Ratings
 

Does every state have an official rating system? Here in Missouri the coaches rate you from 1 to 5 on various criteria (1 being the best, 5 the worst). The state association uses this as part of thier criteria for post season assignments. They also tell you any areas where a coach has marked that you need to improve. I got a 'needs to improve' on 'verbal communication' (I will cop to that), and then a couple on 'consistency'. I didn't see that one coming because I try to be very consistent. In any event, it just strikes me as strange that coaches are evaluating me vs another ref or assigner or something. How do other states do this?

My association in Texas does not use coaches as part of our evaluation. Ours are done primarily off of peer evaluations by a ghost evaluation committee. Our board will re-evaluate those that either get inconsistent peer evaluations or would like to appeal their rating. I find it to be very fair.

Communication could be valid. Consistency is usually the same as "call it both ways". They see you call a block on them, they want the next collision on the other end to be a block even though it could only be a charge.

Coaches, in general, are unlikely to be fair judges of officials. They are naturally biased and want everything to go their way. The more it does, the more they like you...and the other coach doesn't.

I was reading some fan discussion boards recently and fans of both teams thought the officials were strongly favoring the other team. That, of course, it not even possible. They just see what they want where anything less than 80% for their team is unbalanced.

How 'bout if we rate you?
 

Precisely here in a midwestern state also beginning with the same letter as yours.
My guess: good officials in your state have more "needs improvement" in the category entitled "consistency" than any other.
Reason: coaches' definition "consistent" differs from ours.
All things being equal, it's pathetic that any state association would consider myopic ratings such as these for any purpose whatsoever.
Sad to say, some do.

In NC, coaches have no role in rating officials, nor do we have a role in rating them.

The Constitution State ...
 

In my little corner of Connecticut: Peer ratings (for the most part) that impact one's regular season, and post season, conference assignments (number, and level of games). Some officials aren't pleased with the system, but we haven't come up with anything better, despite decades of trying.

For state (entire state) tournament games: Coaches vote, the more votes, the farther one goes into the tournament. And the coaches here do a pretty good job of selecting the best officials. My local board had about fifty officials selected for the state tournament (boys and girls), and with one possible exception (in my opinion) they all deserved to be there.

So how did you get all those coaches to vote for you? :eek:

Exactly

An state sport administrator makes all of our assignments. They consider an overall rating system that consists of 40 points and 8 different categories that make up 5 points each. Only two involve any input from coaches (Top 15 list and varsity ratings) and that at the end of the day is just data. The administrator uses whatever criteria she or he chooses to use to decide who works the State playoffs and the State Finals. Your coach's ratings can be high and you still may never go past a certain level in the playoffs. Actually it appears ratings are only used as a way to separate individuals that are close together, but it is clear that other things are factored in to playoff assignments. Things like geography, years of experience, what games you have worked (conferences) and if you follow IHSA procedures. There is even a factor to what race or gender you are as they look for officials that represent what is on the floor.

Peace

I am in your state.

Every official I have talked to since I started working basketball has the most marks under "Needs Improvement" under the "Consistency" column. It doesn't matter if it's a second year official or 10th year official. You could have 10 close plays in a game and get all of them right, and at least one of the coaches is going to mark you down for consistency.

The level of games and the sex of the participants also plays a role in my experience. Lower class (Smaller school) games and girls games are going to hurt your rating before you even walk on the floor.

In other words: Don't worry about it.

Michigan and Missouri basically use the same system. Coaches rate officials on a 1-5 scale and can listed improvement categories. Certain ratings are needed for certain levels of post-season play.

Pleased To Meet You ...
 

I just pass out my card so that they can remember me.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5478/9...bbd11068_m.jpg

No Home Jobs ...
 

In a small state like Connecticut, for state tournament games, geography doesn't come into play. We travel the entire state.

Local board affiliation does come into play. For state tournament games, we can work games involving both teams from our local board, or we can work games where neither team uses our local board officials. We cannot work games where one of the teams uses our local board officials, and the other doesn't.

Also, at least one female must be part for the crew on the floor (not an alternate) for girls state tournament finals. Some of our male officials get slightly peeved at this, they sit home while a less qualified official, because she has a vagina, gets the game.

Same here in Washington.

At one point in time, our Assoc. allowed Coaches to "blacklist" up to 3 officials they did not want to see that season. We started tracking some of those lists...and we found that- in almost all of the cases - the officials being blacklisted were 1)officials who had T'd that coach the previous season, or 2)officials on the game which was that team's worst loss the previous season.

So we stopped doing the "Blacklist".

"I Rate Those Who Don't Take Care of Business Higher"
 

Once heard an interview with a prominent coach from a large city in our state who claimed, as I recall it, "I don't think any official is worthy of a 5 and a 3 is average, so I try to give most of them 4's if I can."
It seemed clear that for years he had the numbers reversed.
And this guy's ratings determine post-season assignments to some extent?