RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => Texas Topics => Topic started by: blindref757 on July 28, 2015, 10:34:45 PM
-
Got the TASO proposal in my email this evening.
If you havent seen it, you can see it here: http://www.intra-focus.com/VIEW_EMAIL.cfm?EMAIL_ID=41425040-65BE-CC3B-BE5D6887CCBCE60C&campaign=ABEB8E96-0E5D-49D4-940A56D2DE1DD736
What do you guys think about this? Who is driving this?
-
I was afraid this might be misinterpreted. The Board and the Chapter President's /Secretaries were given the "proposal" (it really is not even that), by the President. All he wants is for there to be discussion around the state to see what kind of support there might be for the ideas. He did not ask the Board to vote on it, he simply asked that there be some discussion about it. I believe there may be at least 1 Chapter that does something similar, i.e. charge a high dues but then make clinics free.
For guys who never intend to attend the State meeting, it is probably a non-starter. But for those who would attend, they might think about it.
The "super regional" clinics does need some tweaking. The way it is suggested would be almost impossible for the vendors to support. Not saying we need to be in business of helping them out but many guys rely on having multiple vendors to choose from when they buy on site. On the other hand , there is much to be gained by making sure a consistent message goes out to as many guys as possible.
-
Hopefully I didn't misinterpret and I'm not mad. I know it is just something they are throwing out there to discuss...so let's discuss it! I don't know if the leaders read this site, but it doesn't seem to have a lot of support from East Texas (of course they said they knew that in the proposal).
First off, it is very cost prohibitive for people to travel to clinics/meetings. By collecting from every member for a meeting that few attend, I feel that the organization is just trying to "tax" its way into being relevant. I’ve attended many state meetings and clinics and it is always good to see friends from around the state that I haven't seen in a while. However, there is very little information dispensed at those that justifies the hundreds of dollars it costs to travel to them. I am not against training by any means…but I get more training from CFO for $30 and our chapter HUDL subscription than I ever get from my TASO membership and I don’t have to leave my house.
For TASO to remain a relevant organization in the 21st century, this group is going to have to continue to embrace technology and make officiating easier to participate in…not harder and more expensive. They stated the need to get a consistent message out to the membership. Technology allows organizations to disseminate information and training to a larger audience over longer distances with utmost fidelity (everyone hears the same message). Redding's weekly bulletins and videos go out to a worldwide audience!
Additionally, our local chapter has benefitted greatly by being able to host our regional clinic. We are more financially stable than at any other time in our chapter’s history. Non-profit organizations that do not have adequate funding are not able to achieve their mission. We are much better poised to grow and succeed as an organization with this income…transferring that back to the state organization likely would not find its way back to East Texas for local issues. With this income, we have purchased HUDL, we've hired a web service company to host a professional website, and we have been able to recruit new members in areas where we needed extra people. As a rural organization, we need people over a large area and recruiting them is difficult and expensive. Our decisions and needs are local and I feel strongly that we need our own local funding to address those needs.
This might be great if you live in Dallas/Houston or one of the other urban centers that would surely have a clinic within a few miles. But when you start talking about driving from Amarillo, Odessa, Longview, etc 2 day clinics & hotel rooms, now you are talking about 4-5 game fees.
TASO needs to embrace and utilize technology. Have the state meeting here on RefStripes! Use BrainShark! We need to continue to copy the CFO model and gather video clips from the chapters on HUDL...and send those out weekly.
I see TASO at a crossroads as an organization. In my opinion, fighting to keep things the way they've always been done with "in person" meetings and mandating the elimination of new technologies such as social media and radio headsets is going to make the organization irrelevant in the long run. I would hate for that to happen...TASO could be a cutting edge organization that sets the bar high for all other state organizations to strive for. I hope this proposal doesn't pass in its current form.
-
Blindref, well said. I have many of the same thoughts. The state meeting has become almost irrelevant. A lot of the guys that have been around for years find it to be a waste of time and money. Is it really worth it to waste a weekend and hundreds of dollars? Not for me. We definitely need to embrace technology in some way.
I've always been of the opinion clinics should never be used as a profit center. The main purpose is to educate, not raise money. Make a profit, sure, but gouging members, nope.
The proposal stinks. It is really a raise in dues for nothing in return. Sure, you get to attend the state meeting or super clinic for free, but many still won't attend, and their dues just went up. The thought process is obviously "if we include it in their yearly dues, they will be more apt to come to the state meeting, since that is now free." Come on.
This is an avocation, not a profession. We do this because we love it and some of us are much more passionate about it than others. People are going to learn IF they want to learn. You cannot force them to learn. That just won't work.
The best place for education has been and I think will always be by the individual chapters during regular meetings. You train for 30 to 45 minutes at a time and have a better chance of not losing them. For a lot of guys attending all-day clinics, you've lost them in about an hour.
No way this proposal makes it.
-
"Irrelevant" ? ? Interesting that someone who has not been to one in several years could make that evaluation. There may be some members who have little to gain by attending. But it is clear from the test scores, the video that comes in from around the state, and the anecdotal evidence presented by District Directors that there are more than enough members for whom the state meeting (and any other training) is FAR from irrelevant.
-
What percentage of the total football membership attended?
-
20-25%
-
That confirms it's relevance. And, I wonder how many of those were there simply for points. Conventions are very expensive. I would imagine TASO breaks even at best and may even lose money on these meetings. just because we've always done it this way does not make it the best thing going forward. What are your thoughts on an alternative?
-
1 - The fact is that attendance has been increasing each year over the past several years. The situation is far too complicated to make such an arbitrary conclusion, i.e. "only" 25% attend so it is irrelevant. I doubt there has never been a time in the past 30 years when much more than 25% attended. Under your "logic" that means it was NEVER relevant. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
2 - Even if "only" 25% attend, that 25 % then goes back to their chapters and passes on some of what they learned to an uncounted number of additional members.
3 - Did you look at the agenda for this year's? Even a "professor" like you could have picked up something. Would it have been worth what it cost you to be there? That is a decision each official has to make for themself each year.
4 - Before all the haters jump on board and start pointing out the flaws in this meeting, I am not saying it was perfect. Just like in everyone's field performance (except maybe Doc's) there is always room for improvement. Those who care about the avocation and the brotherhood will work to improve instead of just outright dismissing it.
5 - Anyone who does not feel the need to attend should simply not attend. No need to publicly try to convince yourself it is not worthwhile.
6 - Finally, looking around the folks who were there, I saw a heck of a lot of D-1's. I doubt they were there for the points. And with the increasing use of crews, points are not that important any longer anyway.
-
Attendance, percentage wise, is no where near where it was back in the late 90's, early 2000's. Fact is, 20% to 25% attendance is really poor. There's no getting around that. There's a reason people are not attending. What is it? Cost, apathy, realization modern technology can replace this meeting, poor training at the meeting, little relevance to going. Really, what is it? Probably a little of all of those.
I did plan on going this year but it just didn't work out. I had a parent in the hospital and an in-law in the hospital. Not good timing. But thanks for asking and assuming. The last several years, these meetings coincided with my vacation plans so I could not have gone anyway. Now that we've gotten past the personal attacks, can we move on?
-
What ever the reasons...if you did not attend you have no legitimate standing to criticize and make assumptions about something you did not witness.
-
As a member who pays his dues and has been a member since 1989, I think I do. But, like you said, everyone has their opinion.
-
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/eb/aa/b8/ebaab8b53a3fc72a3941136016db3d08.jpg)
-
Bully!
Yet you criticize those that don't attend. Two way street mi amigo.
-
Read again Kemosabe. I did not criticize you or anyone else who did not attend. I simply said, he that not goeth doth not have rightith to protestith.
-
I sure as HECK read this as criticism. And if you read what I wrote, I never criticized this particular meeting. My opinion is based on all state meetings I've attended and heard people attend in the past. You can get over it buddy.
3 - Did you look at the agenda for this year's? Even a "professor" like you could have picked up something. Would it have been worth what it cost you to be there? That is a decision each official has to make for themself each year.
4 - Before all the haters jump on board and start pointing out the flaws in this meeting, I am not saying it was perfect. Just like in everyone's field performance (except maybe Doc's) there is always room for improvement. Those who care about the avocation and the brotherhood will work to improve instead of just outright dismissing it.
5 - Anyone who does not feel the need to attend should simply not attend. No need to publicly try to convince yourself it is not worthwhile.
-
This is fun. Where's the popcorn?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
It could go on all day....
cRaZy cRaZy cRaZy
-
This is fun. Where's the popcorn?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
How was your experience at the state meeting SkyKing? >:D
(http://www.texasconflictcoach.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/truant.jpg)
-
Mike,
You know there's nothing that I can be taught. LOL
I was at the EAA flyin in Oshkosh that weekend. (After 3 on field camps and 5 clinics this year, my purse is empty.)
-
I know you were, hence the Truancy Patrol image. No need to rationalize to me. :sTiR:
-
If TASO truly wanted to make officiating better in Texas, they would:
1. Advocate STRONGLY for better pay (I'm not talking just football).
2. Advocate STRONGLY to get the coaches out of the selection of officials.
3. Develop an effective marketing strategy to assist chapters in the recruitment and retention of officials.
4. SEEK new technologies to aid officials in training. Take the videos referenced above that are so egregiously bad...Why not have a TASO Play of the Day on a YouTube channel with commentary from a TASO rules/mechanics staffer. Put my $45 state meeting fee to that and give me a resource to search by rule/situation. Give me access as a TASO crew chief to submit my crazy plays to a Wiki to share statewide.
5. Embrace the use this site/message board to discuss pertinent issues. I actually heard at the state meeting this weekend a WARNING from a breakout session leader about using RefStripes and other "social media" sites as an official. I had to laugh because I've learned more here than I've ever learned at all the state meetings I've ever attended combined.
6. Give me BrainShark Tests!
As I said above...TASO is at a crossroads. Making in-person meetings mandatory is not a guarantee to get the info out in a uniform fashion. Creating training materials to be distributed independently...or even dispersed out to the local chapters for training time is a much better option. We live in a time where information is abundant and access is at our fingertips at all time. The need to get in the car, drive to a central location, pay for meals, recreation, hotels, gas, etc. is rapidly fading. I understand that time honored traditions are hard to let go of and there are things that happen at state meetings like lifetime awards that will be difficult to work through. But like TXDoc said...this is an avocation. We cannot run TASO Football like it is a college conference. Even at the JUCO level, there are plenty of qualified applicants that want to be a part of that. However, there aren't an abundance of guys lined up to work Bubbaville vs Dukesburgh in front of 75 fans. TASO has a much better shot at getting that crew to watch a video on their cell phone than they do getting them to drive to Houston and spend $500 to listen to a guy talk for 45 minutes about the college football hall of fame.
One other note...it was stated in the original proposal that TASO vendors would be better able to serve the membership due to the new clinic structure. ::) Every one of those vendors has a website and an 800 number. I've ordered from all of these vendors in the past and received packages in 24 hours! Setting aside my personal opinion that TASO is violating the US Constitution with their mafia money protected vendors, we can't make this any part of the decision to completely restructure our dues/convention discussion!
-
New guy gonna weigh in here...My first Texas State meeting (but I went to a couple in Michigan as well).
I could see the cost to go to Dallas (albeit a mostly centralized location), could be a significant hurdle to many...as was mentioned by the proposal itself calling out certain areas that would likely be opposed.
Id like to see the proposal balance this by covering not only the fee for the meeting, but also maybe give some travel stipend for those that attend. Just an idea.
There were certainly some breakouts that were better than others...I think just as we review officials on-field performance, we should have content/delivery reviews for clinicians. If the goal of these meetings is to promote consistency, I would suggest that the State body preview the breakout content to ensure the breakout clinicians are passing along the same message that we are hearing from the Rules Editor.
I will admit that, as a new guy, I was incentivized by the points, but I also found value to some of the sessions. However, I could see that if someone had done the "Umpire - Crew of 5" breakout for 3 years running, then the marginal learning each year likely wouldnt justify the trip...especially here in Texas where everything is bigger.
I think there is some relevance to the statement that some guys who want to learn will not be deterred by the cost...and some guys that dont want to learn will not come regardless the incentive.
Maybe the organization could/should focus on attracting/retaining the 1st group and maybe suggesting that the 2nd may want to think harder about their choice of hobby.
-
It has been awhile since I have seen you 2 have a lovers quarrel.
I think the bigger issue is having a relevant website. It is not that hard to put film on a site. Get that fixed first then talk to me a clinics and meetings.
-
It has been awhile since I have seen you 2 have a lovers quarrel.
I think the bigger issue is having a relevant website. It is not that hard to put film on a site. Get that fixed first then talk to me a clinics and meetings.
Don't get me started on that intra-focus website that was supposed to go away 10 years ago.
-
Advocate STRONGLY for better pay (I'm not talking just football).
They do. I would go about it a different way, but it would be false to assert they aren't doing this.
Advocate STRONGLY to get the coaches out of the selection of officials.
I'm not sure that everyone sees this as a barrier to improving officiating. Plus, it isn't going to happen anytime soon. What we need to do is to make sure all chapters work their games as consistently as possible, so if one coach decides he doesn't want to use a particular chapter due to their enforcement of the sideline rules, he can't get another chapter to come in and ignore those rules.
Develop an effective marketing strategy to assist chapters in the recruitment and retention of officials.
Do you have any idea what the TASO football board is doing in this respect? It has a committee that is working on this very thing. One of the things that was brought up that could POSSIBLY be hurting retention of younger officials is the testing requirement. Do you want to eliminate that?
SEEK new technologies to aid officials in training.
Hudl and Brainshark are part of the training process right now. What do they not do that YouTube would?
Embrace the use this site/message board to discuss pertinent issues.
I agree with this, however, this thread alone is one example of how certain people think this type of thing gets out of hand.
Give me BrainShark Tests!
You have an unlimited ability to do whatever it is you want to do.
I have to agree with Mike for the most part. I wish we could update some training methods (more interactivity), but it is difficult to do that with many members at a state meeting. The state meeting is currently the most effective way to conduct the training and other events we do there. I doubt you will find many 5000 member organizations that can get 20-25% attendance at an annual meeting. But we did -- at least 2 years in a row.
There is always room for improvement. And yes, technology could help. But this costs money and this thread started regarding a concept that would raise dues. So before you complain about something, make sure the alternatives you offer don't run counter to the ideas that led you to criticize in the first place (i.e. we need more training, which costs money, but I don't want to see a dues increase...).
-
At ease guys.. The Trump will deport both of you if you don't calm down.
We presented this "proposal" at our chapter meeting and held our own vote and it was 100% against. Having several regional clinics has helped us because we can choose at least one out of several different dates. So if all we have to pick from is two dates then there is a good chance that a good part of the chapter cannot make those dates. Our guys would much rather have a choice to pick one of the many clinics and attend them versus paying $100 and only have two dates to pick from (State or Super Clinic) Here's a thought.
1. Pay $100 and have two free clinics for those that choose that option.
or
2. Pay $60 (normal state dues) and pay for the clinic(s) out of your own pocket. But still allow for other chapter clinics to be held around the state on different dates.
-
Jason isn't #2 what we are doing now? I thinks that's actually the best option. I applaud Tommy for trying to come up with ideas to increase attendance at the state meeting but having to increase dues to accomplish that is just not going to be accepted by the membership. They changed the rule that allows the district meeting to count as your education for the year forcing everyone to have to attend a "real" clinic at extra cost, so is there really a reason to make any further changes right now? One clinic a year is plenty for everyone to have to attend. We need to keep clinics small and local. People are going to learn more in small groups. If you've ever had a college class at a huge university you know what I mean. If inconsistency is a problem then is it really the multiple clinics that are the problem or is it that trainers are not conveying the same message? We've already limited the number of trainers so they just need to be consistent, if that's the problem. TASO does do a lot for us and is necessary. Could they do more and do things better, of course but everyone will have their own opinions about what those things are. No one likes to but forced to do anything and usually that just backfires and HACKS off the masses. That's what Tommy's proposal is doing and why I think it will not be accepted.
-
It is going to be a very hard sell to get that sort of a dues increase when the pay increase (if it actually does happen next year) will be moderate at best. (And for anyone who thinks TASO has not been advocating on our behalf you are confusing "results" with effort).
We certainly had a problem with consistency at the clinics some years back. The BOD's and officers have focused on that over the past 5 plus years and I do not hear that complaint any longer. There is still some inconsistency around the state maybe in how we interpret certain things (the blocking below the waist rule is a prime example). But I wonder if we will ever be able to eliminate that. As long as Chapters have their own "final authorities" putting out the word, we are going to have that. There is an initiative underway that hopefully will be completed by end of August that will let you look at a collection of videos with the low blocks in them judged to be legal or illegal and why. TASO has a strong connection with Rogers Redding and he graciously judged on numerous clips we provided of plays where there seems to be widespread disagreement (primarily low blocks back to the inside). Those and some others will be compiled so guys can actually see the blocks instead of just some semi-literate text on a slide.
One of the things I am always amazed at is how on most any weekend in the Summer, somewhere in the State of Texas there are good sized groups of guys getting together and talking football. I think that is a huge benefit of the current system and would hate to see us lose that. Not many states you can go to where that is the case, probably none. Most of us have lives outside of football and having the flexibility to choose the date where you got to a clinic seems a positive feature of our current system. Many of us make significant familial and professional sacrifices for the sake of the game. Not sure forcing a potentially more burdensome requirement on us is the way to go.