Local politics blues

[w_sohl]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Coming from California, Texas has been...interesting as far as football is concerned. I did not call basketball in California so I don't have much to compare to in that sense. What I can say is that officiating was not nearly as politically disfunctional there as it is here.

The TASO v. UIL thing being a big one but in general, it's an ugly animal here in comparison. Coaches having so much influence on the whole process is another big one.

BNR, your situation sounds fairly similar. Are you just staying the course and doing what you can? I do have the option of joining the larger chapter in addition to the one I belong to but I'm not necessarily inclined to do so.

Coaches have WAY to much pull in Texas. First game last season coach starts dropping F-Bombs on my sideline. Knowing how much pull they have I tell him it isn't appropriate and he plays stupid, "What did I say". He does it a second time and I tell him "that is enough, next one gets a flag" and he calls my white hat over and refuses to let me be part of the conversation. My white hat then asks me if I'll move to the other side of the field and I tell him no, and ask him "who's team are you on?" It happens a third time and I flag the coach and he looses it, my white hat ask if I'll go to the other side now and I say "sure, but you need a new flank for the rest of the season."

In this sitch, not only did the coach have too much power, but my white hat decided to expand his power. He appologized to me after the game, and I worked the rest of the season, but I knew I wasn't going to remain on that crew if I had stayed in TX. The rest of the guys were OK, umpire needed some work from a rule book perspective. Heck, my white hat did too, I can't tell you how many times he came to me for rule clarifications during a game.

[johnny d]

jrut you either dont work in the catholic league or you have never tried, because you wont get games in that league unless you belong to the coa. i do agree that for the most part our system seems better, but i think it is naive of you to say or believe that politics still isnt involved.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by johnny d

jrut you either dont work in the catholic league or you have never tried, because you wont get games in that league unless you belong to the coa. i do agree that for the most part our system seems better, but i think it is naive of you to say or believe that politics still isnt involved.

I never said in this thread there were no politics at all in basketball or in this area. But I also think people use this as a built in excuse for other personal failings or not doing what people could do to help their standing or schedules. I was the president of an association for 3 years and we had a couple of assignors that were members and they gave games to all kinds of officials. Being a member of that association (the oldest in the country BTW) had no benefit of you being a member to get games from those conferences that the assignors worked under.

I am also a COA member and have been for a long time in both football and basketball. Being a COA member is not the end all be all of working that league in basketball. There might be people that are paid members but not active members. I know of a few that have never attended a meeting and they get games. Also this is one league out of 20 or so and working that league is a hassle for many unless you live in Chicago city limits. You are not going to work 25-30 games in any league at the varsity level for sure (well unless you are a WFA member. LOL!!!). I work that league and have had some of the better games in that league and I only see about 4 or 5 at most a year. And I have worked games in every school in that league over the years except Gordon Tech (had them on the road a couple of times) and it took years to accomplish that feat. And my schedule in that league reflects more what I do in other places and my standing as an official. The assignor is not stupid; he wants guys that his school is going to see in several tournaments or in the post season, things he does not control.

Peace

[KingTripleJump]

Originally Posted by w_sohl

Coaches have WAY to much pull in Texas.

This.

This is one of the major reasons I'm considering not doing high school anymore and focusing specifically on college.

The TASO vs. UIL thing isn't helping either.

[johnny d]

sorry to disappoint you, but coaches have way more say at the college level. maybe not who they will have on their games, but certainly who wont be working games in their gym.

[KingTripleJump]

Originally Posted by johnny d

sorry to disappoint you, but coaches have way more say at the college level. maybe not who they will have on their games, but certainly who wont be working games in their gym.

I think people are smart enough to know that.

[johnny d]

than you shouldnt say one of the reasons you are planning on concentrating on college rather than high school ball is to avoid the fact that coaches have way too much pull!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by johnny d

sorry to disappoint you, but coaches have way more say at the college level. maybe not who they will have on their games, but certainly who wont be working games in their gym.

College coaches have to have a little more accountability when they complain at that level. It does not work in many cases as "I simply do not want to see that guy on my games." They usually need some video or something unprofessional to happen to accomplish to ban or blacklist someone from their games. After all the official supervisors answers to the commissioner (of the conference), not the coaches. And a commissioner is not going to be all for a coach controlling who works on a game. Coaches at that level have to be more professional and have some national standards to follow. I ejected a coach this past year in a college game and I have to send a report to the governing body.

Peace

[Brad]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

College coaches have to have a little more accountability when they complain at that level. It does not work in many cases as "I simply do not want to see that guy on my games." They usually need some video or something unprofessional to happen to accomplish to ban or blacklist someone from their games. After all the official supervisors answers to the commissioner (of the conference), not the coaches.

Sorry, you're wrong on this one ... I've had experiences on the lower-level college (JuCo) as well as the Division I level where coaches had direct influence on me not working future games for them. Both cases were technical fouls that were very well deserved, but with which the coaches disagreed. There was no accountability for them or and requirement for them to back-up their complaint with anything other than "I don't want that guy back"

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Brad

Sorry, you're wrong on this one ... I've had experiences on the lower-level college (JuCo) as well as the Division I level where coaches had direct influence on me not working future games for them. Both cases were technical fouls that were very well deserved, but with which the coaches disagreed. There was no accountability for them or and requirement for them to back-up their complaint with anything other than "I don't want that guy back"

I guess it depends on the supervisor because there is a certain D1 supervisor that took over a staff in recent year and it was felt that if an official T'd a coach the conversation or interaction would be different with the new supervisor.

Also in my experience I have worked for some very strong supervisors and coaches had very little say or they had to do more than just ban a guy. That does not mean that a supervisor is going to send you into the lion's den and put you in a bad situation. It just means that they are not in that big of control. And in college it is not unusual to have a coach or team two or three times. I know a NAIA coach that one time tried to complain about a D1 official and that official went back to that school or had them later that year and the next year. I guess it just depends on who you are working with then.

And at the D1 level I have seen many officials that have had run ins with coaches only for them to work their games in the future. Now maybe in those cases they are not trying to ban those coaches, but that does not mean there is not accountability to review tape or show something that was done wrong by the coach. This is also probably part regional and part based on each supervisor. But at the D1 level for sure there are more games on tape and it is not like HS where a coach can make a claim and then there is no evidence or multiple angles to prove what was called or done in a game.

I am not saying either that coaches have no say, but I would not compare at all what we see at the HS level as the same as what we see in college.

Peace

[Brad]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I guess it depends on the supervisor because there is a certain D1 supervisor that took over a staff in recent year and it was felt that if an official T'd a coach the conversation or interaction would be different with the new supervisor.

True ... every coordinator has their own approach.

I think it's better that the coordinator has complete control and the coaches have little or zero control ... it's just that, oftentimes, that's not the case.