Local politics blues

[Brad]

Originally Posted by w_sohl

I don't know if it is the area I'm in or what, but the football is no better than I've seen in Illinois, Indiana, or California. In fact, the football I worked in CA was much better than the stuff I worked around Corpus Chrisit. And this stuff with TASO and UIL trying to figue out who has the bigger penis is rediculous. I had the least fun officiating in this state that I ever had. Thank God I'm moving back to Indiana, can't wait to start working games there.

You should change your post title from "Texas is a joke..." to the "UIL is a joke..." -- they are the ones that single-handedly are trying to destroy an organization that has served officials very well for many decades.

At the local level in Houston, the UIL is even a bigger mess -- I personally can't believe that the members have let the president and board get away with half of the crap he has done. It is unbelievable and completely unethical.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Coaches having so much influence on the whole process is another big one.

Dirty little secret: Coaches have a lot of influence at EVERY level.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by w_sohl

West Lafayette, Eric Harmon will be my assignor for basketball and if he feels I'm capable I think he may use me for his local underclass football games. I think his crew is pretty spread throughout the state.

Great guy ... you'll enjoy working for him!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Brad

Dirty little secret: Coaches have a lot of influence at EVERY level.

On some level they do, but they have to explain themselves to many people in other areas. Heck if a coach tries to ban an official around here they just might get them again in some capacity.

Quick story. There was an official in my area that is a very good official and happened to tick off some coach in a conference. Well the coach ended up having this guy in a Christmas Tournament. Then when the playoffs took place he got this officials again for all his games. So it only goes so far in many places and some assignors will want a very big reason to ban a guy from a school or not put them on future games. Assignors know who their silly coaches are and act accordingly.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Brad

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.

I was not saying that coaches have absolutely no say whatsoever. I am saying they just have to prove a little more about why they do not want someone on their games. College conferences have a smaller staff and it is not like a coach can ban the entire staff and not have to prove why.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Brad

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.

Since the coordinators at the college level are hired by the conference and the assignor wants to keep their job (presumably), they have to, on average, please the conference (read as coaches). If they don't, the conference will hunt for a new assignor.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Brad

Coaches have a lot of influence at EVERY level.

Here in "The Land of Steady Habits", coaches "vote" for officials who will work the state tournament. Believe it, or not, they actually do a pretty good job selecting officials. They seldom select an official who doesn't deserve to be there. Full disclosure. I have never worked a state tournament game. I've come close a few times, but have never worked the "big show".