TASO Proposal

[Joe Stack]

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...).

[JasonTX]

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.

[TexDoc]

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. 

[TXMike]

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.