Local politics blues

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Honestly this is why I am glad with our process. Only one person assigns all post season games per gender...

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.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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).

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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).

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

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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

[Multiple Sports]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.............

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Multiple Sports

Cam -

I always enjoy reading your posts, but I am always very leery when I see the word CUSTOMERS...

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Multiple Sports

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.............

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.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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.

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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.

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.