First Louisiana now Mississippi

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

Why should a second game pay less than a first game? $23 for a varsity game?

We assign DH in various sports here -- not often basketball. But when someone works 2 baseball or 2 softball games, the fee is twice the single game fee. Why wouldn't it be?

That seems like a very typical way to pay officials at least here. They pay double headers a set fee and it does not match the pay for each individual game if assigned without it being a double header. It is certainly not right and I will not work many of them for this reasoning, but it will take more than a couple of people to make sure that changes. Schools half the time cry poor, which in our state they are.

Peace

[Da Official]

In Texas we are at $55 per Varsity game plus mileage. 2 or 3 man is irrelevant since we are busting our butts to hustle and get plays right either way, but I digress. Also, we are supposed to get a well deserved pay increase for 2016.

[so cal lurker]

I think it is pretty easy to argue there is a basis for *some* differential -- comp for a game essentially includes time to get ready -- making sure the uniform and gear is ready, getting dressed, stretched, in the mind set, travel time (not just the mileage) and so forth. Much more efficient economically to do a double header than to do games on two separate nights. (I'm not *remotely* arguing that a double-header paying only 141% of a single game (55 vs 78) makes sense, only that there is some logic to getting paid more if having to make the effort for a single game -- and it sure sounds better to think about it as extra for doing only one game instead of less for the second game of a double header.) What "some" *is* reasonable I won't attempt to define.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

I think it is pretty easy to argue there is a basis for *some* differential -- comp for a game essentially includes time to get ready -- making sure the uniform and gear is ready, getting dressed, stretched, in the mind set, travel time (not just the mileage) and so forth. Much more efficient economically to do a double header than to do games on two separate nights. (I'm not *remotely* arguing that a double-header paying only 141% of a single game (55 vs 78) makes sense, only that there is some logic to getting paid more if having to make the effort for a single game -- and it sure sounds better to think about it as extra for doing only one game instead of less for the second game of a double header.) What "some" *is* reasonable I won't attempt to define.

While I don't agree with the specific amounts, the concept is valid. You only have to travel to/from the site once regardless of how many games you do. Building the travel amount into the fee is not uncommon and not unreasonable. They could just pay $23 per game regardless of the number then pay $32 for getting there. Again, I think the numbers are off, but not the concept.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That seems like a very typical way to pay officials at least here. They pay double headers a set fee and it does not match the pay for each individual game if assigned without it being a double header. It is certainly not right and I will not work many of them for this reasoning, but it will take more than a couple of people to make sure that changes. Schools half the time cry poor, which in our state they are.

If only I had that option. Almost all of our game assignments in SC are doubleheaders, girls then boys. Just the way it's always been done. As eluded to, it's just more economic from the schools' perspective. Also, if the girls played on their own night, no fans would come. Seriously.

I would love to see the day where I have the option of not working girls basketball. Unfortunately, that won't happen anytime soon.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

If only I had that option. Almost all of our game assignments in SC are doubleheaders, girls then boys. Just the way it's always been done. As eluded to, it's just more economic from the schools' perspective. Also, if the girls played on their own night, no fans would come. Seriously.

I would love to see the day where I have the option of not working girls basketball. Unfortunately, that won't happen anytime soon.

Well they do not schedule or assign games in that fashion here for the most part. We work only boys on a night or only girls on another night. And if they ever do a "pack the place night" where they might play a boys and girls game, they assign two sets of officials.

For the record, not many come out for girls games anyway and that still does not change how they schedules run. Also girls basketball starts a week earlier and their playoffs start earlier based on class in some cases up to two weeks before the boys playoffs start. And I do not think a good girls team wants to play the same school of another school that does not have an equally comparable team outside of conference play. Girls play in their own tournaments and own shootouts so not sure that would be practical here. I only work boys basketball so this is only a school issue for most of us here rather than an assigning issue.

Peace

[BatteryPowered]

In my area we usually (almost always) work a double header. Most of the schools have all contest between them on the same night...varsity in the main gym...JV in a second gym...possibly freshmen in a third (yes, many schools have that many gyms) though freshmen sometimes play on a different night.

In the secondary gym there will be JVB-JVG double header and in the main gym there will be a VG-VB double header. Two crews assigned to work both games (typically two whistles for JV and three whistles for V).

I would not work for the rates in Mississippi.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Schools half the time cry poor, which in our state they are.

Peace

It's not usually a matter of schools being "poor". It's a matter of them not wanting to fundraise more. Most places I'm aware of, expenses of extracurricular sports come from things like participation fees, gate fees, concessions, fan apparel, and fundraising. It does not come from the same pool of money as funding normal school operations does.

They figure if they can chop the officials fees, they don't have to beg for money as much in the community.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

It's not usually a matter of schools being "poor". It's a matter of them not wanting to fundraise more. Most places I'm aware of, expenses of extracurricular sports come from things like participation fees, gate fees, concessions, fan apparel, and fundraising. It does not come from the same pool of money as funding normal school operations does.

They figure if they can chop the officials fees, they don't have to beg for money as much in the community.

Well that might depend on your state and how schools are funded. And it might not apply to the private schools that get no such state funding. We have a funding issue in Illinois and the schools are not getting money from the state as they are promised. There are all kinds of schools trying to complain about payment to officials or upgrading facilities because they are not financially strapped. It is one thing to not fund raise, but not everything is in the budget when we have teachers complaining they are not paid enough or have other rights as a result. I suspect that officials are way down on the list of priorities right or wrong.

Peace

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

..., but not everything is in the budget when we have teachers complaining they are not paid enough....

When you only work 9 months out of the year, you can't expect the taxpayers to pay you for 12.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

When you only work 9 months out of the year, you can't expect the taxpayers to pay you for 12.

I am not trying to make a political statement here, I am pointing out that there are other needs that schools claim to have. Some schools would rather pay for computers than play an extra $5 or $10 for an official a game. Right or wrong this is the reality when we complain about our pay.

And tax players complain when little Johnny cannot read at the right age group or cannot do other functions to get into college. So it is a little more than how many months you work, it is what you value.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So it is a little more than how many months you work, it is what you value.

JRutledge: As a retired middle school science teacher, you have my sincere appreciation, and thanks.

BillyMac

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

JRutledge: As a retired middle school science teacher, you have my sincere appreciation, and thanks.

BillyMac

My mom is a retired professor, so I get it.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

When you only work 9 months out of the year, you can't expect the taxpayers to pay you for 12.

All teachers I know cram 12 months of work into far fewer than 9.

Most unappreciated, underpaid professionals I've ever seen.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

All teachers I know cram 12 months of work into far fewer than 9.

Most unappreciated, underpaid professionals I've ever seen.

You don't know many teachers then.

I know some who do that and just as many who don't. And there lies the real problem, figuring out a way to reward the good teachers without rewarding the bad ones.