Author Topic: 2010 Playoff Brackets  (Read 47701 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

A.D.A. ref

  • Guest
Re: 2010 Playoff Brackets
« Reply #100 on: December 07, 2010, 03:37:31 PM »
Thanks Mike, that did it.

Headlinesman

  • Guest
Re: 2010 Playoff Brackets
« Reply #101 on: December 07, 2010, 10:45:32 PM »
I realize it is beyond our control, but this week seems to be a much more equitable division of the games among the chapters.  11 different chapters working on the next to last weekend is pretty good!  Congrats to all who got "the call" and have a great game!

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8762
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-265
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: 2010 Playoff Brackets
« Reply #102 on: December 08, 2010, 04:38:56 AM »
Depends on how you define "equitable". 

Headlinesman

  • Guest
Re: 2010 Playoff Brackets
« Reply #103 on: December 09, 2010, 12:22:17 AM »
All right, Mike, I'll bite:  how the hell would YOU define equitable?

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8762
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-265
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: 2010 Playoff Brackets
« Reply #104 on: December 09, 2010, 06:03:01 AM »
I know it is NOT a simple spreading of games around, 1 per Chapter.  The most "equitable" suggestion I have seen so far is based on Chapter size, i.e. if you have 20% of the football officials in the state, you should have 20% of the games.  A number that I suspect would be close to the same would be something like...the percentage of total games worked by a Chapter during the season (7th grade - HS) should equal the percentage of playoff games a Chapter gets. 

Headlinesman

  • Guest
Re: 2010 Playoff Brackets
« Reply #105 on: December 09, 2010, 06:28:29 AM »
Well, you are right in that such is certainly NOT my definition of equitable.  I know that you would agree with me that there are officials in most all of our chapters who are quality enough officials to work good 4A and 5A ball, but because those folks choose to earn their living in places like Abilene, Tyler, Waco, Temple, Midland, or Odessa, they do not get the numbers of opportunity during the regular season like guys from Houston, Dallas, Austin, Ft. Worth, and San Antonio.  Should these guys be rewarded or penalized come playoff time because of where they live?  Where's the equity in that?  Also, according to your formula, that would really tie the coaches' hands at picking the officials or chapters they might want.  I simply don't the coaches would sit well with being told, 'OK Coaches, you HAVE to agree on your officials coming from either the Houston or Ft. Worth chapters this week.  As long as we are going to preserve the mantra of coaches having full autonomy on agreeing on their officials, I just think the whole state should be at their disposal.  To do otherwise would be as pharisaical as what the UIL is trying to do.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8762
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-265
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: 2010 Playoff Brackets
« Reply #106 on: December 09, 2010, 07:36:43 AM »
If you want to discuss "equitable" , we need to eliminate the coaches from the equation.  As long as they are involved there will never be an "equitable" distribution.  If you say, that is the way it is, they have to be involved...then there is no point even saying what is or is not equitable because their involvement skews things dramtacially.   

So, removing them from the equation and speaking in hypotheticals..
I believe there are at least 5 guys in every Chapter who are more than capable of working a state playoff game (or even the championship games).  But I also know that if we tell each Chapter, give us your top 25% of officials at each position, obviously each chapter's list will be a different size. Houston will give you a list of almost 200 guys while the Tyler Chapter will turn in 30. There is no way you can say it is "equitable" for each of those Chapters to have the same number of games. 

504coach

  • Guest
Re: 2010 Playoff Brackets
« Reply #107 on: December 09, 2010, 08:15:02 AM »
Well, you are right in that such is certainly NOT my definition of equitable.  I know that you would agree with me that there are officials in most all of our chapters who are quality enough officials to work good 4A and 5A ball, but because those folks choose to earn their living in places like Abilene, Tyler, Waco, Temple, Midland, or Odessa, they do not get the numbers of opportunity during the regular season like guys from Houston, Dallas, Austin, Ft. Worth, and San Antonio.  Should these guys be rewarded or penalized come playoff time because of where they live?  Where's the equity in that?  Also, according to your formula, that would really tie the coaches' hands at picking the officials or chapters they might want.  I simply don't the coaches would sit well with being told, 'OK Coaches, you HAVE to agree on your officials coming from either the Houston or Ft. Worth chapters this week.  As long as we are going to preserve the mantra of coaches having full autonomy on agreeing on their officials, I just think the whole state should be at their disposal.  To do otherwise would be as pharisaical as what the UIL is trying to do.

Old Fart:  There are plenty of problems with being from Houston with regards to playoff games.  Number 1: most officials have to pay their dues for 6-8 years before they are on a varsity field.  You do not have that problem in other chapters.  Number 2: The Houston Chapter has not been assigned or picked for a 6man UIL playoff game for as long as I have seen the spreadsheet.  This is the single longest drought of a classification and a chapter that I have ever seen.  Are you equally upset about that fact that those games need to be spread around???  I am not that upset about it because if I were a 6man football coach I would want crews that call a lot of 6man football (i.e. abilene, south plains, etc.).  Just like if I was a 5A football coach and I had a big game I would want a crew with a lot of 5A football experience calling the game (i.e. houston, dallas, etc.).

There are absolutely members of every chapter capable of officiating games at the semi final and final level.  But like TXMIKE said it is a percentage issue.  The top 5 percent of Tyler is 10 guys, the top 5% of Houston is 45 guys.

TXMIKE:  The only way that I can see that solves the picking of officials issues is keeping the coaches in the loop.  If TASO had to pay evaluators to evaluate officials across the state it would be a huge financial issue.  The way in place now works because if the coaches complain you say, "coach you picked them, don't pick them next time".

Headlinesman

  • Guest
Re: 2010 Playoff Brackets
« Reply #108 on: December 10, 2010, 01:05:04 AM »
Please don't take my comments in the wrong context - I am not really upset about anything, but glad the smaller chapters are represented this week.  I have officiated in both small and large chapters - there are definite assets and liabilities to both, but, it simply being what it is, both are necessary to a peaceful co-existence.  Its sorta like our legislative process - when discussing bills that are going to dramatically affect the cities, it isn't just the metropolitan reps and senators that get to vote, and vice versa on suburban and rural issues. I wish there were plenty of playoff games to go around for all, as they are usually peak experiences for the officials, as well.  Again, best of luck to all who are working this weekend.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8762
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-265
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: 2010 Playoff Brackets
« Reply #109 on: December 14, 2010, 08:17:45 PM »
Thanks again to Doc for doing the work to pull this together for us each year.  ^good ^TD :bOW aWaRd aWaRd

 This is the final spreadsheet.  http://www.safootballchapter.us/2010TRNYFINAL.xls

Offline ETXZebra

  • *
  • Posts: 415
  • FAN REACTION: +18/-7
Re: 2010 Playoff Brackets
« Reply #110 on: December 14, 2010, 08:40:39 PM »
Thanks Doc.  I hope Santa leaves a little something special in your stocking.   tiphat: