Bobref

6. Coaches often have misconceptions about the practical effect of their votes. One of the unfortunate aspects of the coaches' vote system is that the coaches get very little information on the effect of their votes. The result is that many have misconceptions about what their vote does to a crew's chances of advancing. For example, suppose a crew gets 40 votes. Every one of those votes is a "4," because the coaches voting believe that crew is good enough to work to the semistate level. I don't know where in the current climate a 4.0 average on the coaches' vote will rank a crew, but I can promise you it will not be at the semistate level. Those coaches who thought they were helping the crew get a semistate have, in fact, doomed their chances. If the coaches thought a crew was worthy of a Regional, and voted them "3" accordingly, that crew would be fortunate to get a second game in the sectional. Far from just being vague, the labels in the coaches' vote instructions are actually misleading, since they do not correlate with the practical effect of the votes cast.

5. The coaches’ vote provides officials with no useful feedback. One of the functions of any evaluative process is to provide those being evaluated with feedback they can use to improve performance. This tracks well with our announced goal “To incentivize officials to develop and adopt best officiating practices.” Providing officials with feedback on their performance promotes learning and growth, and serves the goal of raising the level of officiating in Indiana across the board. Unfortunately, the coaches’ vote misses this opportunity. At the end of the season, each crew is provided with information on their aggregate vote, their average, and the identity of the schools that rated them on the coaches’ vote ballot. No explanation is provided to the officials as to why they received a particular vote from a particular school. In fact, although the crew is told which schools cast votes for them, they are not told what that any specific school's vote was. So, not only does the coaches’ vote fail to provide specific feedback on officiating performance, it does not even provide the very gross measure of the vote cast by each school. It is impossible to incentivize officials to improve when they are not told the areas in which they need to improve. The coaches' vote, as an evaluative process, therefore, misses the opportunity to generally increase officiating proficiency because it provides no useful performance on a coaches' perception of a crew's performance.

We're going to finish our critique of the coaches' vote process, demonstrating its many flaws. Then we'll talk about where we might go from here to better accomplish the goals we identified at the outset of this inquiry. 3. Coaches are not given clear enough standards, and the standards they are given promote inconsistency and do not correlate to officiating excellence. The coaches’ vote ballot instructs the coaches to assign a score to each officiating crew they have seen in the last 3 seasons, plus whatever part of the current season has passed. Scores range from 1-5. The instructions they are given in how to assign a rating to a crew are as follows: 5 State Ready: The official/crew exhibits excellent communication skills, NFHS/IHSAA approved mechanics, arrives at the contest site mentally and physically prepared, demonstrates excellent game management, and has control of the contest by making consistent calls from beginning to the end and can work the highest level in the tournament. 4 Semi State Ready: The official/crew displays very good communication skills, and is in position to make most calls. The official manages the game well and has control of the contest, but not at the highest level. 3 Regional Ready: official/crew demonstrates adequate rules knowledge and acceptable game management. Communication with coaches and players is acceptable but needs more experience to work the higher levels of the tournament. 2 Sectional Ready: The official/crew has the ability, rules knowledge and communication skills to work the lowest level of the tournament. Improvement in one or more of these areas is required for advancement 1 Not Tournament Ready: The official/crew is unable to adequately demonstrate the skill level, communication, judgment, mechanics, and rules knowledge expected for the tournament. Game management needs improvement in order to officiate a tournament contest. Note: Schools that submit a rating of 1 must provide specific feedback via a dropdown menu. At the conclusion of the coaches’ vote process, the IHSAA totals up the coaches’ vote and divides by the number of votes to give each crew an average score. For example, if a crew gets 20 “5” votes and 20 “4” votes, that crew’s coaches’ vote score is 4.5 (20 x 5 + 20 x 4 = 180; 180 ÷ 40 = 4.5). There are several problems with this approach. First, as you can see from the descriptions of the various numerical ratings, many of the other flaws in the coaches’ vote system are repeated here. The various ratings speak of mechanics, rules knowledge, being in “proper position,” etc. Yet, the evidence is overwhelming that most coaches do not know the rules nearly as well as an official should, and they know literally nothing of mechanics or proper positioning. There is no way, therefore, for the coaches’ vote to correlate directly with officiating proficiency in the areas of rules knowledge, mechanics, and philosophy. Secondly, there is no suggestion of weighting factors. Obviously, some are more important than others. But there is no suggestion of that in the rating system. Third, this is a very blunt instrument. Officials are rated using whole numbers, but the fact that the coaches’ vote provides most of the differentiation between crews mandates that the numerical scores of each crew be carried out to three decimal places in order to distinguish between crews. The difference between making a Regional and topping out at a Sectional Final can literally be just a few thousandths of a point. Making such fine judgments using such crude numbers is statistically unsound. Finally, the terms used are either vague, or employ circular logic. A crew rated “5” is considered state finals ready, but among the rating criteria are “can work the highest level in the tournament.” Similar, a crew rated “1” is not tournament ready, and among their rating criteria is “needs improvement in order to officiate a tournament contest.” A definition that includes the defined term in it is not much of a definition at all.

Or at least windblown. 😉

It’s just frustrating for me to watch football these days and see either PI, or some guy screaming for it, on virtually every downfield pass play. I mean, now it’s become a routine part of the process of watching the game. You see it’s a pass, you track the ball, it’s incomplete, and then everyone waits for the flag to either be thrown or not. Maybe it’s time to restore the automatic first down to the DPI penalty.

That’s one of those questions where you either need no explanation … or no explanation will suffice. 😂🤣😅

Congratulations to 2021 Division I State Champion Lakewood St. Edward! This marks the first state title since 2018 and the Eagles’ 70th overall state championship in school history.🏆

So, Notre Dame and Oklahoma State in the Fiesta Bowl. Great matchup. Irish will put their streak on the line: they’ve never lost to a team coached by a guy who wears a mullet. 🤣😂

So, why don’t the ADs of the (no more than a dozen) schools that might conceivably take advantage of a liberalized travel rule get together, propose a change, and then lobby their fellow ADs to support it, since they don’t have a dog in the fight?

The questions as to the use of school funds for such purposes, student absences, etc., are legitimate questions to be asked when looking at traveling to play HS sports. But those questions, and others like them, should be asked and answered at the local level, not by statewide mandate. Questions about experiences that enrich the student experience, but require allocation of resources, are answered every day by the schools. This type of decision is no different.

Now that we are in the off season for HS football, I need to ask a question that I’ve been pondering for years. At all levels of football, the passing game has taken on increasing importance. Defending against the pass is, therefore, also more important. I played DB back in the antediluvian days, but obviously DBs are coached differently today. Now, DBs are not taught to find the ball. They’re taught to body up the receiver and not look at the ball until the receiver makes a move for it. At the same time, I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that defensive pass interference calls are also at an all time high. So, I seriously would like to hear from a knowledgeable DB coach (or player) who can explain how modern DB technique is better. Because it seems to me that when you take into account the number of DPI calls, it offsets whatever advantage you gain in the ability to cover using this technique.

Michigan does a fine job, although Minnesota is actually better in the B1G. But Michigan’s football team is right behind Northwestern. “Michigan set an all-time record high report with a four-year average GSR of 95 percent, which is 14 percentage points higher than it was in 2010 and one point higher than last year. U-M's four-year rolling average FGR of 81 percent tied its all-time high from the 2020, 2017 and 2018 reports. Among Big Ten Conference institutions, Michigan had the third-highest GSR at 95 and the third-best FGR score of 81.” Notre Dame has led the nation in GSR for 14 straight years.

It’s not so much rooting for, as rooting against.

I’m hearing Fiesta Bowl vs. Oklahoma State. That’s a great matchup.

You root for whomever you want, for whatever reasons you have. I’ll do the same.

Honestly, if Michigan wins this thing, I may have to become a hockey fan, or something.

This must be an NCAA rule, as I’m unaware of it. There is no comparable high school rule.

That’s nothing.

Why sure. I’ll just whip out my handy Pocket Guide to 2021 Strategic Plan: Notre Dame Football.

Piece of cake.

It could happen … except for the salary cap, the NFLPA, and the draft. 😆

There are lots of potential “something elses.” We’ve eliminated one.

No one is entitled to a statue while they’re still coaching at ND.

From your keyboard to God’s ear. There’s a less successful outcome that might, nevertheless, do some good. ND ends up 5th and afterward the committee chair explains that the lack of a conference championship game is what kept ND out. Then maybe we can generate a little momentum toward a conference affiliation.

As well as the #1 wrestling program in Ohio, a title they’ve held a long time.