IMLCA DIVISION III ADVISORY COMMITTEE
OFFICIATING SUBCOMMITTEE
WORKING DOCUMENT
The Division III Commissioners believe they have the authority to hire any independent assignor
of officials and are not obligated to work with the USILA/COC. Certainly this indicates no
respect/understanding of the decades of previous efforts to manage officiating put forth by the
USILA.
The Division III commissioners believe they have the right to establish their own fee structures.
While this sounds great, there are implications that could be detrimental to their own conference
and officiating in general.
The Division III commissioners believe the NCAA is the only entity that has the authority to
negotiate on its behalf. Again, the commissioners do not seem to understand that their own
member institutions, the members of the USILA, have been the ones negotiating in the past.
The Division III commissioners believe that the USILA/COC has no authority in recommending
officials to work the NCAA championship.
Based on these statements and comments from various conversations, I believe the following
topics need to be discussed in order to build a “white paper” regarding officiating.
History of the USILA/COC relationship
What is the USILA, it is a membership organization comprised of all the colleges that play
varsity men’s lacrosse. It is the same member schools as those comprising the conferences.
Mission Statement – Officiating – what is it. How do we tie the needs of the conferences,
schools, coaches and officials in to one statement?
Increasing the number of qualified officials must be a priority. What is the definition of a
“qualified official.”
How do officials progress thru the ranks?
How are prospective officials identified? Especially in new regions?
How can the assignment process minimize travel fees?
Eliminate the unwritten rule that an official can only work each school three times during the
year. This may not be feasible in some parts of the country.
COC is conducting a study of how many officials live within 50 miles of every USILA school.
How can the assignment process be more budget sensitive? Travel and per diems are flexible
costs that schools have difficulty budgeting for.
Supply and demand is one factor here. Game times also are piece of this issue. The more games
played on different days than Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Saturdays the more “local” officials
who may be available.
How can schools and conferences help recruit officials?
Schools should work with the assignor, COC and USILA to conduct regional officiating clinics
that would identify potential new offiicals as well as develop high school officials to move up the
ladder.
If Division III fees are less than Divisions I and II will officials provide less of an effort?
Does a different fee structure by division ultimately create different groups of officials by
division? Is there any justification for Division II paying more than Division III? Are these
games tougher to officiate? Do officials then rather work Division II games?
What are the responsibilities of the current assignors?
Can conferences and schools be a part of the evaluation system for the assignors?
The COC has a system by which the assignors are evaluated by the officials. The coaches should
establish a system by which the USILA evaluates the assignors. This would assist the
commissioners in gaining some control of the officiating program without actually managing it.
How does the current USILA/COC observer program work? How has it benefitted Division III?
The Observer Program receives its funding from four sources: the NCAA, the COC, US
Lacrosse and the USILA. From the Observation Program’s inception in 2004 to the present the
number of officials in Districts 1-6 has increased by 48 percent while the funding has increased
by approximately 33 percent during this same time period. In order to keep pace with the growth
of the game and to continue the success of the program I sincerely hope that all four entities will
continue with their respective funding. The program directly affects the college game by
providing individual assessment and training to our officials.
2013 Number of Games Observed
District 1
40 games
District 2
36 games
District 3
66 games
District 4
39 games
District 5
6 games
District 6
19 games
District 9
7 games
Total
213 games observed during the 2013 season
District 1 ... D1 = 4, D2 = 0, D3 = 36
District 2 ... D1 = 3, D2 = 1, D3 = 26
District 3 ... D1 = 20, D2 = 7, D3 = 33
District 4 ... D1 = 17, D2 = 3, D3 = 18
District 5 ... D1 = 0, D2 = 2, D3 = 2
District 6 ... D1 = 2, D2 = 0, D3 = 17
District 9 ... D1 = 2, D2 = 0, D3 = 5 (first year the program extended to District 9)
Totals: of the 198 games observed in all three divisions ... 24.24 % were in D1
6.56 % "
" D2
71.72% "
" D3
An interesting facet of the Observer Program which bears mentioning is this: during the 2013
NCAA tournament 16 officials received assignments for the first time; one made his first Final
Four appearance; another 6 received first-time conference tournament assignments. Many of
these officials were identified as a result of the Observation Program.
2014 Observers Program Budget
$ 25,000
Observations (250 at $100 each )
8,750
Travel reimbursement for observers
6,000
Director’s stipend
2,000
Director’s expenses (supplies, postage,
phone, mileage, tolls, convention (transportation, lodging, meals) and
miscellaneous
2,000
Trip to observe officials in a developing area of the country
$ 43,750
TOTAL
Source: 2013 USILA Observers Program Annual Report and 2014 Proposed Budget
What educational programs are in place for officials?
COC to provide details.
How many COC officials are there today (900 but only 600 receive the bulk of the assignments)
versus five and 10 years ago. Is the COC “allowing” new officials in to its circles?
COC to provide details
What are the benefits of maintaining a national officiating program vs having each conference
manage their own assignment process?