyone should have an equal opportunity is the bottom line.

This is probably not the right forum to discuss this topic. It just chaps me when people say that people should be assigned to games because of their gender or race and not because of merit alone! Off my soapbox now.

My thoughts are this: If you enjoy doing HS, then stay there. If you are merely going to Womens D1 to say "hey I am a D1 official", then you need to move on to some other avocation. You will still have a "pecking order" to get through at whatever level you go to (and yes this order includes ME)! You have to love the game you do, whether it is HS, College or Pro. If all you want is to pump up your ego by officiating, then stay wherever you are.

Nothing. And no one said it did. Not sure what you're complaining about here.

So then what are you complaining about? That's all Homey and Rut said should happen. For years and years, women's basketball had been dominated by male officials (and to a lesser extent coaches). This is bad for two reasons.

1) Women were disproportionately represented in the officiating ranks, just as you mentioned.

2) The participants in the games were women, yet women were the underrepresented group, as Homey pointed out.

Now assignors for women's conferences are trying bring more female officials into their ranks to eliminate those disparities.

Why ream Rut for nothing? There's plenty of other stuff he says that's wrong. It sounds to me like you agree on this one.

I took the comment "Those are the people playing the game. Those should be the people reffing the game" to mean that only women should ref womens games and that games that involve mostly minorities, minorities should ref those games. In other words the demographics of who is PLAYING should determine who calls the game. If that is not what was meant and I misunderstood, then I apologize.

The point I was making was people should be chosen to officiate on merit. If assignors were to hire officials based on the way I interpreted the comment above there would not be equal opp and we would lose a lot of good officials.

Now if you have equally qualified officials from each category we have talked about and you only have one female on staff, then the equally qualified (to the white male official candidate) female ought to get a shot. That is all I am saying.

Give you something to think about.
 

Of course it does not make sense to you, it is not your way of thinking.

The exact same as where an official lives, what school they graduated from and what school they support (giving money to an Athletic Program for example) might play apart in what conferences you might be able to work or not. Cooperate America does this all the time. Ask Walgreens why when I go to their stores on 53rd and Ashland (Englewood area, All-Black community), why the entire staff is African-American? But when I come to the Western Suburbs, there are not one African-American in the entire store? Ya think it might be because Walgreens recognizes their customer base would like to see people like themselves working behind the counter? I was a Manager for a Walgreens Store (the Ashland one BTW) and that is exactly the objective that Walgreens lives by. Walgreens in Manager training would instruct the hiring of staff based on factors that reflected the community the store would be located. I am sure the Assignors of Conferences try to accomplish the same thing. You might have to tell McDonald's and Burger King the same thing, if you feel race has nothing to do with their marketing or hiring practices in certain communities.

Well merit is a fallacy. Just try to apply to college an not indicate where you live, who your parents are (did they attend that school or not), what your background is and yes, what your race is. Even if the Supreme Court rules against the University of Michigan on the Affirmative Action case, I wonder how many in the opposition is going to court over the Michigan residents that get consideration over non-residents? I wonder if you will be outraged at the extra points the folks in the "Upper Peninsula" get for just living in that part of Michigan? I wonder will you be outraged of my legacy status if I apply to the University of Michigan Law school (Mother, sister and brother all attended the University of Michigan)? So just because my family members attended the University of Michigan, I get extra points or consideration because of that fact alone. I am also sure since my Mother recieved her Ph.D at that University, it might help if she know someone on the Committee of Law Admissions. Now let us say I graduate from the University of Michigan Law School, ya think it might not have an affect how many Big Ten games I do if I ever earn the opportunity to go D1? I don't know, let us put an official that was born in Ann Arbor, Michigan, attended the University of Michigan (Family too now) and put him on the Michigan-Illinois game that will decide the conference title (probably will not happen for a few years, considering Michigan is on probation and all :( ) compared to an Official that lives in Hammond, IN and attended Florida Atlantic and grew up in St. Petersburg, Florida? I think the choice is a little easier. It may never happen that exact way, but I guess the Big Ten PR machine is not going like the first choice if anything goes wrong in favor of Michigan in this hypothetical game.

Peace

Re: Give you something to think about.
 

I'm not a lawyer but I believe the case hinges on race based preference simply because the constitution explicitely outlaws race as a means of discrimination - ie it says nothing about "legacy", where you live, etc.

Ok, I see a little better what was eating at you. I interpreted it similarly, only without the "only" that I underlined in the above quote. I thought he was saying since women play the games, women ought not to be underrepresented in the officiating ranks. And I would agree with that. Likewise, if a given league is made up of 95% black athletes, I would think that the officiating roster ought not to be 95% white officials. I would also agree with what you wrote in your last post.

I think we're on the same page. :)

It's not. And nobody said it was. Your initial post was a good one and thought-provoking. Try not to let yourself get side-tracked by muddying the discussion with something that has no bearing on the issue. Just my two cents.

Re: Re: Give you something to think about.
 

You are correct. Lawyers were able to argue that UM's admission policy was unconstitutional because it was a race based discrimination, which is unconstitutional. Discrimination based on legacy, geography and financial situation are perfectly legal. What would be interesting would be if a "Private" college, say Hope College for you Michiganders or Wheaton for you Illini, had the same type of point system for admissions that UM did. Now THAT would be a can of worms!

This discussion is not just for lawyers.
 

I understand what the case is about, but my point is that people get so outraged over a factor like race, but you do not get upset over another preference which involves race. There are not many "Upper Peninsula" people that look much like me. I would also bet that the majority of legacies are not African-American either. Espcially when there was a time that African-Americans were not allowed in Michigan or any of the other major Universities in this country. Do not say (I am not saying you specifically, for the record ;)) that merit should be your only factor for considering "qualifications," but you consider factors of previledge which have undertones of race involved.

BTW, my Mother who recieved her Ph.D from Michigan, recieved her undergrad at Florida A&M University, was not allowed to attend the University of Florida in Grad School, because of segregation or because of her race. She was given money (by the State of Florida) to go out of state, but not allowed to attend Universities in her home State of Florida. She went on to attend the University Of Wisconsin at Madison for her Masters and went on the Michigan for her Piled, high and Deep. And this example is just one of many of why people are for the University of Michigan and other universities that have racial considerations for admissions.

Peace

Re: Re: Re: Give you something to think about.
 

And Lawyers for the UM said that it was not unconstitutional and a way to achieve diversity, just like the other many factors in the point system. And this to many is not unconstitutional. You know it is not like the court has not said that Affirmative Action was legal or right in past cases.

Peace

Three basic problem's with your argument.
The first is assuming that what is right is legal and what is legal is right. These often can be polar opposites.
The second is that the UM lawyers lost their argument. The court ruled that you can not give points based on race. Just as you can not give points based on religion or gender. Constitutionally you ARE allowed to give points for being from the UP or for being left handed if you want to.
Finally, the courts have never ruled SPECIFICALLY on Affirmative Action.
The bottom line is, in line with this thread, officiating, as with any other job starts with who you know. If you are friends with a supervisor, you are probably going to get looks that you may not get if you are not "networked". A great addage I have found to be fairly accurate "WHO you knows can get you a job, but WHAT you know can keep your job."

Fair enough. I don't think anybody will disagree with you, either. It sounded to me like you were trying to say that NCAA women's officials are chosen through the "old boys network". I misunderstood. My bad. Keep posting, and I'll try to read better. ;)

I really do not want to debate all the merits of Affirmative Action or not, mainly because I do not have all the necessary facts in front of me. But the <i>Backey vs Cal-Berkeley</i> was a case about Affirmative Acton. There was also another one dealing with the University of Texas, which are cited as decisions against "Affirmative Action." So there have been cases besides this one in considering "Affirmative Action" practices.

Actually I am with Official Hommie on this one, I just think there are other factors where race/gender play a factor, but we look the other way. Race, just like what region you are from makes a difference in whether you get hired or not. If you live in Chicago, you are much more likely to get hired as a D1 Officials (different sports too) than if you live in Colchester, Illinois. Mainly because the official that lives in Colchester is not near a major airport and the official in the Chicago area is. I only want to say that merit seems to be a small part in making a decision, if it is based on merit at all. And when you talk about merit, who is making the decision on what is valued as an official and what is not? And if I am the assignor, I can use any criteria that I choose as long as the officials are doing the job. That might not be the same thing that everyone can come to an agreement on but if I am making the decisions, everyone's opinion is not an issue. Which happen in our region with many D1 Officials when a new assignor came into the conferences that they worked. Many were not asked back.

Peace