The UIL should not be involved at all. But, considering the UIL is a division of the University of Texas, it won't change without legislative intervention. And just try to get state legislators - of which a huge number, if not a majority, are UT grads - to strip any amount of power away from UT. Not likely to happen. The only hope would be to have another office, independent of the UIL, established by the Legislature to take officiating assignments OUT of the UIL, and oversee officiating assignments for UIL athletic contests. Ideally, that would be totally independent of any other institution, but even such an office within a University system (A&M, Texas Tech, UT) could work, as long as they do not report to the same Vice Chancellor as the UIL. Then you would stand a chance of having an assignment system that could spread the assignments - particularly higher round playoffs and championship games - around the state, giving greater incentive to members of all chapters to improve.
I would envision such an office utilizing TASO, as it exists, to make regular season assignments, and then this office would approve/make playoff assignments, based upon a detailed assignment policy.
I must be asleep at my desk again. Somebody call me and wake me up...1-800-NOT-HPNN.
It'll never be changed overnight. But, two things TASO could do, that could hep set the stage for change in the future:
1) Implement a rule that says crews/officials can only call one championship game/year. 'Sorry coach, the crew you wanted has already been requested, and they are therefore unavailable, pick again.'
2) Implement a more aggressive rule that says crews/officials can only officiate one championship game in a three-year cycle. 'Sorry coach, that crew/official worked a championship game 2 years ago, and are ineligible to call another one until after next year, pick again.'
TASO would have a much stronger leg to stand on, regarding changes, if they put something like 1 or 2 to a membership vote (to my knowledge, they have never done so, for anything). That way if UIL/coaches complain, they could at least say, 'Hey, this is what our members - your game officials - wanted', and it would be less likely to be perceived as TAO leadership advocating for the change.
Option 2 gets you further down the road of change; option 1 causes less friction.
Unfortunately, I don't think TASO has any interest in advocating for any changes that would benefit those outside larger chapters. I've been critical of TASO in the past, because I don't see the value that they provide to me as a member, in advocating for me, in areas like this. Maybe they are, and if so, they are just doing an spectacularly bad job at communicating what all they are working on, that benefits all members.
As it stands now, I have to pay a $65 tax every year, for which I get nothing (that I can see) in return.
