An excellent inquiry, deserving of some factual research.
I know in some conferences, each coach is given an evaluation sheet of 
the officials at each game. Evaluations are also given to other 
"interested parties," such as media representatives, coaches and/or 
athletic directors present, etc.
There is also a conference officer responsible for officiating and it is 
his/her job to visit a game each night, or each night possible, to 
evaluate the officiating for that game and meet with officials after the 
game, while things are fresh, to discuss what happened and how things 
can be improved.
I have been retired from that arena for several years now, so I can't 
say what, if any, of these procedures are used now and in what 
conferences. I know I had the privilege of filling them out during the 
course of my career, in hockey and basketball, at both the high school 
and college (D I & III) levels.
That's the extent of my knowledge. I have no idea if these procedures 
are used in interconference play or not, and if so, how.

Dr. Bob Hamilton wrote:

>Seems to me that while their will be the occasional bad calls, it seems
>there is something important here.  Seems the system in place is a
>conference management process when it comes to officials.  Clearly there is
>an incentive for a conference to promote itself.  I am not saying it happens
>since I have only rather anecdotal evidence.  With these incentives, seems
>it is imprint to see that no significant bias exists when there is
>inter-conference  game play, especially in Regionals and Finals..
>
>Is a process controlled at the conference level sufficient to provide
>inter-conference  officiating without a conference bias? . This may be
>dreaming in technicolor but it seems there is a base of data from game play
>in inter-conference  games that could be used to examine this.  I am
>thinking of inter-conference  games, tournaments during the season , etc.
>
>It would not seem too much of a stretch for each conference to have one of
>their "officiating reviewers" at games to render an evaluation for
>independent review and reports to the conferences when something is deemed,
>after a thorough review, to indicate a problem of serious inter-conference
>bias.
>
>Just wondering whether anyone knows of these methods being currently being
>applied..
>
>Bob Hamilton
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bob Woodbury <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Friday, March 30, 2007 2:25 PM
>Subject: Re: officiating
>
>
>  
>
>>First, there's nothing wrong or disloyal in liking both hockey and
>>basketball...or baseball...or football...or field hockey.
>>Speaking of field hockey (like the transition?), I did play-by-play on
>>basketball (high school and college, kept score for Johnny Most) for
>>almost 30 years and wrote up games for another 10. When I went from
>>radio/TV to newspapers, I volunteered to cover field hockey, mainly
>>because no one else in the sports department wanted to. I knew nothing
>>about the game. I had a basketball mentality when it came to whistles. I
>>had to know what every whistle was for, and why. That will drive you
>>nuts in field hockey.
>>I would stand next to people who knew that game and drove them nuts. One
>>day I was standing next to a field hockey coach who, the previous
>>season, had won her third consecutive high school state championship.
>>About every third time I would ask her "What was that for," she'd reply
>>"I don't know."
>>I developed a radical philosophy. If a coach, who had just won three
>>consecutive state championships, doesn't know what every third call was
>>for, why should I care? I watched the game, appreciated it for it's
>>beauty, appreciated the athletes talents and enjoyed the game every time
>>after that. If a call effected what happened in the game, I would ask
>>the ref at halftime or after the game to explain the call. Know what.
>>Didn't have to do that very often - maybe three times in 12 years.
>>Conclusion - the refs have very little, if anything, to do with the
>>outcome of a game. If there is, what has been termed a "blatant" call
>>(English translation: one with which you, an amateur in the stands,
>>disagree with a professional on the ice) then perhaps the offender(s)
>>(read players) shouldn't have put themselves in that kind of position in
>>the first place.
>>It's very enlightening, once you eliminate the officiating from your
>>thoughts, how much more you enjoy the game for what it is - in the case
>>of hockey, a really beautiful, beautiful game to watch.
>>Disclaimer. I am not now, nor have I ever been, an official of any kind.
>>Unless you count umpiring sandlot baseball games 60 years ago with 20
>>other guys and girls, all at the same time.
>>
>>Spreeman, Cathryn wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Gentlemen, I was at the regional games in Manchester and I thought the
>>>officiating was bad.  I am offering my opinion as a long-time fan of
>>>hockey, and as a hater of squeakball, and at one point during the
>>>weekend I observed to my ever-patient spouse "if the officiating
>>>continues like this, we may as well be watching basketball."  There were
>>>blatant calls missed and insignificant stuff whistled.  We opined at the
>>>time that it seemed the officials weren't familiar with the style of
>>>play in the east.  I have no scientific data to back it up, but it
>>>seemed to us that whenever a non-HE official does a game with HE team(s)
>>>involved, there are a ton of stoppages.
>>>
>>>Posting on Hockey-L without adding a ream of documentation?  Not a
>>>capital offense.
>>>
>>>Cathy Spreeman
>>>UNH '72 (same class as Umile, 'nuf said)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: - Hockey-L - The College Hockey Discussion List
>>>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eric J. Burton
>>>Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 12:00 PM
>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>Subject: Re: officiating
>>>
>>>Whatever since I read all over USCHO.COM and INCH the Officating was
>>>less
>>>than stellar in the Manchester Regional.
>>>>From INCH:
>>>The officiating in the first period - and during stages later in the
>>>game -
>>>was wildly inconsistent. Referee Derek Shepherd missed a couple of
>>>blatant
>>>calls and wound up whistling some makeup calls afterward. Shepherd is a
>>>highly-regarded official in the college hockey world. He called last
>>>week's
>>>WCHA Final Five championship and also reffed last year's Maine-Michigan
>>>State regional championship matchup. He also called the 2004 Frozen Four
>>>game between Maine and Boston College, when he apparently missed another
>>>call -
>>>
>>>So there you have it.
>>>Eric J. Burton
>>>(701)-610-9466
>>>http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: - Hockey-L - The College Hockey Discussion List
>>>[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Wayne T Smith
>>>Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 10:27 AM
>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>Subject: Re: officiating
>>>
>>>
>>>Why should we believe or even read that here?  If we're going to smear
>>>someone's reputation, can't we do it in more specific terms and if not
>>>with 1st hand information, a reference that can help us evaluate the
>>>opinion, please?
>>>
>>>See you in St. Louis
>>>wayne
>>>
>>>Eric J. Burton wrote, in part,  on 3/30/2007 11:01 AM:
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>at manchester, we had 2 wcha crews, derek shepherd and todd anderson
>>>>with derek getting 2 games
>>>>
>>>>I have heard that Derrick Sheppard and Todd Anderson did a horrible
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>job at
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>the
>>>>regional they were reffing at.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>
>
>  
>