My thoughts:
1. Get UIL out of officiating. Period. They represent the schools and they can leave it that way or change that as need be. They can determine the playing rules, where playoff sites are to be and so forth.
TD: Agree! But, since they represent the schools, they are attempting to help the schools dictate what they spend on officiating, and keep those expenses down.
2. Now that UIL is out of the officiating picture, TASO may or may not be the only game in town -- and that's the way it should be. Local TASO chapters can and should negotiate with school districts on game fees but with the realization that other organizations can and probably will pop up to provide a competitive alternative. School districts can be their own judge of quality. As it stands now, a football official can join a smaller chapter and be working 6-8 2A or 3A varsity games his first year, while those in bigger chapters with better training may not get that opportunity until their 4th or 5th year. Since that sort of variation currently exists, no good argument can be made against letting the school districts and whatever involved officiating organizations dictate the market on all fronts -- experience, pay, etc.
TD: I cannot agree that local chapters should be negotiating individually with each and every district they supply officials for. That's what caused all of this UIL/TASO mess in the first place! Officiating is not and should not be considered a free market. Each school district should know and needs to know what they will be spending, and it should be the same across the board. Gate receipts are only used for football, and this should be very easy to estimate. What needs to happen is TASO representatives should be very involved in what happens with 1204 through negotiations with AD's and school district leaders through the UIL.
3. TASO must improve. It must establish better training, and have better oversight on chapters. While I believe chapters should largely self operate, TASO needs to be more proactive in stepping in when there is a problem. Instead of banning a chapter from working playoff assignments, a tactic used in the past, they should get rid of the problem by removing leadership responsible, if necessary/applicable. We could probably spend a week on this.
TD: TASO has improved over the last couple of years. It had to in order to survive. Training material is getting better, but I still question why we bring in all these college officials to do an on-field clinic at the state meeting. What a waste of money. Yes, I understand someone feels like this needs to be done so those guys that think they will get in front of some of those college guys will get an opportunity to move up. Not likely guys. We need experts at 5 man mechanics teaching officials who will be working high school games, period. College officiating should be completely unrelated to TASO.
4. As far as training goes, the state meetings should go the way of the do-do bird. Its unrealistic to expect far West Texas officials to attend a meeting in Houston or the Valley folks to go to Dallas or Tyler (if there's ever been a state meeting of TASO/SOA in Tyler, let me know). Regional clinics and on field/court clinics need to become commonplace all over the state. Most sports are now played year round in one form or another, and those like football that aren't, still have a practice season like spring football. There are plenty of opportunities for these sessions.
TD: With voting now on-line, there really is not much of a reason to have a state TASO meeting so I agree. Regional clinics are the way to go.
5. Another thing that needs to be gone is the good old boy system -- and frankly, I'm probably seen more as one of the old boys myself. This is costing us new members and even experienced ones who don't feel a part of the country club. Its also putting weak officials in games they can't handle. How do we do this? Certainly a difficult question, but a few beginning answers include: written progression plans (i.e. 1st year, subvarsity only; 2nd-3rd year: 6 man or private school varsity (football); etc. -- all with a written evaluation plan that may differ from chapter to chapter); fitness expectations and evaluations; requiring clinic attendance to work varsity; these ideas are only for starters.
TD: When a chapter has coaches selections, there's not a darned thing you can do about this. Until that selection process changes, very unlikely, this will not change.
6. The TASO board system needs adjustment. Having the Presidents for each sport make up the board, to me, doesn't work. They have their own interests and it may not benefit TASO as a whole. Let's elect board members for TASO and (possibly) require each candidate to have multiple sport experience (not necessarily someone who's CURRENTLY active in 2 or more sports).
TD: I like the current TASO board system. Each sport has so many votes depending on the number of members in that sport. Seems quite reasonable.
Much of the changes here focus on TASO -- because like it or not TASO is almost solely responsible for the mess its in. I've been a TASO/SOA member since 1988; worked 4 different sports at one time or another (playoff assignments in 3). TASO isn't entitled to anything -- we need to work for and earn everything we get. While that doesn't give UIL the right to walk all over us, had we been better organized 3 or 4 years ago, this whole crap would not have happened. No need to re-dig graves, but with most everything else, the first change needs to start at home.
TD: Egos are the biggest problem, at the UIL and at TASO (especially in the past). Just follow the money and you can usually tell motivations.
