Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
[/color]
You can characterize it that way if you wish, but I think that the reality of it was that with only a small number of officials in the area and they all belong to the same association, the schools didn't have a choice once the officials decided that it was time to go to three. They basically got told this is what we are going to do and if you don't like it, then you can find and provide your own officials.
|
That is assuming the officials organizations set their own terms. Here in Oregon (and I' bet we're not the only one), the state athletic organization establishes the fees. We can't ask the schools for a dime more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
Finally, I will add that I would consider a move to 3-man to be comparable to a raise. How big of a raise would depend upon how much of a cut it would take to get it introduced. Yet if you could get three at the same rate, then that would have to be considered a BIG raise. You are now only doing 2/3 of the work. So really if you drop your current per official game fee by anything less than 1/3, then you are actually gaining.
|
I've done enough of 3 to know that it is not only 2/3rd of the work. I'm still there for the same amount of time whether it is 2 or 3. I may sweat a little less but I have to be there and be focused for just as long.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
For example, if each ref is getting $50 to work 2-man, then tell the schools that you will do 3-man for $40 each. That's only a $10 cut per ref, and only a $20 increase for the schools, but when the added benefits of 3-man are thrown in and the realization of the increase in opportunites are acknowledged, it has to be a positive.
|
That would be about the limit of what I'd consider a resonable comprimise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
You could even get a $3 increase per year, per official and be back to what you were making in 2-man in only three seasons.
|