Bobref

The IHSAA is a member organization. Maybe the members ought to be the ones to tell that to the IHSAA. Officials are not members. Coaches are. If coaches are so sick and tired of it, tell someone who can do something about it. Rfaulkens@IHSAA.org.

You’re preaching to the choir. We hate being the uniform police. But we have very strict orders that come from way above my pay grade. So, please don’t blame the officials.

I have a bad feeling about the final playoff determination, as far as the Irish are concerned. If they’re left out at 10-2, I’m not going to be complaining about an injustice. They have no one to blame but themselves. Honestly, they should be 12-0 at this point. Self-inflicted wounds.

Gerrymandering is a time honored political dirty trick. What gets me is that, in the past, the people drawing the maps at least articulated a half-ass justification for what they are doing. These people just come right out and say we’re doing this to keep the Republicans in power. No pretense. Just naked political advantage. Shameful is too mild a term.

The problem with your formula - the problem with all multiplier solutions - is that they treat all P/Ps alike, when they clearly are not. If true competitive balance is what you are after, what is the justification for treating Andrean (75-28 in the last 8 seasons with 2 state titles) the same as Bishop Noll (9-59 with 0 tournament wins in their last 8 seasons)? That’s why the success factor approach is more valid. It addresses those P/Ps who take their inherent advantages and use them to succeed disproportionately in their class, while sparing those, like Bishop Noll, who don’t. How is an across the board multiplier more fair than that? The other reason I like the success factor approach is it applies to all schools. P/Ps are not the only schools with inherent advantages. There are public schools that are clearly advantaged socioeconomically over other publics. If they utilize those advantages to consistently compete above their class, they move up. Again, if competitive balance is the goal, that is only fair.

Of course, there are a lot of specifics we don’t know about the contracts that come with these jobs. But all other things being equal, I agree with that order.

Exactly what they said when Kelly took the job. How’d that work out?

Many other places as well.

This makes too much sense. Now, if you could just augment it with a tournament that requires some level of regular season success to qualify for postseason play, it would be best of all possible worlds.

Ping pong balls. If it’s good enough for the tournament matchups …

No argument there. That would be one way to make the regular season more meaningful, though not the easiest (as @foxbat pointed out). A much simpler way is to cut the tournament field in half, so as to require teams to actually accomplish something to earn their way into the postseason.

I would say we have 1/2 of such a system. We promote teams, but we don’t relegate them. How would that work? More importantly, would Frankfort be the top candidate for relegation? 🤣😂

Of course not. Redistricting (gerrymandering) is being pushed by Trump to add Republicans to Congress to keep him from getting impeached … again. That’s the only purpose it serves.

You mean it doesn’t already?

Agree with everything you’ve said. For me, the bolded statement is very important. The coaches’ vote is the single greatest factor in playoff advancement. As you know, I spend my football seasons these days trying to show crews that by improving their mechanics, their rules knowledge, and their understanding of the philosophies that underlie good officiating, they will become better officials. The problem is there is virtually no connection between those things and the coaches’ vote. Speaking in general - there are always exceptions - coaches have no interest in officiating mechanics, don’t know the rules nearly as well as they think they do, and have never been educated in the philosophies that underlie good officiating. Don’t get me wrong. Coaches are major stakeholders, and should have some voice in the process. But frankly, they are ill-suited to evaluate officiating proficiency, and it is unfair to them to ask coaches to evaluate something they’ve never been trained in, and when they are nowhere near objective. So, when a crew asks me whether their tournament status will improve if they do the work the way our Manual says they should, I have to be honest and answer “I don’t know.” And that’s because the annual process of ranking crews for tournament assignment and advancement purposes is fatally flawed, and is a cause of much disaffection in the officiating community. We all know crews that are so disgusted by the process that they don’t even apply for the tournament. We also know officials who have given up officiating, with frustration at the tournament process being a significant factor in their decision.

Disappointing.

Not you, too, with this “NFL is rigged” claptrap? How do you feel about the Moon landing? Flat earth?

Insufficient data.

Except they left out the automatic qualifier from the ACC, either Duke or Virginia, neither one of which figures in these odds.

They might be able to get him cheap, since I’m pretty sure he did very well in the settlement of his lawsuit against Northwestern for wrongful termination.

Agreed. Both of them are in ahead of the Irish no matter the outcome.

This topic is about officials selected to work the Finals, not about the quality of the officiating in the actual games. Also, please be mindful of my disclaimer at the bottom of the page. While at the games this weekend, I had a conversation with a good friend who also happens to be on any short list of the most knowledgeable people in the state of Indiana where high school football is concerned. He asked me a straightforward question: “Bob, why doesn’t the system attempt to put the 6 best officiating crews in LOS on Thanksgiving weekend?” I tried to explain the IHSAA’s dual philosophy with respect to advancing crews in the tournament: Insure that all crews are properly qualified to work at the tournament level to which they are assigned, and Provide opportunities for advancement in order to incentivize officials to continue to improve. This latter objective is what prevents the same crews from working the Finals every year. Under the current system, once a crew works the Finals, the highest level they can work the following year is a Sectional Final. They can then advance, if warranted, a maximum of one level per year. The result is a crew could be “ranked” #1 in the State every year, but they’ll only get to the Finals once every 4 years. Looking at it from another viewpoint, you could theoretically have crews working the Finals who were ranked ## 19-24 in the State working the 6 games. Thoughts? Particularly interested to hear from different viewpoints: fans, officials, coaches, etc.

Correct me if I’m wrong. But we have to root for no upsets in the conference championship games.

😂🤣