What is up with AZ?
 

I just moved to AZ and called the local assignor about refereeing here. I was shocked to find out that the whole state does only 2-person! Most of the basketball world is on the 3-person bandwagon and they are woefully behind the times. Can someone explain the rationale for this as well as the possibility of changing this? I lived in Utah when the change to 3-person came about so I know that it is NOT ABOUT MONEY. Schools can fund raise the $500-1000 extra that it will cost.

Not sure that I want to go back to 2-person...

And Some Local Boards Let You Wear A Belt ...
 

You better not move to Connecticut.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M...=0&w=214&h=160

Well, you have a decision to make. From what I hear the state controls ALL officiating assignments and all hoops are 2-person.

Good time to retire, perhaps.

After moving from PA to AZ I found that all games are 2 person and there is very few colleges to officiate. The reason that I have been given is that schools cannot afford the increased costs in addition, it would be extremely difficult to get all the officials up to speed on 3 person. It actually is not as bad as it seems.

Yes 3 person would be better but for now it is what it is.

Most of the schools around me are 2 person. Just gotta deal with it.

Look on the bright side, you never have to worry about going back and forth from 2p-3p!

The VAST majority of HS games in CA are 2-person simply because there are so many schools and not enough officials to cover all of the contests.

Or Oklahoma

We've gone from being behind the curve to putting some states behind us.

I'll never work another HS game 2-person and just five years ago only one conference here used 3.

It it makes anyone feel even worse, we have not had a single playoff game done with 2 person (assigned of course) since 1998 in our state, which means the vast majority if not all regular season games are 3 person. I have probably done no more than five 2 Person varsity games since 1998.

Peace

Reminds me of my Rhode Island days. State board controls all assignments, and all games except state tourney are 2-person.

California is still mostly 2-person from what I understand. Oregon was until just this year and the decision to switch is still made at the local level which means the transition will be very slow.

It's not all about the money, but money is a big factor. Supply of officials is another (if the supply is already sparse, going to 3-p advances a lot of officials to varsity before they may be ready, thus negating the value of 3-p). And then of course there's the inertia of, "if it aint broke, why fix it?" Of course it IS broken (a little time with good 3-person crews shows everyone that it creates a far smoother basketball game), but coaches, ADs and administrators don't see it that way because they resist change.

In short, changing to 3-p requires a perceived leap of faith and a few years of growing pains to get the supply of officials up to varsity speed. Worth it in the long run, but like long-term capital investments, hard to get past the upfront "cost."

Oh, and for the OP, from a guy who moves a lot....dude, I totally feel your pain.

Edit: Thought of another obvious reason.....established officials organizations have some folks who would rather protect their $80 2-p game fees then make the sacrifice to ~$60 (give or take) that is often asked for when switching to 3-p. Silly when you consider that 3-p gives you more game opportunities and less chance of injury over the course of a season....but again, resistance to change...

I wouldn't want to reduce my per game fee. We aren't paid enough for what is expected and I'm damn sure not going to take a cut so that the schools can get a "better" product. That's ass backwards.

So it's ok to do more games for less money??? That's also ass backwards. The point in life is to get better, make more, and work less. Not make less, work more.

I would stop officiating if that choice was presented to me. This doesn't pay my bills or allow me to live the lifestyle I want. It's a hobby, that takes quite a bit of time and effort for at least 3 months a year.

7 years ago a HS conference we worked was payning $75/official for 3-man BV and 2-man GV. We elected a new commissioner and the following season the body of the association agreed to take a $12.50/game cut for BV & GV so that we could get a 3rd official on the court for GV. So we went from $75/game to $62.50/game, but we thought the pay cut was worth getting five extra varsity slots every Tuesday and Friday.

Personally, I would rather work 3-man at a lower rate than 2-man at a higher rate.

Why would you want to work more for less money? Im just curious.

Why would you prefer working 2-man for an extra $12.50?

More members working, a happier constituency. That's 5 officials working a varsity game twice a week instead of a JV game, which means 5 more officials working a JV game instead of a middle school game, and 5 officials who would not have been working anything at all now working a middle school game.

Personal sacrifice for the good of the whole is how I guess I would describe it. I was already working an all Boys varsity schedule, so I definitely garnered no personal financial gain. But if the goal is to get as much 3-man as possible, then some sacrifices are going to have to be made by officials as well as schools. It can't all just be on the schools to find every cent.

Because I value my time, even though I think we are already underpaid.

Lets say you did 20 2 man games - That would mean for those 20 games you made $250 less. However you work an extra 5 games so you make $312.50 for those new games. Your net increase is $62.50. I calculate each game at 2 hours of work. So for those 10 hours your marginal hourly rate is $6.25, if that's fine with you then OK, it's not fine with me.

When I started in 3 man I would volunteer in summer games and some lower level HS games where the coaches were ok with it (3 veterans would essentially split a frosh/soph double header and work 3 man). So I put my work in.

I would also say that in general HS officials are "ok" as a group. Adding a third person to a game simply to add one when the average official is just "ok" isn't really adding much value to the game. Maybe its different where you are but if the schools can't afford to pay a fair rate for that third official then they should pay what they can afford for the best product, which would be 2-man.

It's not ideal, I do enjoy officiating, but I expect to get paid a reasonable amount. At the end of the year I would say financially I break even, which to me is A-OK.

Unfortunately it's not my job to make sure everyone is happy. Heck in every association I have been in 90-95% of the guys think they are varsity officials. I also understand there are only so many slices of the pie and I am fine with it. If you want to work 40-50 HS games good for you, I'm happy with my 20 or so HS games and 10 or so college games. If I get more great, if I get a few less I'm fine with it. In the end this doesn't pay my bills.

If officiating is your primary source of income that's fine, but I know the hustle it takes between multiple sports for that to work. That's primarily not my concern.

Even though you went way off into left field with the subject matter I'll still respond. I worked 38 high school games last year and 27 college games (most ever for me). The most high school games I've ever worked was maybe 45 and that's being generous. I've never worked a whole bunch of games during the week because I started off as a single parent doing this.

Your last comment about officiating not paying your bills is counterintuitive to your point about you needing every single dollar that you can get when you officiate.

We as a body decided we would rather have more officials working. It worked for us as a group, and we were not really concerned that the it might bother some Anonymous dude on the internet.

Not sure where all the clutter came from about this being a full-time gig, or paying all my bills, or not being my job to make somebody else happy. Had absolutely nothing to do with the quote or the context of this conversation. I have a full-time job and already have a pension for life.


Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

My point was, that I don't want to take a pay cut to do something I already don't think we are paid enough, to simply get more guys varsity games. Either pay a fair rate for the job or go with what you can afford.

Tou - fricking - 'che!!!

3 man is much easier on the body. I would gladly take a #12.50 pay cut to get a third official on the floor.

We have 2 man for JV games here and it pays more than JV 3 man. I can't imagine any situation where the individual game fee for 3 man would be the same as it is for 2 man.

First, I'm in a state that has had 3 man officiating for all varsity games, boys and girls, since 1991. So I'm all for 3 man. But you have a couple of mistaken ideas.

#1, there are still a large number of states that do not use three man. Some only use it during the playoffs, if at all. There are a more 2 man states than you think.

#2, Not sure why you think it's only an extra $500-$1000. Most schools play at least 20 games a year, so they're paying for officials for at least 10 games. Then, you have girls and boys varsity, so now we're back to 20 games plus tournaments and playoffs. So it's much more than $500 or $1000.

Also, if schools are going to have fundraisers to raise money, it's damn sure not going to be to pay officials more money. Schools have a world of things they need to spend money on before they get to a 3rd basketball official.

I would love to have 7 man football crews but I know that's not happening anytime soon. I accept that. If I don't, then I make a personal decision.

The conference I assign went 3-person last season. We did not cut pay per official. We paid $60 per official 2-person and last year paid $60 per person 3-person. This cost each school $1320 -- 22 home games (11 boys, 11 gjrls).

In 2017-18, we're likely implementing our first real pay increase in a decade across the board. Football and baseball will go from $60 to $75 and basketball will go to $65. One reason for a small increase in hoops is the incremental costs incurred from the switch from 2-person to 3-person. Also, we hire, by far, more hoops officials than anything else. So we probably are going to pay $10 less per official than if we had stayed 2-person. The question is moot - going back to two is not an option in my opinion.

As an administrator, I've heard from officials suggesting we stay 2-person and "just pay us more." With rare exceptions, these were not our best officials -- these were guys who cared more about the amount on the check than the job they did.

Once all the local conference started going 3-person, it was only a matter of time. Good officials weren't going to work 2-person, even for a few more shekels.

I know they "we don't have the money" card is routinely played when the issue of going to 3 person is brought up. When this was being discussed in UT, I asked several coaches if they could fund raise the extra $500 they needed each year to pay for the 3rd official (10 home games @ $50/game). Every one of them said yes. They might not have the $$ in the current budget, but if they can get the money to cover the cost...IT IS NOT A MONEY ISSUE.

There will always be a "learning curve" when you create the 3rd slot, but that works itself out over time. We can train officials all we need to and the best learning occurs on the court.

Again, I don't know where you're coming up with $500.
 

You really think they were going to tell you "no?" :)

If it's not money, please tell us what it is.

They all go to money first, because they don't want to think outside the box to come up with the funds. They can all find it.

Money is always the first thing used as to why not to do anything. Even if the fee or amount is minimal. Five-hundred dollars is not a lot of money at all, but that might be the reason that is used to not add an official to a contest across the board when you are hearing about other budgetary situations. I know that in a state where schools are strapped for money in so many ways, that $500 might be a lot to them on the surface.

Now we get paid about around $65 to $70 depending on the conference and each time we ask for some level of a raise, the schools cry poor. And to make a long story short, we do not even get paid the same amount for a double header in any sport, we get paid a regular fee and a portion of the fee for the second game, because it is seen as we are already there, so why pay another full game fee? Well that does not go over well, but the reasoning is always money and it would cost too much.

Peace

Our DH fees are 2x single game fees here.

You think it's a coach's job to do fund-raisers so the school can pay for a 3rd official?

Maybe they can, maybe they can't (but if it was that easy, they'd be doing it).

But in the top 10 list of things they'd do with extra money, more $ for another official would be somewhere near the 42rd thing. And why would you think it would - or should - be otherwise?

If you ran a team and had an extra $500, would you get new uniforms? Fix that scoreboard? Reduce 'pay to play' fees? Have a team party? Defray transportation costs? Decorate the gym? Replace those slick, old practice balls? Refurbish the locker room? Enhance the concession stand?

Or get an extra official? Who on earth would donate $ if they knew that was the reason? This is tilting at windmills.

Exactly. They don't have the money for a third official, but they have new uniforms ALL THE TIME. So it's not that they don't have the money, they'd rather spend it elsewhere.

I was in the room when the league I hire for voted to add a third official. There was a strong case made for it -- off-ball play , competitive hiring (we wouldn't hire the best if they could go work 3 elsewhere), and the fact that all the post-season was 3-person.

A lot of local conferences cut pay per official when they went to 3 officials. OTOH, our conference hasn't had an increase in almost 10 years, so we stayed the same and hope to raise things up slowly over the next 5 years. It's an interesting thing -- when you hire for the best schools / conferences (in terms of geography and level of play) you can actually get away with paying less. I need to be able to offer more to entice some of the better people to take dates. This is how it is when an association doesn't do the assigning, BTW.

(BTW, those who would rather work 2-person and make more money are free to go elsewhere.)

You do not need to look any further than the State Commissioner of Officials. There are not even local associations or any in-season meetings. It sucks.

Pretty sure I was making $55 for 2-person there 15 years ago. Not much COLA adjustments over that time.