Questions for Cabinet Requested Review of

Officiating Improvement Programs Administered by the NCAA

Baseball

1. How long has your officiating improvement program been in existence for your sport?

The umpire improvement program was initiated in 1990.

2. Do you have a counter sport of the opposite gender that you partner with to provide programming for officiating improvement?

Softball has a program but we do not partner with them on any formal programs or initiatives.

3. Do you partner with other organizations to provide your officiating improvement program (e.g., NGBs)?

We do not partner with any NGBs or major baseball/umpire organizations; however, our fall umpire development camp is conducted in cooperation with a wood-bat baseball tournament organizer in Arizona.

4. What is the current funding for the program?

The current budget for the program is $120,000. Significant expenses include the fall development camp; five preseason clinics; in-season evaluations of umpires by the national coordinator and three regional advisors; and championship-related responsibilities, including selection of championship umpires, evaluation of championship umpires and an annual meeting of all conference supervisors of baseball officials. A limited amount of funds are used to support the Division II and III programs.

5. When did you last receive a fund increase? How were the additional funds used to enhance the overall program?

For the 2006-07 fiscal year, the program budget received an increase of $20,000 for various initiatives to enhance the program (e.g., regional advisor program, additional in-season evaluation).

6. How is the program structured? Does the program have a national coordinator and/or regional representatives?

The Director and Coordinator for Baseball/Football have day-to-day oversight of the program, including the contractor positions of National Coordinator and Regional Advisor (3).

7. How many participants have been part of the program for each of the past three years?

Annual attendance for our five preseason clinics is approximately 1,750. The clinics are open to all officials in Divisions I, II and III, free of charge.

8. Is participation voluntary or mandatory in order to receive potential consideration for officiating assignments during the NCAA championship?

Attending one preseason clinic, passing a rules test and submitting to a background check are required for championship assignment.

9. Provide specific information on the different types of programming offered through your officiating improvement program and the goals of those specific programs (e.g. improve mechanics, knowledge of sport, grow the quality of officials, and grow the number of officials)?

· Fall Development Camp. Each conference nominates one umpire to attend the development camp and receive peer evaluations of their umpiring skills from the national coordinator and other elite NCAA umpires. The goal of this initiative is to continue to develop umpires that have the potential to become championship umpires in the future.

· Preseason Clinics. Each of the five clinic are designed to provide information to umpires about changes to NCAA rules, championship policies and other national issues (e.g., gambling, background checks). The clinics also include breakout sessions designed to improve the skills of all umpires in key areas (e.g., managing pace of play; conflict resolution; mechanics; leadership).

· Evaluations. In-season evaluations by the national coordinator and regional advisors compliment the evaluation programs conducted by individual conferences and provide critical information used in the recommendation and selection of umpires for the NCAA Division I Baseball Championship.

· Annual Meeting. The annual meeting of all conference baseball representatives provides an opportunity to exchange ideas and discuss current and new policies that can improve umpiring and, therefore, college baseball.

10. What are the most effective elements of your officiating improvement program?

Each of the four elements above are effective in achieving their targeted goals (developing new championship-caliber umpires; education and training for a broad group of umpires in all divisions; evaluating umpires for championship selection, and; building consensus on ways to improve college baseball umpiring).

11. As the staff liaison, what is your role in the management of the officiating improvement program?

· Manage the program budget.

· Serve as a liaison between the national coordinator and the baseball committee.

· Providing oversight of the program elements (clinics, meetings, evaluations, selections).

· Supervise the national coordinator and three regional advisors.

Men's Basketball

1. How long has your officiating improvement program been in existence for your sport?

The program was started in the mid-80s in its current form.

2. Do you have a counter sport of the opposite gender that you partner with to provide programming for officiating improvement?

No.

3. Do you partner with other organizations to provide your officiating improvement program (e.g., NGBs)?

Because of the dedicated rules for the college game, officiating instruction is dedicated without other entities. With that said, there is ongoing dialogue about expanding the coordination at all levels – youth basketball, high school, college and beyond.

4. What is the current funding for the program?

Approximately $148,000 is budgeted for this program between men’s and women’s basketball. Funds left after regional clinic expenses are distributed among conferences that had officiating coordinators attend a meeting in Indianapolis.

5. When did you last receive a fund increase? How were the additional funds used to enhance the overall program?

We have not requested a non-inflationary increase in several years.

6. How is the program structured? Does the program have a national coordinator and/or regional representatives?

The program is comprised of a video and online communication program. A fall meeting with conference coordinators is held in Indianapolis, then four regional clinics are conducted across the country each year for every official interested in being considered for postseason assignment.

There is a national coordinator of officiating, supported by four regional officiating advisors.

7. How many participants have been part of the program for each of the past three years?

844 participants in 2005

836 participants in 2006

884 participants in 2007

8. Is participation voluntary or mandatory in order to receive potential consideration for officiating assignments during the NCAA championship?

Participation is mandatory in order to receive consideration for postseason assignment.

The program is designed to continue the development of young officials across the country, to encourage consistency in officiating across the country and to identify the best officials to work and advance through the tournament.

10. What are the most effective elements of your officiating improvement program?

The most effective elements of our officiating improvement program are the clinics, the instructional video, the website, conference coordinators meeting and in-season conference calls.

11. As the staff liaison, what is your role in the management of the officiating improvement program?

My role is to oversee the administration and continued evolution of the program.

Women's Basketball

1. How long has your officiating improvement program been in existence for your sport?

The Division I Women’s Basketball officiating improvement program began in 1986 with the addition of the national coordinator of women’s basketball officiating.

2. Do you have a counter sport of the opposite gender that you partner with to provide programming for officiating improvement?

No.

3. Do you partner with other organizations to provide your officiating improvement program (e.g., NGBs)?

No.

4. What is the current funding for the program?

$148,000

5. When did you last receive a fund increase? How were the additional funds used to enhance the overall program?

We have not requested an increase in more than eight years.

6. How is the program structured? Does the program have a national coordinator and/or regional representatives?

The program has a national coordinator of women’s basketball officiating and four regional advisors.

7. How many participants have been part of the program for each of the past three years?

We have had 2,536 officials attend our regional officiating clinics over the past three years.

2008 – 997

2007 – 775

2006 – 764

8. Is participation voluntary or mandatory in order to receive potential consideration for officiating assignments during the NCAA championship?

Officials must complete four requirements to be eligible for nomination and selection for the NCAA tournament. Clinic attendance is one of the four requirements (clinic attendance, background check form, sports wagering questionnaire, passing grade on required test).

The officiating improvement program has grown over the past five years to focus more on continuing education and accountability for officials. The program is comprised of several categories:

· Required testing – in order to be eligible for nomination and selection for the NCAA tournament, an official must take and pass a preseason test with an 80%.

· Weekly quizzes – officials are encouraged to take bi-weekly quizzes that test various rules categories (i.e., correctable errors, use of the monitor, etc.). Results of these quizzes are provided to each conference. NOTE: Most conferences have made this a required portion of their improvement program.

· Video clips – each week, multiple video clips are posted illustrating areas that need additional attention. This has been the most effective part of our improvement program.

· Web postings – each week, information is posted on the Web site to include handouts, guidelines, rules interpretations, conference call minutes.

10. What are the most effective elements of your officiating improvement program?

The NCAA officiating Web site is the most valuable tool currently being utilized by our staff. It continues to be the most effective way to get consistent information out to a large number of people in a short period of time.

Additionally, we have developed a coach’s evaluation tool for those coaches participating in the NCAA tournament. The feedback gathered is used in the education of coaches and officials.

New this past year, an emphasis was placed on engaging the coaches in the rules making process. Each conference was provided an opportunity for its coaches to participate on a teleconference in the month of April to discuss proposed rules changes. This teleconference allowed the coaches to discuss and provide feedback on each proposal that would be considered by the Women’s Basketball Rules Committee.

11. As the staff liaison, what is your role in the management of the officiating improvement program?

Responsibilities include general officiating issues, selection and assignment of officials, maintenance of the officiating Web site, monitoring of budget, regional advisors program, video/DVD production and officiating clinic logistics.

Men's Ice Hockey

1. How long has your officiating improvement program been in existence for your sport?

Program was established in 1985.

2. Do you have a counter sport of the opposite gender that you partner with to provide programming for officiating improvement?

Yes, the men’s and women’s programs work very closely together.

3. Do you partner with other organizations to provide your officiating improvement program (e.g., NGBs)?

Not currently, but there is very strong coordination with the Division I conferences.

4. What is the current funding for the program?

$57,125

5. When did you last receive a fund increase? How were the additional funds used to enhance the overall program?

Other than inflationary increases, I am not sure when the last requested increase was. Not in the past 8 or 9 years.

6. How is the program structured? Does the program have a national coordinator and/or regional representatives?

The national coordinator oversees all aspects of the hockey program. Hockey is a small community and the coordinator works very closely with the conference coordinators/assigners to evaluate and educate officials.

7. How many participants have been part of the program for each of the past three years?

Given that hockey has relatively little turnover and addition of schools/conferences, the number has not fluctuated much recently. In terms of conference clinics and presentations made by the NCAA and national coordinator, it is estimated that 750 officials are contacted each year.

8. Is participation voluntary or mandatory in order to receive potential consideration for officiating assignments during the NCAA championship?

It is mandatory to attend a conference clinic (where the NCAA presentation is given) to receive championship consideration. We do not hold NCAA clinics, but coordinate with conferences to make sure the national coordinator can attend each Division I clinic. The conferences in the East have combined into one clinic.

The main goal of the program currently is to foster consistency across the country. The hockey community as a whole has made great strides to open up the game through rules committee, conference and officiating partnerships. This has been a three year effort. There still remains some work to be done in terms of consistency of calls, mechanics and interpretation.

There also has been a significant effort to continue to grow the amount of communication and training materials the NCAA provides to its conferences to help with the consistency factors. The NCAA is somewhat behind with regard to what the conferences provide and this does not create one consistent message.

Finally, another main goal is to engage our coaches and conferences to discuss and consider rules changes and ideas that will better the game. Through these efforts, the coaches association, rules committee and national coordinator have formed a significant partnership to improve officiating overall.

10. What are the most effective elements of your officiating improvement program?

In recent years, the most effective tool has been the increased use of video presentations. More games than ever are on television with the expansion of several networks and this has allowed for more quality training opportunities. This is also an area in which we could improve tremendously. Still, it has allowed the NCAA the opportunity to underscore key rules and help ensure more consistent application of key rules.

11. As the staff liaison, what is your role in the management of the officiating improvement program?

· Establishment of overall program goals.

· Budget management.

· Coordination of NCAA championship assignments.

· Background check program management.

· Production of officiating mechanics information.

· Production of rules and officiating videos.

· Management of video replay procedures during Division I NCAA championship.

Women's Ice Hockey

1. How long has your officiating improvement program been in existence for your sport?

Program was established in 2002.

2. Do you have a counter sport of the opposite gender that you partner with to provide programming for officiating improvement?

Yes, the men’s and women’s programs work very closely together.

3. Do you partner with other organizations to provide your officiating improvement program (e.g., NGBs)?

There is a connection with USA Hockey and its officiating improvement efforts. USA Hockey holds a camp to develop officials and because women’s hockey is still relatively new, this is a good place to develop and see new officials – particularly with an emphasis on women in officiating.

4. What is the current funding for the program?

$20,125

5. When did you last receive a fund increase? How were the additional funds used to enhance the overall program?

Other than inflationary increases, there has not been an increase since the program was established.

6. How is the program structured? Does the program have a national coordinator and/or regional representatives?

The men’s national coordinator oversees all aspects of the hockey officiating improvement program. Because the rules for both men’s and women’s hockey are the same, with the exception of checking/contact, all training materials are created and paid for out of the men’s budget. The women’s coordinator is able to focus on the women’s game only and works very closely with the conference coordinators/assigners to evaluate and educate officials.

7. How many participants have been part of the program for each of the past three years?

In terms of conference clinics and presentations made by the NCAA and national coordinator, it is estimated that 300 officials are contacted each year.

8. Is participation voluntary or mandatory in order to receive potential consideration for officiating assignments during the NCAA championship?

It is mandatory to attend a conference clinic (where the NCAA presentation is given) to receive championship consideration. We do not hold NCAA clinics, but coordinate with conferences to make sure the coordinator can attend each Division I clinic. The conferences in the East have combined into one clinic.

The women’s program, in addition to the overall goals with consistency and communication (see men’s report), has made an effort to recruit younger officials and promote and support female officials in general. Correspondence was sent to all teams encouraging former players to stay involved in ice hockey through officiating and several informational meetings have been held to broaden the pool of officials. This effort has had some success, but much more is needed to build a better group of officials at all levels.

Consistency in the adjudication of contact rules in women’s hockey has been a major effort that the national coordinator has headed, in conjunction with several coaches and committee members. Two training videos have been produced at minimal cost by using some coaching resources.

10. What are the most effective elements of your officiating improvement program?

Since its inception, the officiating program for women’s hockey has filled a void of coordinating and organizing women’s hockey officiating nationally. At the time it was established, most conferences had few resources to put to this effort and the improvement program at least gave the conferences and officials a central place to turn. The development of the championship, which was established in 2001, has also been helped by having a central rules and officiating expert on site.

11. As the staff liaison, what is your role in the management of the officiating improvement program?

· Establishment of overall program goals.

· Budget management.

· Coordination of NCAA championship assignments.

· Production of women’s contact videos.

· Management of video replay procedures during National Collegiate Championship.

Men's Lacrosse

1. How long has your officiating improvement program been in existence for your sport?

Program was established in 1985.

2. Do you have a counter sport of the opposite gender that you partner with to provide programming for officiating improvement?

No. Men’s lacrosse is a completely different game from women’s lacrosse.

3. Do you partner with other organizations to provide your officiating improvement program (e.g., NGBs)?

In men’s lacrosse, the national coordinator coordinates with the men’s coaches association (United States Intercollegiate Lacrosse Association) to manage assignments of officials throughout the regular season. This is a unique relationship in terms of NCAA sports with officiating improvement programs.

4. What is the current funding for the program?

$57,125

5. When did you last receive a fund increase? How were the additional funds used to enhance the overall program?

Other than inflationary increases, there has not been an increase in the past 10 years.

6. How is the program structured? Does the program have a national coordinator and/or regional representatives?

The national coordinator oversees all officiating during the regular season as well as post-season assignments. The national coordinator also has established an evaluating program, in conjunction with USILA, that provides a considerable amount of data and information throughout the year on officiating and fouls. This program is funded jointly by the NCAA and USILA and there is an evaluating coordinator who reports to the national coordinator.

7. How many participants have been part of the program for each of the past three years?