The real answer is uncomfortable, but honest.

1) There's always going to be a disconnect between the associations, as there is from the coaches. You just bashed on the Clark County refs, where many on this forum bash on the Seattle refs, where the state evaluators tend to rate the refs low from Northern (whatcom/skagit), peninsula, and north-central washington, based on who made the finals the past few years more than others. You also have the kings of the good ol' boys (see, but not limited to: Pierce County) who will die before giving their young officials opportunities.

2) Time - most association boards are volunteers. It's hard enough to wade through extensive video (1.5 hrs/match, observing 3 duals per ref, 20 refs per association) much less trying to evaluate every ref of every association.

3) The state picks a number and obsesses over it. When it decides that Association X is "better" than Association Y, it will take years for Y to prove itself, even if Association X only showed well for one year. It's why our current evaluation system is silly and the old "top 12" system deservedly went by the wayside.

4) It's political. Many associations are figuring out "how do we get as many as possible to state?" instead of "how do we get the best officials of this year to state?" Hell, in our association, one of the good ol' boys missed ONE year of state voting and got in a huff and quit.

I don't pretend to have the best solution, but I'm real as to the problems that exist today and know that the "simple" solutions people present are laughable.

Real talk? The best system would properly evaluate each referee AND give constructive feedback as to how they could improve and move up in the rankings. It would also rely on properly educated evaluators who are willing to put in the time (sorry, I hear WAY too many dumb comments yelled from coaches and spectators every match).