Does scheduling strategy change when considering games that might be hotly contested or that have significant impact on standings — the “big” games? You bet it does, and it’s naïve to assume every game is equal. Schedulers often predict games that will fall into that category, and schedule officials accordingly.
Games that match elite teams, feature volatile personalities or are nationally televised get circled on the assignor’s calendar. Those contests are usually given to the officials whom the assignor considers to be the best. In that sense, the “rating” and “seniority” categories discussed in the previous section tend to become more important.
Kelley schedules all games for a season at one time, taking care to assign anticipated big games to those he deems have earned them. He takes scheduling one step further by only notifying officials of their schedules a little bit at a time. The distinction between scheduling and notification allows Kelley the peace of mind of having all of his games scheduled in advance, yet allows the flexibility to make changes to the schedule, should an unanticipated game suddenly become “big” as the season progresses.
Mike Riiff, president of Umps Are Us, an association of officials for several recreational sports in Southern California, likewise schedules his best officials to the best leagues. However, he takes care to see that his best officials also see an occasional assignment in a lower-caliber league. That, he says, helps the official to “keep his perspective” and work on focus during low-key contests.