[Freddy]

I find that the guys who claim to prefer the three-man system for the sake of "less running" do not do a justice to the game. They tend to use the occasion of three-man to become lazy, especially at the C-to-C and the old T-to-new L transitions.
56 three-man games + 17 tubes of IcyHot and BenGay = This Year. Yes, if those were all two-man games, that probably woulda taken double the dose of the hot stuff.
On the topic: please don't entertain doing three-man at the expense of conditioning. Those I observe who do so end up lazy -- Trail stays in the coffin corner near the division line so as not to "get beat" back to the other end; C waits for the play to pass him by going the other way; new Trail gets a head start and bounces the ball back to the endline for a throw-in in order to be able to walk upcourt without running; Lead hesitates to rotate because it forces the other two to have to move.
Shortcuts develop. Laziness becomes apparent. Angles are neglected. Guessing predominates. Those are the kinds of things I see with officials who prefer three-man for the sake of "less running."
Two-man, done right, is indeed more demanding than three-man. But three-man done right still deserves a diligent expense of effort and demands suitable conditioning.
Depends, I guess, if a person wants to "work the game" and give it the best, or merely "do the game" and get a paycheck.
Sorry for the diatribe, but I'm just sick of watching guys being lazy and refusing to invest the conditioning expected, whether doing either system.
Hope you do well at whatever your schedule brings you!