Author Topic: Playoff Distribution (Read 64066 times)

JarMan69 · « **on:** December 09, 2014, 12:19:48 PM »

Let me start this by saying I am not griping or complaining. My crew had the opportunity to work 3 playoff games this year and were up for others. What are your thoughts on ways of evening the playing field as far as the # of games chapters work in a season. It seems to me the rich continue to get rich and the poor just get kicked under the bus. I know there have to be a different way of doing it than the current methods. Also there has to be some way of distributing the finals games to ALL of the chapters in Texas instead of the same 4 or 5 chapters every year with the smaller chapters having absolutely zero chance of working one of these games. Please let me know your thoughts on this, thank you.

TXMike · « **Reply #1 on:** December 09, 2014, 12:56:48 PM »

# 1 I would dispute your assertion that smaller chapters have no chance to work the finals. Ask Abilene. Ask East Texas. (And that does not even address the 6 man situation)

Would you like a situation that gives you a percentage of playoff games based on the percentage of teams you regularly cover who are in the playoffs? Probably not.

How about one that gives you a percentage of playoff games based on the percentage of the total TASO membership your Chapter includes? Probably not.

So how is it "fair" to just arbitrarily say your Chapter is "entitled" to games?

The system of assigning (picking) officials for ALL games , not just playoffs is what it is. Until that changes, not much else can change.

In my "ideal" world, TASO would have an evaluation staff who would look at X number of crews during the season and based on the rankings they give those crews, assign the championship games. Each Chapter could nominate a certain percentage of crews, based on Chapter size, for this consideration.

JarMan69 · « **Reply #2 on:** December 09, 2014, 01:18:33 PM »

Mike, I agree with you. some type of evaluation process would be great. I just wished football would do like other sports and allow chapters to be chosen for playoffs and finals games instead of letting the coaches do it the way they have for years. I also agree with you on East Texas and Abilene but there are other Chapters like SFA, El Paso, Commerce and Beaumont that are always at the bottom and get there 2 - 3 games a year and once the first round is done they are done. And then the "Goliath" chapters like Houston, Ft. Worth, Dallas and San Antonio get the plethora of games all 6 rounds. If it was a 1 or 2 year thing I would understand and chalk it up to a good/bad year for certain Chapters but it is every year and I think it needs to be looked into and some changes be made to "even the playing field" where its best for all chapters involved. Not just the top 5.

clearwall · « **Reply #3 on:** December 09, 2014, 01:57:26 PM »

One thing that would help would be to automate more of this. I know with past 'successes' by TASO in the technology area this is a HUGE thing to ask, but I feel that the more we remove this from an arbitrary assignment process the better. Have all of the chapters go into an electronic pot and your chances are weighted based on the percentage of games your chapter works at a specific level, i.e. if Amarillo works 60% of the 2A games throughout the entire state, they get a 6/10 chance of an assignment in all rounds. Throw everyone into a pot and have an electronic lottery pull the chapter that gets to work each game in a given round.

The next step, i believe is to put a cap at each round based, again, on the volume of games your given chapter works at a certain level. So if 20% of Amarillos games are in the 2A classification then in rd 1 where there are 16 games, their cap is 3 games in that round. In this scenario if 2% of Houston's games are 2A then if they get their number pulled for multiple 2A slots, they can only work one of those since their cap is below 1. They would have to pick their game and give the other back which can either be UIL assigned or possibly another rd of lottery style picking.

Finally, there needs to be a regulation in place that bans the same chapter from working multiple games per round in ANY classification. If you want to work that 6A game on Friday night, you cant send the same crew to work both that AND a 5A game on Saturday.

JarMan69 · « **Reply #4 on:** December 09, 2014, 02:09:32 PM »

Attached is a comparison of the Mike's final 2013 spreadsheet using the # on members per chapter and the 660 UIL playoff games in 2013 using the % of membership per chapter. I know there is no perfect way to do this but there has to be a better method then the current method.

[attachment deleted by admin]

Wingmanbp · « **Reply #5 on:** December 09, 2014, 02:14:56 PM »

Just use the system that they used for the BCS or this years Top four polls. Seemed to work like a charm

TXMike · « **Reply #6 on:** December 09, 2014, 02:19:03 PM »

Quote from: JarMan69 on December 09, 2014, 02:09:32 PM

Attached is a comparison of the Mike's final 2013 spreadsheet using the # on members per chapter and the 660 UIL playoff games in 2013 using the % of membership per chapter. I know there is no perfect way to do this but there has to be a better method then the current method.

well there goes your theory. Dallas got screwed while several small chapters got way more than they "deserved. "

TexDoc · « **Reply #7 on:** December 09, 2014, 02:43:35 PM »

I've looked at this data more than probably anyone over the last 15 years. Well, maybe that's because I compile it. Some larger chapters get fewer games they they "deserve" and some get more. None of it means anything, at all, until something happens with coaches picks. They run the show, so nothing moves any direction until that changes. What are the chances of that happening? Extremely slim gentlemen.

JarMan69 · « **Reply #8 on:** December 09, 2014, 02:45:23 PM »

But in this theory some of the smaller chapters should get more games and some of the larger chapters would get less. More evenly spread it out among the chapters.

joelw83 · « **Reply #9 on:** December 09, 2014, 04:17:08 PM »

Trying to be fair doesn't help anyone. You see some crews from Houston or Dallas, and you think "how did they get that game?" The H is 300 and the B is 72 and gets beat to the goal line. So you assume that Houston is not as good as everyone thinks, or that is their 17th best crew. Also, do you think the best crew from the Commerce chapter would be the 22nd best crew in Houston? No real way of knowing unless you grade them every game. Which isn't going to happen. Last point....who is the client? The coaches could care less how many games Houston or Commerce or any chapter gets. Bottom line is it is impossible to make it fair. And who gets to decide what is fair?

Joe Stack · « **Reply #10 on:** December 09, 2014, 04:56:31 PM »

In my opinion, the playoff assignments are largely based on 3 factors: location, UIL grouping geography (for lack of a better term), and perception. By location, I mean, the chapter who's covered area has a large number of playoff teams. UIL grouping means what areas are affected by the regional splits -- for example, Houston has virtually ALL of Region 3 in the large classifications while DFW has part of Region 1 and 2, but the second and third largest chapter to share. Finally, perception -- schools perceive that the larger chapters are more capable of working the larger school games, and even the later smaller school games from quarters on.

We can't do much about the first 2 factors, and the third can only be addressed by making the crews in your chapter as good as they can be.

Coby · « **Reply #11 on:** December 09, 2014, 06:21:36 PM »

Clear wall: hey coach in Victoria, you can not use Houston because they met their quota of 3A games. You have to pay for a crew from Amarillo to call your game.

Who do you want calling your championship game. A group of 5 refs that have called 100+ 6A games over the last 7 years as a crew or the 5 chapter officers from Big Sandy chapter?

Here is my solution: HUDL every penalty and every complaint from a game worked. You put all of them together in a playlist and send in a video resume to TXMike to evaluate. I have every one of mine it takes 1.5 hours a week to compile.

gigmax · « **Reply #12 on:** December 10, 2014, 06:06:38 AM »

What no one has even mentioned, which has a huge bering on who gets what, is what schools are still playing. Houston has received far more games this year than the rest of the other chapters, but pretty much got shut out this weekend. And if none of the Houston teams lose this weekend, it will probably happen again next weekend. It's all relative.

Coby · « **Reply #13 on:** December 10, 2014, 11:07:21 AM »

After thinking about it more (which is dangerous in and of itself):

TASO State and UIL mandate that 6 of the championship games next year will be called from a pool of 6 crews. We get those 6 crews by every chapter submitting 6 crews to the state level. The state then identifies the six finalist. The coaches will then pick which of the 6 crews officiate which game.

Qualifications for the crews being submitted.... Every Crew will submit every penalty, and every coach complaints from every game thru HUDL. If you can not create a playlist with every penalty and every coach complaint you are not eligible. Turn the playlist into a presentation and the presentation is what is evaluated at local state and championship coaches.

If you call 22 games you need every penalty and every complaint from every game. If you call 7 games you need every penalty and every complaint from every game. You must make the playlist and tag the plays by penalty and position making the call. These plays are then used for all training modules created for the next year.

If you dont have a HUDL acct you can use the state account. If you do not use crews create an all star crew from your chapter for your shot.

You will be reviewing and looking at film which will make everybody better. HUDL usage will take off. Most importantly everyone will have an opportunity. There will be a system in place as opposed to the current method. Thoughts???

clearwall · « **Reply #14 on:** December 10, 2014, 11:24:16 AM »

Quote from: Coby on December 09, 2014, 06:21:36 PM

Clear wall: hey coach in Victoria, you can not use Houston because they met their quota of 3A games. You have to pay for a crew from Amarillo to call your game.

Who do you want calling your championship game. A group of 5 refs that have called 100+ 6A games over the last 7 years as a crew or the 5 chapter officers from Big Sandy chapter?

Here is my solution: HUDL every penalty and every complaint from a game worked. You put all of them together in a playlist and send in a video resume to TXMike to evaluate. I have every one of mine it takes 1.5 hours a week to compile.

But in my system it would be very unlikely that such a thing would happen. Only the second portion of that was around a game cap per round. The first part of the strategy is to weight a lottery based on number of games in a given classification. Houston works considerably more 6A than Amarillo(I think they only have 2 6A teams). So it is highly unlikely that Amarillo gets a game between CC King and Steele or something similar. What it would solve would be to allow Commerce, Amarillo, Lubbock to work the later round playoff games in the classification levels that they are used to working.

TexDoc · « **Reply #15 on:** December 10, 2014, 11:25:27 AM »

It is interesting to talk about all of these scenarios, but it won't change the fact that the UIL allows coaches to pick their crews and/or chapters. Until that is changed, nothing else changes. And, that's not going to happen any time soon. If the present UIL director steps down, maybe there might be a chance. I've heard him say that coaches will always have the right to choose.

So, good luck with all of these suggestions.

One thing I'd like to see the UIL mandate is that if two schools are playing in the playoffs and they use the same chapter during the regular season, they must use that chapter in the playoffs. If a chapter supports a program from 7th grade to varsity, by golly, they should support that chapter during the playoffs.

TxSkyBolt · « **Reply #16 on:** December 10, 2014, 11:31:37 AM »

I think all finals are UIL assigned to chapters. Coby, what about all the no-calls? Those grade just as good/bad as calls.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

fencewire · « **Reply #17 on:** December 10, 2014, 11:35:32 AM »

So if you have several coaches that WILL NOT send in their video in your chapter you are basically screwed. We requested video every week, we sent follow up emails every week, we ended up at about 40%. You think the coaches care that you are eligible for a state championship? Not a good idea.

I think the better focus in this debate is the solicitation that is rumored to go on by folks attempting to secure not only championship games but playoff games in general.

As long as coaches are doing the selecting, it is a flawed system, all the evaluation, all the gnashing of teeth wont change that fact. You aren't going to legislate that the 2A D1 game will be picked from some pool while the 2A D2 game gets to be the coaches pick.

What you can do, is crack down on the solicitation and put the screws to those that operate in that realm.. rather than giving a turn the other direction approach.

fencewire · « **Reply #18 on:** December 10, 2014, 11:37:41 AM »

Quote from: TxSkyBolt on December 10, 2014, 11:31:37 AM

I think all finals are UIL assigned to chapters.

Only if they don't agree, just like the rest of the playoffs.

fencewire · « **Reply #19 on:** December 10, 2014, 11:38:13 AM »

Quote from: TexDoc on December 10, 2014, 11:25:27 AM

One thing I'd like to see the UIL mandate is that if two schools are playing in the playoffs and they use the same chapter during the regular season, they must use that chapter in the playoffs. If a chapter supports a program from 7th grade to varsity, by golly, they should support that chapter during the playoffs.

Agreed.

CSMJake · « **Reply #20 on:** December 10, 2014, 11:45:16 AM »

Lots of comments from officials who just want to call the game. We all do!! I am the Secretary from one of the smallest Chapters in the State. Pecan Valley. We will take what we can get. Stigmas's stay around for a long time and it is very disheartening!! We grew over 20 officials this past year and had a great season. We assisted San Angelo, Abilene and some of the other chapters this year in covering games. All we got was a thank you from the chapters that could not cover their games while they enjoyed their playoff season. We will continue to strive to get better. Its all about relationships. Relationships are formed between Chapter officers and Coaches as well as crews. Everyone has crews that can call any level game. Its just that big chapters have a lot more of those good crews. My two cents!!

JasonTX · « **Reply #21 on:** December 10, 2014, 02:28:57 PM »

Our chapter has benefited a great deal this year. We've received a record number of playoff games this season. A lot of our games came from an unfortunate circumstance that other chapters are facing and that is the shortage of officials. Schools expect the best crew you have to send, but when these other chapters are sending 2nd and 3rd year officials who are not that experienced it gives the schools a bad taste, so they then come to us and we send them the best. At some point each chapter has to be honest with themselves and realize where to draw the line on how many games you can actually provide top tier crews. Once you reach that limit then you need to turn down the games or you risk ruining getting that team back the next year. To piggyback on what CSMJake posted, you have to plant the seeds early. Focus on these young jr. high coaches, develop and professional relationship with them. When they move on to bigger and better jobs, they need to remember who you are for someone they can call on in the future.

Welpe · « **Reply #22 on:** December 10, 2014, 05:05:02 PM »

This is a multi-variate problem. In addition to the concept about distributing playoff games across the chapters, the larger chapters are also faced with the complaints from many crews that they aren't given a fair shake a games either. It's really like a microcosm of what is seen state wide.

Seeing the number of quality crews (and I'm not talking about my own here) that are sitting at home with very little chance year after year, it's disconcerting. Many see it as another issue between the heaves and have nots.

copedaddy · « **Reply #23 on:** December 10, 2014, 08:38:26 PM »

the larger chapters are also faced with the complaints from many crews that they aren't given a fair shake a games either. It's really like a microcosm of what is seen state wide.

I have to agree here. Look at the big chapters and all their games, and look how many crews worked two or more games a weekend in the playoffs.
Until TASO and UIL step in and make football like other sports, and select chapters on a rotating basis each year to work the quarter-finals and up, this debate will go on--forever.

Coby · « **Reply #24 on:** December 11, 2014, 09:12:18 AM »

Quote from: TxSkyBolt on December 10, 2014, 11:31:37 AM

I think all finals are UIL assigned to chapters. Coby, what about all the no-calls? Those grade just as good/bad as calls.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If a coach complains about a call via zware evals or whatever mechanism is in place locally then those plays must be included also in the HUDL playlist resume. I really dont see it being feasible to review every play worked looking for no calls. 12 penalties a game. 4 coach complaints each team 20 plays per game to be reviewed 15 games a year is a 300 play playlist per hudl resume. Which is basically 2 games worth of plays. It takes me and TXMIKE about an hour to review 1 raw game film. So if every chapter submits 6 crews to be reviewed. 20 chapters. It would take 240 man hours to grade maximum if every chapter submits 6 crews (highly doubtful). Who the reviewers are is not my cup of tea. Maybe every chapter submit someone to review? It would be a 2 week review process with layers of reviews. The reviewers would not need HUDL access as it would be on a link. What the scoring matrix would be is also not my cup of tea. Perhaps have every crew that submits a final playlist include a $100 evaluation fee?

This might be the most realistic evaluation plan I have ever seen on here. Like Doc said getting coaches to buy into it would be the most difficult step.