• Announcements

    • Coach Nowlin

      HEAD COACH OPENING 2018   10/21/2017

      CONFIRMED HEAD COACH CHANGES IN 2018 Lafayette Central Catholic;  Don Collier Brian Nay Hired Kankakee Valley:  Zack Prairie  Derek Thompson Hired Valparaiso:  Dave Coyle Steven Mueller Hired  Bill Marshall Promoted  Evansville North:  Brett Szabo Joey Paridaen Hired from Eastern Greene Hamilton Southeastern:  Scott May  Adam Morris Hired  Peru:  Bob Prescott Romison Saint-Louis Hired North Daviees:  Scott Helms  Trent Fine Hired Evansville Central:  Andy Owens Troy Burgess Hired River Forest: Austen Robison  Joe O'Connell Hired Shelbyville:  Pat Parks Mike Clevenger Hired from Clinton Prairie Rushville:  Scott McMurray Dan Rector Hired  Cathedral: Rick Strieff:  Bill Peebles Hired from Lawrence Central  South Spencer:  Tom Packer John Edge Hired  Bishop Dwenger:  Chris Svarczkopf  Jason Garrett Promoted  Maconaquah: Mark Hartman  Austin Colby Hired  Anderson High School:  Robert Brown Ron Quals Hired  Highland:  Trent Grinder Pete Koulianos Hired from Hanover Central  Southern Wells:  Steve Yencer Greg Mose Hired   Warsaw:  Phil Jenson  Bart Curtis Hired From Mishawaka Lawrence Central:  Bill Peebles John Rodenberg Hired  Eastern Hancock:  Jim O'hara Doug Armstrong Hired Tri-Central:  George Gilbert  Shane Arnold Promoted Franklin County:  Kirk Kennedy  Wes Gillman Hired Hobart:  Ryan Turley  Craig Osika Promoted Anderson Prep Academy Randy Albano  Michael Torgerson Hired Clarksville:  Joby Turner Justin Boser Hired  New Haven  Jim Rowland  Jimmy Linn Promoted  S.B. Clay:  Will Porter Garrett Fields Hired Mt. Vernon (Fortville) Neil Kazmierczak Mike Kirschner Hired Central Noble  Greg Moe  Trevor Tipton Promoted  Clinton Prairie:  Mike Clevenger  Raymond Jones Hired From Fountain Central Ben Davis:  Mike Kirschner Jason Simmons Hired from Noblesville  Parke Heritage :  ????    Brian Moore Hired Mishawaka Marian:  Reggie Glon  Michael Davidson Promoted Hamilton Heights:  Mitch Street  Jon Kirschner Promoted  Knightstown:  Kevin Miller Chad Montgomery Hired Richmond: Ibrahim Tawfeek Tony Lewis Hired Eastern Greene: Joey Paridaen Travis Wray Promoted  Mishawaka: Bart Curtis Keith Kinder Promoted Kokomo:  Brett Colby Richard Benberry Jr. Promoted  Hanover Central:  Pete Koulianos Brian Parker Hired  Oldenburg Academy:  Kevin Ferneding Eric Feller Hired Fountain Central: Raymond Jones  Ryan Hall Hired  Elwood:  Joe Kwisz Chuck Foga Hired Noblesville:  Jason Simmons Justin Roden Hired from East Central  Jeffersonville:  Alfonzo Browning Brian Glesing Hired from Floyd Central Wabash:  Floyd McWhirt  Adam Handley Hired Fairfield:  Bob Miller Matt Thacker Hired East Central:  Justin Roden Don Stonefield (Interim )  Munster:  Leroy Marsh  Jason Grunewald promoted Floyd Central:  Brian Glesing  James Bragg Hired Tell City:  Josh Teague Aaron Clements Hired Pike Central:  Erik Mattingly Dave Stephens Hired Crawford County:  Kevin Mills Northwestern Steve Dibler  Patrick Rosner hired  Gary West:  Jason Johnson Collin McCullough Hired
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
falconsfbref

Rankings

Question

Time of the year that IHSAA sends out the rankings.  Couple things...

1.  Why no more scattergram?  You have no idea if you are even close to another crew or not.  You have no idea if you are close to next level or not.

2.  Why can we not rate the coaches?  If they have an option to say "out of position", rule not "interpreted correctly", etc.....Why can I not vote "should not have called time out there", "bad playcalling", in coaches box when not allowed...etc

Why?? because, as officials, we have no idea on coaching skills.....I do not expect the coaches to have an idea on officiating mechanics.  The rankings do not work as they are currently done.  And having to attend numerous meetings, testing, clinics, etc is over-ridden by a vote of non-officials, some of whom have never seen you work in person.  There has to be a better way...

3.  If the vote is from 1-5....the median is 3.  With a very small standard deviation, the middle votes should probably range between 2.8 and 3.2.  That should account for 68% of the crews.  95% of the crews should probably be between 2.6 and 3.4.  There is no way 3 is the median.  The coach vote is skewed, and it seems maybe the middle of state coaches understand this better than the rest of the state.  

4.  If state is using observers, why is there vote not listed?  Or if not, why is it not automatically added...and it should be weighted more than coaches if they are IHSAA observers.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

26 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

"Not calling the game correctly."

 

I don't want to evaluate coaches. I'm sure they have many people evaluating them already. I simply want to know who is evaluating me and what criteria they used. The argument will be that if the coaches names are associated with their vote, it will be held against them in a future game. Any crew that would do that has no business advancing anyway. Instead they can give us a 1 and we have no way of knowing how we can improve on that score.

 

The comment above was associated with the one "1" rating we received. "Not calling the game correctly"..............In what way? I assume there were 2 teams playing in this game. If we didn't call the game correctly, why didn't we get two "1" ratings? I assume that if coaches are evaluating on a 1-5 scale, they have the same criteria to do so. We received 43 coaches votes. We received no 2's and a few 3's. I just want to know what that one coach saw that gave him such a different opinion of us then everyone else.

 

Our crew ranking was in the 30's. We've done multiple Sectional Finals and are desperately seeking our first Regional. We were evaluated 4 times by state evaluators and received nothing worse than a 4.5 from them. The nice thing about those is, the person evaluating you actually tells you what they saw and things to work on.

 

Evaluations should be used to improve officiating.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
9 hours ago, SL816 said:

"Not calling the game correctly."

 

I don't want to evaluate coaches. I'm sure they have many people evaluating them already. I simply want to know who is evaluating me and what criteria they used. The argument will be that if the coaches names are associated with their vote, it will be held against them in a future game. Any crew that would do that has no business advancing anyway. Instead they can give us a 1 and we have no way of knowing how we can improve on that score.

 

The comment above was associated with the one "1" rating we received. "Not calling the game correctly"..............In what way? I assume there were 2 teams playing in this game. If we didn't call the game correctly, why didn't we get two "1" ratings? I assume that if coaches are evaluating on a 1-5 scale, they have the same criteria to do so. We received 43 coaches votes. We received no 2's and a few 3's. I just want to know what that one coach saw that gave him such a different opinion of us then everyone else.

 

Our crew ranking was in the 30's. We've done multiple Sectional Finals and are desperately seeking our first Regional. We were evaluated 4 times by state evaluators and received nothing worse than a 4.5 from them. The nice thing about those is, the person evaluating you actually tells you what they saw and things to work on.

 

Evaluations should be used to improve officiating.

 

I totally agree.  We should know who is voting...and I agree...that if a crew holds that against a school, they should not work for that school nor advance.  The schools should also not  be allowed to hold the ratings over a crew either.  I have heard the following on more than 1 occasion in a HS Varsity and JV game..."Remember, I am voting" or "I will remember this when voting" comments.

Did your state observer vote show up in your list?  They have in the past, but I didnt not see ours in our list.....And  if the state is going to train and use evaluators to improve officiating, their votes should count more than a coach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
19 minutes ago, falconsfbref said:

I totally agree.  We should know who is voting...and I agree...that if a crew holds that against a school, they should not work for that school nor advance.  The schools should also not  be allowed to hold the ratings over a crew either.  I have heard the following on more than 1 occasion in a HS Varsity and JV game..."Remember, I am voting" or "I will remember this when voting" comments.

Did your state observer vote show up in your list?  They have in the past, but I didnt not see ours in our list.....And  if the state is going to train and use evaluators to improve officiating, their votes should count more than a coach.

I know as a head coach you get a list of all the crews in the state for the rating of crews.  Would it be possible for the HC to get just a list of the crews who worked their games from the IFOA for the ratings of crews?  This way the IFOA knows who is voting and the coaches can't vote on any other crews?  I know this would probably make it a logistical nightmare but just wanted to propose the idea.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, falconsfbref said:

I totally agree.  We should know who is voting...and I agree...that if a crew holds that against a school, they should not work for that school nor advance.  The schools should also not  be allowed to hold the ratings over a crew either.  I have heard the following on more than 1 occasion in a HS Varsity and JV game..."Remember, I am voting" or "I will remember this when voting" comments.

Did your state observer vote show up in your list?  They have in the past, but I didnt not see ours in our list.....And  if the state is going to train and use evaluators to improve officiating, their votes should count more than a coach.

No, they did not. I was surprised, I know they have in the past. If they're not even being taken into consideration then why are they doing it?  I appreciate the feedback, but in the end, I like seeing an evaluator, because I know it's an opportunity to help our rating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, Coach Brown said:

I know as a head coach you get a list of all the crews in the state for the rating of crews.  Would it be possible for the HC to get just a list of the crews who worked their games from the IFOA for the ratings of crews?  This way the IFOA knows who is voting and the coaches can't vote on any other crews?  I know this would probably make it a logistical nightmare but just wanted to propose the idea.  

Coach, I think they've gone back and forth on this. At one time coaches were only allowed to rate crews they had seen. I believe we're back to open voting.

I definitely think that coaches should only be voting for crews they've seen. Why not rate them the week after you see them? And make it mandatory that the coaches rate all of the crews they see. I know our crew has made it a point to get out of our area to see more teams. There's nothing more frustrating than driving an hour and half, one way, work a game, be told you did a great job, and not receive a vote from that game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, Coach Brown said:

I know as a head coach you get a list of all the crews in the state for the rating of crews.  Would it be possible for the HC to get just a list of the crews who worked their games from the IFOA for the ratings of crews?  This way the IFOA knows who is voting and the coaches can't vote on any other crews?  I know this would probably make it a logistical nightmare but just wanted to propose the idea.  

The IHSAA will NOT give up control.

For a brief period of time you could only vote on crews you had had in the last three years. When the usual suspects quit getting sectional finals and some new blood started moving up, that changed. 

I gave up worrying about this crap years ago, life became much less stressful.

FYI coaches, you can screw a crew just as bad giving them a 2 or a 3 and you don't have to answer the stupid irrelevant questions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
50 minutes ago, SL816 said:

Coach, I think they've gone back and forth on this. At one time coaches were only allowed to rate crews they had seen. I believe we're back to open voting.

I definitely think that coaches should only be voting for crews they've seen. Why not rate them the week after you see them? And make it mandatory that the coaches rate all of the crews they see. I know our crew has made it a point to get out of our area to see more teams. There's nothing more frustrating than driving an hour and half, one way, work a game, be told you did a great job, and not receive a vote from that game.

That is a great question.  I like that so that way you can go back through and watch the film to see what had happened during the game with different calls.  When I would share the film with the crews that worked our game if I had a question/comment about a call during the game I would put it in the Hudl comments when I sent it to the IFOA for the crew to review.  I had multiple crews email me back with with different comments, mostly positive, about plays or situations in the game.  We as coaches and officials are involved in the game to try to make it better.

With the highlighted quote above I know I didn't receive information to rate the crews until later in the season and by that time I may have forgotten the crew and all I have is their card of information.  So if I ever slighted you I didn't mean to just during the course of season you move on quickly from each game.  The kids get to enjoy them more then we do as coaches. If there is a better way to do it then lets do it.

   

Edited by Coach Brown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
45 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

The IHSAA will NOT give up control.

For a brief period of time you could only vote on crews you had had in the last three years. When the usual suspects quit getting sectional finals and some new blood started moving up, that changed. 

I gave up worrying about this crap years ago, life became much less stressful.

FYI coaches, you can screw a crew just as bad giving them a 2 or a 3 and you don't have to answer the stupid irrelevant questions.  

That's not why it was changed back. It was changed because there were officials in other sports manipulating their schedules to not include schools that may give them a bad vote. It was hard to do that in football because you needed 8 games to get full credit. In sports like basketball and baseball, the number of games worked is potentially much higher than the number required for full credit so it was easier to do. There was no easy way to police it so that restriction was removed.

People get up in arms over the bad votes they get from schools and think that's why they aren't advancing. The top rated crews get bad votes as well. The difference is they get 50+ more votes than most crews and most of those votes are likely 5s. Those more than offset the bad votes they get which helps their rating. That's why limiting the votes brought them back to the pack. In the current system getting rid of a couple of bad votes may get you from the first round to the second round, but that's about it. A school carrying a grudge is not why you aren't working a sectional final or regional though. You need to get someone on your crew (especially the white hat) who knows A LOT of coaches and administrators to get the 50+ additional votes. It's possible for a crew with only 30 or 40 votes to advance further, but they have no margin of error. We got a 1 vote from a school this year, and we have no idea who it could be. We had no issues with any coaches this year. But even if that 1 vote turns into a 3 or a 4, it likely doesn't change our rating enough to get another round.

I would love to see a system where the coach input meant little or nothing and actual performance and ability evaluated by trained officials played a major factor. But even those systems are flawed. They exist in other states and at higher levels and people still *Deleted* about them if they aren't the ones getting the assignments. No matter what system is used the same NUMBER of crews will be pissed they didn't advance as far as they should so I don't see where it would have an impact on retention. We may just lose a different group. And whether that crew is better than this crew is up to personal interpretation.

The best advice I've been given that applies in all walks of our life is: control what you can control and do the best you can with that. Our crew puts together the best schedule we can during the season and gives our best effort every time out. We get what we get in the playoffs and like many crews feels we are worthy of advancing much further than we do. But we don't waste energy whining about the process. It is what it is and maybe some day it will change or the coach vote lottery will turn out in our favor. Maybe not. But we'll keep doing what we do and applaud those crews who get the assignments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
5 minutes ago, BisonUmpire said:

That's not why it was changed back. It was changed because there were officials in other sports manipulating their schedules to not include schools that may give them a bad vote. It was hard to do that in football because you needed 8 games to get full credit. In sports like basketball and baseball, the number of games worked is potentially much higher than the number required for full credit so it was easier to do. There was no easy way to police it so that restriction was removed.

People get up in arms over the bad votes they get from schools and think that's why they aren't advancing. The top rated crews get bad votes as well. The difference is they get 50+ more votes than most crews and most of those votes are likely 5s. Those more than offset the bad votes they get which helps their rating. That's why limiting the votes brought them back to the pack. In the current system getting rid of a couple of bad votes may get you from the first round to the second round, but that's about it. A school carrying a grudge is not why you aren't working a sectional final or regional though. You need to get someone on your crew (especially the white hat) who knows A LOT of coaches and administrators to get the 50+ additional votes. It's possible for a crew with only 30 or 40 votes to advance further, but they have no margin of error. We got a 1 vote from a school this year, and we have no idea who it could be. We had no issues with any coaches this year. But even if that 1 vote turns into a 3 or a 4, it likely doesn't change our rating enough to get another round.

I would love to see a system where the coach input meant little or nothing and actual performance and ability evaluated by trained officials played a major factor. But even those systems are flawed. They exist in other states and at higher levels and people still *Deleted* about them if they aren't the ones getting the assignments. No matter what system is used the same NUMBER of crews will be pissed they didn't advance as far as they should so I don't see where it would have an impact on retention. We may just lose a different group. And whether that crew is better than this crew is up to personal interpretation.

The best advice I've been given that applies in all walks of our life is: control what you can control and do the best you can with that. Our crew puts together the best schedule we can during the season and gives our best effort every time out. We get what we get in the playoffs and like many crews feels we are worthy of advancing much further than we do. But we don't waste energy whining about the process. It is what it is and maybe some day it will change or the coach vote lottery will turn out in our favor. Maybe not. But we'll keep doing what we do and applaud those crews who get the assignments.

Bison, I'm not whining, just stating things as I see them. I'll take your word for the reason for the change, but there were usual suspects doing some complaining, and we both know it.

As I stated, we do what we do and I don't worry about ratings anymore. It is what it is and I have no control over it. 

I do agree, I think we should be told how schools vote. My main point with it is, if we have a coach who's upset with us, I don't want to keep taking his games and pouring salt in the wound. 

I think one of the biggest issues with the current system is coaches and AD's don't understand it. When I was a HC my AD asked how come I gave everyone a 5 and there were a couple of 3's. I explained to him how the system worked and actually giving an official/crew a 4 basically hurt them. He said he had no idea. He said he routinely gave 4's thinking he was helping them out. I voted under both systems, but never voted for anyone that I hadn't seen. Some guys I voted for based on watching them work college ball when I would see them while watching my daughter play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I agree, nothing much you can do about it.  

1.  I like the idea of having a mandatory coaches vote by Wednesday the following week.  If they do not vote, the school gets penalized.  Like someone said earlier, nothing worse than doing a game, having both coaches say great job, and yet they do not vote.  It has to be mandatory if the coaches are voting.

2.  I see what you are saying about the number of votes.  Yes, if you can get to 50-60 votes a 1-2 rating gets eliminated.  My issue is with the rankings.  I think Indy area does a way better job of explaining this.  As the current system is, if a school likes you...they give you a 4 or 5.  It should be like the rating says....are they capable of working a state final?  If yes, and this should be a small number of groups, they should get a 5.  If you think they should work semi-state...4.  Regional...3....Sectional Finals 2 or 3 and only 1st round..1.  This is how the sheet looks on evaluations, and the voting sheet.   But currently a coach likes you, gives you a 5.  Maybe a 4.  Any vote under 3 in the current way is a death vote.  

3.  The voting part about "positioning" should be removed.  I do not know what or where a slot guy is supposed to go on a certain play, I do not expect a coach to know where the Back Judge is supposed to be following his key during the play.  You could get a "out of position" comment because the LJ is keying on a player and something happens close to him/her.  Just because its close to an official, doesnt mean they see the entire action.

4.  And what is the timeframe for the vote?  Is it the past forever?  Is it last year?  Is it only the games from current season?  Because I am guessing some crews change postions, add guys, etc....so what timeframe is the vote done or supposed to be done from?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
15 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

I think one of the biggest issues with the current system is coaches and AD's don't understand it. When I was a HC my AD asked how come I gave everyone a 5 and there were a couple of 3's. I explained to him how the system worked and actually giving an official/crew a 4 basically hurt them. He said he had no idea. He said he routinely gave 4's thinking he was helping them out. I voted under both systems, but never voted for anyone that I hadn't seen. Some guys I voted for based on watching them work college ball when I would see them while watching my daughter play. 

It's not the lower votes that hurt crews other than separates some first and second round crews. The crews that work sectional final and beyond also get low votes. Many of them (especially those who reach regional and beyond) just get a lot of extra 5 votes.

Several years ago I was good friends with the crew who worked a state final and was the #1 rated crew. They had a similar number of 2-4 votes as us, but they had 55 more votes total. I think we were ranked in the upper 50s that year. That's why limiting the number of votes has a significant impact on sectional final and regional crews. And if the schools do understand the possible impact on 3 and 4 votes and adjust it, it would apply to every crew so the order may not change much.

Someone else mentioned observer votes don't seem to have been included this year. I do know if our observer votes had been included our rating score would have put us ahead of a crew that worked 1 more round than us. It may have even put us 2 rounds further, but those crews could have also benefitted from the observer ratings. I would love to see the observers playing a much bigger role as well, but some of that is selfish. Our crew has received excellent observer feedback that would help us. But is it the best system for the entire organization?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The coach's vote is not the main contributor to crews advancing.  It's the other 50 points that make up the crews ranking.  Let's take a look.....

 

Previous tournament assignment - most crews score the same

Years of licensure - now that max has dropped to 7 years, most crews score the same

Test score - all crews score the same

Number of contests worked - most crews score the same

Association meetings - all crews score the same

Previous tournament experience - AH HA.  Here is the ONE crew criteria that keeps the same crews advancing year after year.

  • State - 5 points
  • Semi State - 4 points
  • Regional - 3 points
  • Sectional - 2 points
  • Applicant - 1 point

The 3 points between the crew that has gone to state and the crew that has only been to a Sectional Final is virtually impossible to make up in the coach's vote.  Thus when it comes time for the 24 Regional games to be assigned you have mostly crews that have been there or beyond working.  In 2016 that number was 21 of the 24 crews, in 2017 it was 18 of the 24 crews.  Very little margin for error for the 100-110 crews that have never been beyond Sectional. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
21 minutes ago, falconsfbref said:

Any vote under 3 in the current way is a death vote.

Not true. Crews that work state finals get 1, 2 and 3 votes too. And some stay even after dropping the highest and lowest. As I've stated above it may separate the first round crews from the second round crews but not as much beyond that. Then it becomes a volume game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
11 minutes ago, fbofficial said:

The coach's vote is not the main contributor to crews advancing.  It's the other 50 points that make up the crews ranking.  Let's take a look.....

 

Previous tournament assignment - most crews score the same

Years of licensure - now that max has dropped to 7 years, most crews score the same

Test score - all crews score the same

Number of contests worked - most crews score the same

Association meetings - all crews score the same

Previous tournament experience - AH HA.  Here is the ONE crew criteria that keeps the same crews advancing year after year.

  • State - 5 points
  • Semi State - 4 points
  • Regional - 3 points
  • Sectional - 2 points
  • Applicant - 1 point

The 3 points between the crew that has gone to state and the crew that has only been to a Sectional Final is virtually impossible to make up in the coach's vote.  Thus when it comes time for the 24 Regional games to be assigned you have mostly crews that have been there or beyond working.  In 2016 that number was 21 of the 24 crews, in 2017 it was 18 of the 24 crews.  Very little margin for error for the 100-110 crews that have never been beyond Sectional. 

 

 

This doesn't have as big of an impact as many people assume. There may be a couple instances where the crew advances because of the extra points they get from past tournament experience, the biggest difference is still the coach vote. I have several friends who work the regional and beyond and we compare ratings all the time. With maybe 1 or 2 exceptions, the crews are 3-5 points ahead of us on the vote side again because of the volume of votes. If they limit the vote to 3 years again, then this will have a much bigger impact. But today most of the crews I know advancing beyond us would do so even if this criteria was balanced.

One thing I want to clarify with your numbers. The IHSAA considers previous state final crews for the purpose of ELIGIBILITY based on the referee only. If the referee has worked a state final as a referee then they are considered an OLD crew. Otherwise they are a NEW crew. There are some NEW crews that get the experience points because they have enough guys on the crew who have worked a state final with a different referee. This is common when the referee retires and someone else takes over the existing crew. Starting in the regional level, the guidelines state half of the crews are supposed to be NEW crews. This doesn't happen every year, but that's the goal. Last year, 9 of the crews were officially NEW crews and this year it was 12. But I believe 6 of those 12 are mostly guys who worked a state final with a different referee. The competition for the first/second round crews are the NEW crews, but these former state final crews are not rated higher because of the extra 2-3 points they get due to experience. They are getting a much higher vote rating. Where they get an advantage is over the NEW crews who have worked a sectional final or regional and the gap is much smaller on the coach vote side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
47 minutes ago, BisonUmpire said:

This doesn't have as big of an impact as many people assume. There may be a couple instances where the crew advances because of the extra points they get from past tournament experience, the biggest difference is still the coach vote. I have several friends who work the regional and beyond and we compare ratings all the time. With maybe 1 or 2 exceptions, the crews are 3-5 points ahead of us on the vote side again because of the volume of votes. If they limit the vote to 3 years again, then this will have a much bigger impact. But today most of the crews I know advancing beyond us would do so even if this criteria was balanced.

One thing I want to clarify with your numbers. The IHSAA considers previous state final crews for the purpose of ELIGIBILITY based on the referee only. If the referee has worked a state final as a referee then they are considered an OLD crew. Otherwise they are a NEW crew. There are some NEW crews that get the experience points because they have enough guys on the crew who have worked a state final with a different referee. This is common when the referee retires and someone else takes over the existing crew. Starting in the regional level, the guidelines state half of the crews are supposed to be NEW crews. This doesn't happen every year, but that's the goal. Last year, 9 of the crews were officially NEW crews and this year it was 12. But I believe 6 of those 12 are mostly guys who worked a state final with a different referee. The competition for the first/second round crews are the NEW crews, but these former state final crews are not rated higher because of the extra 2-3 points they get due to experience. They are getting a much higher vote rating. Where they get an advantage is over the NEW crews who have worked a sectional final or regional and the gap is much smaller on the coach vote side.

The whole problem of giving those crews experience point bonuses is its unfair.  If you can get to the Regional level as a crew, then you get an extra point over all other crews...you will almost always be working rounds 2 and sectional finals over the rest of crews.  Another issue is lets say someone like me, with 26 years of experience gets 4 other guys with 20 years of experience and form a crew.  Another crew that has the R just work the regional.  The whole crew disbands, but the R finds 4 guys with 1 year experience.  Are you going to say that that crew should deserve to get a bonus just because of the R keeping his name on list????  I know experience might not = great officials, but I know I am alot better now than when I was working PAL games in Lafayette as an 18 year old.  

There is not going to be any new rotations under this system.  Look at this year, only 2 new were eligible and next year is similar.  Not the half that the IHSAA strives for.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Using only the 3 most senior members of the crew for scoring purposes gives the legacy crews a big advantage.  This makes it fairly easy for a former state finals crew to hold onto the crew criteria score of 50 where a Sectional Final crew has a score of 47.  The Sectional Final crew needs a significantly better coach's vote to move up in the rankings.  

Regardless of which score you believe keeps primarily the same crews working into November year after year, the system needs a major tweeking if the state truly wants the best crews working the Regionals, Semi State and State Finals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, fbofficial said:

Using only the 3 most senior members of the crew for scoring purposes gives the legacy crews a big advantage.  This makes it fairly easy for a former state finals crew to hold onto the crew criteria score of 50 where a Sectional Final crew has a score of 47.  The Sectional Final crew needs a significantly better coach's vote to move up in the rankings.  

Regardless of which score you believe keeps primarily the same crews working into November year after year, the system needs a major tweeking if the state truly wants the best crews working the Regionals, Semi State and State Finals.

I don't disagree with your last statement, but my point is ANY system will have flaws the same number of crews will complain about how unfair it is. It may just be a different group of crews. Or many of the same crews may still advance. We don't know.

But based on my conversations with the crews you are talking about, they aren't advancing because of the legacy points they get from having worked a state final with a different referee. They are still advancing because they are still getting 80 votes. Take your crew rating breakdown and add 40 or 50 5 votes to it and then reduce the top/bottom based on the number of votes (likely 4 on each side). The result is significantly more than 0.3 (3 points on the rating system). With just 40 additional votes my crew went up .52. With 50 additional votes it went up .55. So even if those crews lost their additional experience points, they still beat us by at least 2 points just on the coach vote. I do know of one crew that beat us by 1 point and they have 1 member who worked some state finals. That 1 point made the difference. They finished a few spots ahead of us and got 1 more round than us. If we would have received our observer votes in our total I know we would have been higher than them. No idea if we would have gotten the additional round though because other crews could have also moved up with the observer rankings. The biggest differentiator by far for the crews that advance to the regional and beyond is volume of votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, falconsfbref said:

The whole problem of giving those crews experience point bonuses is its unfair.  If you can get to the Regional level as a crew, then you get an extra point over all other crews...you will almost always be working rounds 2 and sectional finals over the rest of crews.  Another issue is lets say someone like me, with 26 years of experience gets 4 other guys with 20 years of experience and form a crew.  Another crew that has the R just work the regional.  The whole crew disbands, but the R finds 4 guys with 1 year experience.  Are you going to say that that crew should deserve to get a bonus just because of the R keeping his name on list????  I know experience might not = great officials, but I know I am alot better now than when I was working PAL games in Lafayette as an 18 year old.  

There is not going to be any new rotations under this system.  Look at this year, only 2 new were eligible and next year is similar.  Not the half that the IHSAA strives for.  

That crew would not be able to advance as far as the R was eligible regardless of their rating because of all the changes to the crew. Not sure if they would top out at the sectional final level or not. But the 4 new guys wouldn't work past the first round because they are not certified. But to help support your argument, let's say they were all 3rd year certified guys with no playoff experience. They wouldn't get the full 50 because the playoff experience part applies to the 3 most experienced guys. They may get 1 more point than a sectional final crew but that's probably it. Once the crew does work a sectional final they may get another point because of the other guys now advancing as well. But ultimately whether or not they go beyond that point will depend largely on the coach vote rating. It is by far the primary differentiator beyond the sectional final round crews. It's still possible to advance, but you have to be lucky and no 1 or 2 votes and several more 5s than 4s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, fbofficial said:

Using only the 3 most senior members of the crew for scoring purposes gives the legacy crews a big advantage.  This makes it fairly easy for a former state finals crew to hold onto the crew criteria score of 50 where a Sectional Final crew has a score of 47.  The Sectional Final crew needs a significantly better coach's vote to move up in the rankings.  

Regardless of which score you believe keeps primarily the same crews working into November year after year, the system needs a major tweeking if the state truly wants the best crews working the Regionals, Semi State and State Finals.

Bison can keep talking and talking but this is the biggest problem and has nothing to do with coaches vote and has to do with keeping the same crews going and going. All 5 people should count. All 5 people are on the field. Most crews who have worked a high level and have to pick up a new member usually aren't as good as they once were. In the current system those people don't count. That should change and that system was put in by past crews who have advanced so that can help them continue to advance. Also picking up a new member who has worked the state finals is huge. That shoes you how close the voting is. Those 3 points that you can't make up are huge 

Edited by Huge football fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, BisonUmpire said:

I don't disagree with your last statement, but my point is ANY system will have flaws the same number of crews will complain about how unfair it is. It may just be a different group of crews. Or many of the same crews may still advance. We don't know.

But based on my conversations with the crews you are talking about, they aren't advancing because of the legacy points they get from having worked a state final with a different referee. They are still advancing because they are still getting 80 votes. Take your crew rating breakdown and add 40 or 50 5 votes to it and then reduce the top/bottom based on the number of votes (likely 4 on each side). The result is significantly more than 0.3 (3 points on the rating system). With just 40 additional votes my crew went up .52. With 50 additional votes it went up .55. So even if those crews lost their additional experience points, they still beat us by at least 2 points just on the coach vote. I do know of one crew that beat us by 1 point and they have 1 member who worked some state finals. That 1 point made the difference. They finished a few spots ahead of us and got 1 more round than us. If we would have received our observer votes in our total I know we would have been higher than them. No idea if we would have gotten the additional round though because other crews could have also moved up with the observer rankings. The biggest differentiator by far for the crews that advance to the regional and beyond is volume of votes.

I know what you are saying...but you are assuming those 40-50 votes would be 5....But why?  There is no way an extra 40-50 schools should be voting for a crew.  They are only voting on name of Referee, or seeing they have done state finals and assuming they are very good.  No crew should have 90 votes.  Again, what is the timeframe of the vote? It used to be 3 years. That should be about 60 votes.  But is it same crew as 3 years ago? maybe/maybe not.  Again, only on name of R or seeing state finals.  And what about the other 4?  They mean nothing except to hurt the crew because of coaches vote. The other 4 are dealing with sidelines, therefore they are the relationship factor with coach...not the R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
4 hours ago, falconsfbref said:

I know what you are saying...but you are assuming those 40-50 votes would be 5....But why?  There is no way an extra 40-50 schools should be voting for a crew.  They are only voting on name of Referee, or seeing they have done state finals and assuming they are very good.  No crew should have 90 votes.  Again, what is the timeframe of the vote? It used to be 3 years. That should be about 60 votes.  But is it same crew as 3 years ago? maybe/maybe not.  Again, only on name of R or seeing state finals.  And what about the other 4?  They mean nothing except to hurt the crew because of coaches vote. The other 4 are dealing with sidelines, therefore they are the relationship factor with coach...not the R.

Because I have several friends on crews that have advanced that far and get that many votes. They have a similar number of 2-4 votes as our crew but have 40-50+ more votes, If you are getting that many you are getting a lot from people you know from more than just officiating football games. They are "friendly" votes. When we review their vote list they have shared how they know the coach or AD at that school. Even without the extra points they get because of their extra points for past state finals, they beat us by a couple points.

Personally I'm a fan of using only 3 members of the crew for some of the criteria. When it was all 5 crews were picking up bad officials who had 10+ years of experience over 2nd or 3rd year guys who were good because of the automatic point loss they would get for picking them. Yes, it may also benefit the guys at the top, but they were doing to do well anyway regardless of who they picked up. Because it still comes down primarily to the coach's vote.

Schools can vote for any of the 144 crews on the ballot, It may suggest to only vote for crews you've seen the past 3 years, but there is no way currently to monitor that. I'm hearing that will change once all the system updates are done next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
9 hours ago, BisonUmpire said:

Because I have several friends on crews that have advanced that far and get that many votes. They have a similar number of 2-4 votes as our crew but have 40-50+ more votes, If you are getting that many you are getting a lot from people you know from more than just officiating football games. They are "friendly" votes. When we review their vote list they have shared how they know the coach or AD at that school. Even without the extra points they get because of their extra points for past state finals, they beat us by a couple points.

You just said EXACTLY what is wrong here.   So basically, those getting lots of votes, and as you say all 5's, have NOTHING to do with them as a football crew.  So, just because they have a name, or are buddies with coaches and AD's they are working state finals?  Then do not tell me the best crews are working past the regional level. Its a popularity contest.   

And then when I work LJ or HL, and I try and maintain a clean coaches box during a game....the coaches do not like being told or even flagged for being there.  WHY? Because those others need the popularity vote to keep working high levels.  I already knew that, but I think I will keep working the games like the rules and case book want the game worked.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, falconsfbref said:

You just said EXACTLY what is wrong here.   So basically, those getting lots of votes, and as you say all 5's, have NOTHING to do with them as a football crew.  So, just because they have a name, or are buddies with coaches and AD's they are working state finals?  Then do not tell me the best crews are working past the regional level. Its a popularity contest.   

And then when I work LJ or HL, and I try and maintain a clean coaches box during a game....the coaches do not like being told or even flagged for being there.  WHY? Because those others need the popularity vote to keep working high levels.  I already knew that, but I think I will keep working the games like the rules and case book want the game worked.

I don’t know how accurate this is. But I do know that many, many officials hold this view, or at least, parts of it. Any system of promotion/compensation based on performance evaluation has to have 2characteristics in order to claim legitimacy: (1) it must be objectively fair, and (2) it must be perceived as fair by those being evaluated. We can quibble over whether the present system meets criteria#1. But there’s no question it falls short on #2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
15 hours ago, falconsfbref said:

You just said EXACTLY what is wrong here.   So basically, those getting lots of votes, and as you say all 5's, have NOTHING to do with them as a football crew.  So, just because they have a name, or are buddies with coaches and AD's they are working state finals?  Then do not tell me the best crews are working past the regional level. Its a popularity contest.   

And then when I work LJ or HL, and I try and maintain a clean coaches box during a game....the coaches do not like being told or even flagged for being there.  WHY? Because those others need the popularity vote to keep working high levels.  I already knew that, but I think I will keep working the games like the rules and case book want the game worked.

It's absolutely a popularity contest. But I also wouldn't say bad crews are advancing either. For the most part the crews who have worked semi-state and state final games the past few years have been decent. There haven't been any egregious errors that impacted the outcome of a game. Many do a decent job of sideline management and some don't just like the crews who don't advance. That's not why crews advance or don't advance. A lot has to do with HOW you work with the coaches. I've seen wing officials that try to keep sidelines clear, but what they say and how they say it is not effective.

To Bobref's comment, EVERY system used at any level has officials complaining about fairness of the system because those who don't get assigned will always feel they are slighted whether or not they actually are. We all have inflated opinions of our own abilities. So yes, a flaw of this system is a popularity contest but every process could be. If it's observer based then people will accuse the observers of giving better grades to the crews they know the best. I had one NFL official tell me many of them feel the league decides halfway through the season which officials are going to work the Super Bowl and then suddenly all their close calls are graded as Correct.

Relying on a coach vote as the primary criteria for evaluating officials is probably the worst possible process, but don't pretend that a replacement process will be any more fair or not be perceived as identifying the best crews. Unless you are the crew getting selected you'll still find it unfair. That's just how officials are wired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
8 hours ago, BisonUmpire said:

Relying on a coach vote as the primary criteria for evaluating officials is probably the worst possible process, but don't pretend that a replacement process will be any more fair or not be perceived as identifying the best crews. Unless you are the crew getting selected you'll still find it unfair. That's just how officials are wired.

Undoubtedly true. But the fundamental difference between a coaches’ vote evaluation and an observer-based system is that the latter has the better chance of accurately identifying the best crews to advance. So, while some may still perceive it as “unfair”as applied to a specific crew, many more will acknowledge that the process itself is fair, in contrast to the present system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.