That's a sh###y system. Coaches have no such power here when it comes to state assignments. I'd have a pretty low glass ceiling if I ever had to work in a system like that.

I feel like I have little choice unless I want to run for office and "play the political games" in order to get better games faster or try and change the system. Because I've moved around a lot over the years, I have had to start over in many areas, and this one was no different. You are kind of stuck in the system you end up in. If I want to work high school games here, I can choose which association I want, but the clout that the coaches have appears to be a state thing. And since I'm new, I have to be seen and this takes time. I couldn't agree more that it's crappy to give coaches that much power.

Isn't that the political stuff that benefits you?

It's tough to say you want to stay out of the politics, but your group had to have some type of relationship in order to keep the schools you wanted. Maybe the schools wanted some variety and didn't want to see the same guys all of the time?

Funny that you mentioned that - this is one of the main reasons we were told that the school districts left Dallas. They kept sending the same crews to the same schools. There were other reasons as well, but this was near the top. I'm certain that the association was told this as well, but they likely thought they had a stronghold and were too arrogant to realize that the districts would have the nerve to switch associations. Whoops.

FYI, in Portland, we changed the vote weighting last year to not give the coaches so much power. They still have a vote but it is now unweighted....1 coach vote = 1 officials vote.

Previously, the coaches vote was weighted inversely proportional to the ratio of coaches to officials that submitted ballots. Since there are far more officials voting than coaches, under the prior system, a individual coaches vote counted 2.5-4 times as much as an individual officials vote.

I think it is good to keep the coaches involved in the process. They are our customers. The only question is how to include them and how much. We generally need to keep the coaches happy as a group (but not necessarily as individuals). The thing that keeps all things in check is that if an official goes out of their way to make one coach happy, the other coach will be pissed and that will catch up with the official.

As an outsider looking in I'm curious: are the coaches' ratings in your area taken within the context of what happened in a particular game? For example, if a coach gives someone a lousy rating in a game their team lost by 40 while the other coach gives them a great rating it would seem that should be taken into account.

Not directly but I suppose it could be indirectly. Coaches don't rate officials, per se....we hold a vote once per year and they pick their preferred officials. If the vote occurred near that game, it could certainly influence their vote but the effect is limited.

Details...

We are alloted 19 slots across the 6 the state tourneys (quarter-finals and on including consolation brackets, boys and girls combined at each tourney, 12 officials assigned at each of the 6 tourneys). The specific allocations in each are proportional to the number of schools we serve at each classification relative to the rest of the state....we cover 2/3 of the 6A schools and 1/3 of the 5A schools and (roughly) about about 1/6 of each of the rest of the classes.

We have about 120-150 officials who are "eligible" for post-season games. Internally, we narrow that list down, by a vote, to approximately 70 officials. Those 70 officials are put on a ballot that is again presented to the officials and to the coaches. There are about 145 varsity coaches and about 240 officials are eligible to vote. About 60-80 coaches usually vote and about 150-180 officials usually vote.

In an effort to dilute the effect of self-votes and buddy votes, a valid ballot requires a minimum and a maximum number of selection (10 to 19 for officials, 4 to 15 for coaches). Essentially, the coaches pick the 4-15 officials they'd most like to see at a tourney, they can't "ding" one official any more than the other 55-65 they also don't pick. So, unlike other areas that use ratings, a coach can't sink an official's average by giving them a really bad rating.

The results are tabulated with all votes being equal to formulate an order. More or less, the top 19 make the tourney with the #1 having 1st choice of where they want to go.

Honestly this is why I am glad with our process. Only one person assigns all post season games per gender and they use a Power Rating system but not limited to that system and considering things like previous experience and even geography. And one of the individuals told me they will consider things like what kind of games you are working. So if you are working the top games in conferences often, it helps you as compared to someone that has a ton of varsity games but working games that would be easy for a rookie.

And as independent as this process is, away from conference assignors and official's association (even though they do give some information to be considered), people still complain. And they certainly complain when certain people move up and they do not.

I am totally convinced you could have individuals pick their own post season assignments and someone would say that there was local bias. You will never make everyone happy.

Peace

One person has the power to grant or block a person's ability to get to the post season? (it did sound like the system was somewhat data-based but they didn't have to follow it) Sounds like a recipe for problems.

If you ever get on the bad side of that one person, you can kiss your future opportunities goodbye. If you are a buddy of that one person, you get favor. They may not even do it consciously, but I can guarantee that it has happened.....two similar officials, which one do you think they are going to pick.

It may be independent of each conference/association/etc. but it is still one person deciding who is in and who is out. It seems to keep all of the negatives unless you're in the inner cirlce....it has no checks and balances.


At least with a vote system, I don't have to make sure that I please one person or a small group of people but just be generally regarded as doing a good job by more people than not. It is OK if a few don't like me, they can't block my opportunities. It certainly isn't perfect, but it seems far better than a single gatekeeper.

Any less than what I am reading here now? Of course there are problems, but that person tries to get the best guys working. Usually what I see, is usually the most deserving get a shot. Are there omissions or sometimes people overlooked? Of course, but there is no perfect system. And the people that make the decision here do not have officiating people that have a vested interest in their people going to the playoffs.

Yes and no. Of course this is based on one person, but as I said this person runs the entire sport in the state and only assigns the playoffs. He/she does not assign anything else or only assign one area. They assign the entire state. So yes you are right that you could get on the bad side of anyone in anything and kiss your future goodbye. Not that different in this system and chances are those that get on the bad side usually got their on their own.

And this is not really different than the NCAA Tournament or getting a job. It sounds like you can tick off the wrong person in the association-does-all-the-assigning" model that I am reading.

And coaches and certified (a ranking) officials have a say. It is not like you cannot get high numbers and overcome and opinion. I have never met a person that has not gotten a playoff game if they were not available and they did not have good numbers. The people I see complain usually do not have the numbers and have not been seen.

If coaches are the only people voting, not so sure I agree with that. Voting also means that people can come together to accomplish the very same thing you say is wrong with our system. And coaches often have agendas as to why they do not like a certain official. At least in our rating system the coaches have to tell who won and lost and have to answer some questions to even complete a rating. If they choose not to do so, then their rating will not be noted. BTW, coaches have absolutely no say in who works playoffs here or who does not work playoffs. They can give a rating, but it is not uncommon that a guy that is banned from working a coach's games in the regular season, gets playoff games at the very place or with the very school that banned them. I think I told a rather funny story of that happening with a friend of mine this past year. The bottom line our administrators are independent from the coaches and the official's associations. They make decisions based on their integrity or their judgment. Not everyone is going to like all those decisions, but I have grown to understand that I would take that system over what I read many here having. And as I said, this is really not much different than the NCAA and people complain there too. You will never stop complaining.

Peace

Good...so I misunderstood your system...that there was a bunch of "info" that one person could use or not use as they wished when they decide who gets what.

It sounds more like there is a bunch of data that they are expected to use and if there are any interesting anomalies, it would be readily apparent to others (assuming the data is available to more than just the one person).

Not only coaches but coaches and officials....about 70 and 180 of each....250 total ballots with about 3000 votes. It would take a lot of collusion to change the results in any material way. It could be done, but it would be hard to hide. A couple people have tried it...and they were reported and sanctioned. If you try to get enough people in to make the difference, you run the risk of at least one of them not being on the same page and turning you in.

As you seemed to have clarified above, it looks like it isn't exactly solely at their discretion but there is data behind their decisions that they are expected to use and if there were a low ranked official that in or a high ranked official that got left out, there will at least be questions asked.

It almost sounds like you have our system (where the coaches and officials get their input) and then you add on top of it an independent person to takes those results as input to ratify/reject/modify those results with his own assignment choices.

I do not think you misunderstood as much as I probably in this conversation did not give as much information as I could have.

The bottom line is not all systems are perfect. I love our system because I have been in this system pretty much the most of our career so I am clearly bias. I would not be a major advocate of many changes as it applies to all of our sports. People complain all the same in our system and that will never change.

Peace

How is this any different than the "network" I decried in earlier posts and then you soundly poo-poo'ed my comments?

Customers ???????
 

Cam -

I always enjoy reading your posts, but I am always very leery when I see the word CUSTOMERS....it is a term I always hear at the hs level. I have never heard that term at the college level. When i hear customers, I cringe because there is a perception that "the customer is always right"..... I was a camp this summer and the supervisor of officals of the SEC was asked, What have you learned as a supervisor, that if you knew when you were officiating would have made you a better official?" His answer was that he wished he hadn't worried about coaches as much as had when he was a working official.

I assign another sport (not basketball at the hs level), if my umpires dump a coach and the coach calls and complains as long as their was no profanity invloved I send those umpires back to the next game. My guys aren't reason why that team lost.

Once again not saying anything you posted is wrong, just concerned about
CUSTOMERS and what it means at the high school level.............

Agreed. Coaches are not my customers. The "GAME" is my customer.

I never said there was no "network" but that it, at least in Portland, doesn't operate to suppress people outside if it. It is more a circle of friends...and there are several of them. When you have 350 people, not everyone is going to be associating in the same circles.

You never replied to my request for an example of even 1 person that was squashed by the "network"...someone that was truly more deserving than others but didn't get a chance. I know of several people who have left Portland and headed north to Vancouver but not one that I can think of was getting an unfair treatment. Most of them were getting very good schedules....some far better than most people with the same experience. They may have been frustrated with things for whatever reason but it wasn't because they were being treated unfairly relative to their peers.

Well, they are customers. But, no, they're not always right. That phrase is not even correct in any context, even retail. It is just as bad as phrases heard in officiating such as "he wasn't set" or 'he reached".

Example...retail setting....customer walks up and says this new iPhone should be $19.99 instead of $199.99, is the customer right? Of course not.

In every setting, you have to separate the valid complaints (where the customer is right or at least has a legitimate concern) from the bogus complaints. If you just shut them all out, you lose.

We should not be trying to keep the individual customers happy but our customers as a group. Yes, we need to lay down the law when they step over the line, but we also need to work with them when they are being reasonable and just want to understand. There will always be whiners who are never happy and you just have to filter them out. If all/most of the coaches are unhappy with the service we provide, someone has messed up. Perhaps it is in educating the coaches in the rules and the expectation, perhaps it is in training the officials. But in the end they are customers buying services we provide.

Never saw your request...until now. IM on the way. And the names I send you will be people who were held back from getting "good schedules" until it became so apparent to everyone that they were too good to be held back. They were not part of your assignor's "Network" or "circle" and were not treated fairly because of that. Finally some in that "network" said things like "Hey, Xxxx is really pretty damn good." Then suddenly they start getting better assignments and tournaments. Shocking.:rolleyes:

You said something very interesting to me. First thing what is a "good schedule?" Is that not subjective? I know people that work nothing but varsity games and complain about the games they get or that they do not have enough "big games."

Secondly you said they were held back until it was proven they were too good to be held back. OK, did that not mean they proved they could work? Isn't that how it normally goes? And how did they prove they were pretty damn good? Did they go to camps, meetings, trainings or work in front of the right people? I do not read anything nefarious in your claims of not being in someone's circle. If anything, it seems how the individuals you are referencing got games or better games like everyone else I know.

Peace

Still waiting for the IM.

My guess is that, with 350 officials, the assignor just didn't know exactly how good they were....that they were not treated unfairly but were simply not doing what it took to get known. Or, perhaps, they wanted instant results like too many people and didn't want to earn the games the same way the ones before them did.

Sent it Friday.

Or it could be they didn't play golf with the local big-time officials, or weren't on a certain softball team, or didn't go to school with certain people, or didn't work at a certain huge corporation, or didn't give the assignor assess to certain contracts.

Or it could be they didn't play golf with the local big-time officials, or weren't on a certain softball team, or didn't go to school with certain people, or didn't work at a certain huge corporation like other officials who never went to camps or work off-season ball or stay in shape.

Never arrived...was it in this system's Private Message system?

Cut Off At The Pass ???
 

Pony express?

Anything is possible, but I know a lot of people that do none of those things and are fine in their careers.

Peace

Yep...just resent about 2 minutes ago.

Got it.

And, without mentioning names, every one of the people you mentioned are great officials....among the best.

I know two of them far better than the other two but I just don't, however, think they were held back at all by anyone. Of the two I know well, their rise to the top (and they really did get to the top) may not have been meteoric, but it was not sluggish either. They may have felt frustrated along the way when they didn't pop to the top right away, but they were passing people up along the way and rising faster than their peers.


As for the other two, one I had rarely heard of. He was, by all accounts once I did hear of him, fantastic, but if I never heard of him, how would he and his abilities expect to be known. And as for him being "not good enough for a tournament slot" the assignor here didn't have a say in those choices...it was by vote of his peers and coaches. If it is a vote system and no one knows who you are, how do you expect to get votes. He eventually did but I don't think you can put that on "the network".

Regarding someone else who worked no HS girls games going to a girls HS tourney over him...that, again, has nothing to do with the network. The assignor had no say in who got there. It was, again, by vote of all the peers and coaches in combination with the a tournament selection procedure driven by the vote results as specified in the bylaws. It wasn't a choice made by anyone (outside the voters), but the way things fell together. (The system has since been changed to address that issue).


And the other one was getting great games and was highly recognized as long I as knew them.

Simply put, all 4 of the people you mentioned were/are, as I see it, all ahead of me...some started well after me and passed me up along the way. My rise through organization was slower than theirs.

Yes, there were lessor officials getting better games than them. That will always be the case. The Portland system is just a slow moving system with people have to methodically work their way up proving themselves at each rung of the ladder. Once they get to their top level, they'll be happy they can stay there more than 2 weeks before someone else comes along to displace them.

Well it was a definite problem around here since my area only had one assignor for HS games for multiple decades. Our system is different than your system.

All systems are going to be different because you have different people running them. Never stated that it does not happen, but there are a lot of people that use excuses or act like they were wronged when others have been through the same process.

And often people that say they are wronged think there is some special procedures that they have to go through, rather than admitting they did not do everything they could normally to get to a certain point. Case in point the examples that Camron gave about the individuals that were identified to him.

Peace

An interesting thread - because where I am, coaches have ZERO official input into game assignments, playoff or otherwise. Officials as a whole also have no official input.

For everything below the college level, local associations provide officials to various games, and the association sends the clients a bill. The client then pays the bill.

Certainly local assignors have an ongoing dialogue with coaches, AD's, etc., but playoff and provincial championship assignments are made by a committee of senior officials and/or local executive officers.

Our system must seem downright dictatorial to you folks :D

Fixed it for ya! No charge.

You cannot say coaches have no input and then say the assignors talk to them. They might not be the decision makers, which is the way it should be, bu they still have input. ;)

Peace

Coaches talk to us during the game. Do they have input on your calls?

In the sense that if they want to call an assignor and make comments, they can - but very seldom does that have any appreciable effect on who gets what playoff games and where. And they certainly aren't casting votes or filling out ballots, or hiring officials directly like apparently happens where you folks are. That's the point I was trying to make.

Input is one thing. Acting on that input is another. We all get a lot of the former - but the latter...?

http://mytornadoalley.files.wordpres...-mackenzie.jpg

Eh, thanks...ya hoser :D

That was my point. Having a conversation is not equal to having input. It is only input if the conversation has an impact on the decision which follows.

:)

Not the same thing. Assignors talk to coaches for different reasons. They may talk to them to identify a problem and maybe to then follow up on that information themselves. A court official does not have the same working relationship.

All I am saying in your example they have input. That does not mean the impact of that input is great or that their influence is even significant. It just means they have some say and it is up to the assignors to decide how much influence they ultimately at the end of the day. I would suspect it only goes so far by assignors that have an officiating background.

Peace

Not sure how you came to that conclusion. I don't assume I'm entitled to anything. However, I did work to attain certain achievements.

I don't liken a non-profit organization to a "regime" and disagree that it should be run like one.

No, we sued because the board of directors of the organization were not following the own organizations constitution, procedures and policies. If they had, there would have never been a lawsuit.

Also, your second statement is laughable. You must have never been involved in a lawsuit or the law at all to believe that a court's ruling, or a lawsuit not winning equals everything was "satisfactory in the eyes of the law".

Not sure what this is supposed to mean.

Also, I do think that members or an organization should be treated fairly based on what the organizations leaders have said they would do. There was a system in place to assign games. That system was manipulated so as to "punish" those that the board of directors did not like. That's not being fair -- it's being vindictive.

I still worked plenty of games. I was in a position where I was working a good lower-level college schedule as well as for two different D1 supervisors at the time. That was one of the reasons that I was able to put my name on a lawsuit. It was not a surprise that the leadership manipulated schedules -- that's why the majority of the organization just went along with it ... most are too scared to stick their neck out and put their name on the line, knowing that there will be payback.

As far as my dislike for that person, possibly not. However, I hold the policies of an organization in higher regard than my own personal viewpoints.

It was not the president's place to "take care" of anyone as it relates to scheduling games in an organization with well over 500 members. The president is not in charge of scheduling. However, he used his influence and intimidation with members to get his way ... like a petulant child, rather than dealing with things like a rational adult.

Still up on YouTube for everyone's enjoyment!

Tony Timmons - UIL - YouTube

A really funny part of the video is when James Batiste walks up to Tony Timmons and whispers in his ear that he is being videotaped. Really shows Batiste's mindset -- he did and still does a lot of stuff in secrecy.

And, BTW, I was the one videoing it from my phone ... not for any nefarious reasons either -- a couple of my friends weren't able to make the meeting and I wanted them to be able to see and hear for themselves what Tony said.

Many of his statements were entered into TASO's lawsuit against the UIL (which is still ongoing I believe) ... That's what happens when you shoot off at the hip and act like such a big shot.

In Texas we have a phrase for people like that: All hat and no cattle!

And this is why organizations should get away from assigning and let a conference to schools do it themselves. If someone does not like you or treat you fair, you can go elsewhere.

Again that is why I am blessed to be in our system. It might not be perfect, but I can work in many places.

Peace