Many people don't agree who do not see how education is funded and how funding is constantly being cut back. I could really go off on a tangent on Ed funding BUT I do agree with OP that I would prefer 3 person crews but it's just not feasable where I am located. Each school sets own sub varsity fee schedule and conferences set varstiy fee schedule. Location and population are two other issues with gates etc. I am not sure where you are from but my sub varsity game fees range from $35 on the lowest end to $46.50 (ave. $41) for JV w/no mileage being paid. That is just for BB subvarsity and additional $1500 - $2500 increase. Other sports are also trying to get larger crews - FB, SB, BB etc. It just adds up and is hard to justify for AD's and Admin when the rest of the budget keeps getting cut.

I am an educator and I agree. Not having the money is a cop out at those small schools. They could find it if they had to. There's plenty of other places money is wasted.

Yeah, but I didn't want to get started on administrator salaries ...... :-)

I am also going to have to agree those that feel the "we do not have enough money" argument is very lame. Let us say you pay $60 per official and you sell tickets for $4 to get into the gym, all you have to do 15 people to pay for the extra official. Also considering the concessions and the booster club fund raisers, it is really not that much money in the bigger scheme of things. I will also say that many of the smaller communities do get more fans consistently. That does not mean it applies to everyone but in my state many schools have consolidated their sports programs with other schools that had over all funding problems. I agree that education should be the first priority of every school, but an extra $400 to $600 is not going to crash most schools in a sport like basketball that in many parts of the country gets a lot of fans. At the very least these schools should not complain the officiating is bad. If officiating shortage is a bad thing, then hiring a 3rd official for games is not going to hurt those numbers because you will get officials to stay in longer and you can groom younger officials to become acclimated to a system that will keep them in longer as well.

Let us keep this in mind. A junior college program pays their officials double of what many HS pay and they in many cased do not get 1/3 of the fans many HS get. Somehow they survive. ;)

Peace

I officiate in a very rural area. I wish that the stands would be filled as you guys are saying. That would be great. Here's hopin' that they do find a way to get the cash.

A question - would any of you be willing to take a partial cut in fees to assist in this? It has been brought up in association meeting here for discussion - some heated.

Are the AD and coaches ready and willing to take a similar percentage pay cut?

We have enough problems recruiting and keeping officials. Cutting wages sureasheck isn't one way out of those problems.

Most of the officiating that I did early in my career was as rural as you can get. Many of the towns would not have 500 people in them and the crowds were packed most of the time.

BTW, when the administrators are willing to take a pay cut, so will I. Unless these schools cut half the fee you are not saving that much money in the first place. Hell, it is not me complaining that the officials did not cover a play. BTW, I live in a state where all our varsity games are 3 Person so I do not have to worry about this at this point.

Peace

I would.

That said, I'm from CT where varsity game fees are just shy of $80/ref. Even if they split the 2-person fees 3 ways, it wouldn't be that bad.

If I were in a state where pay was $40-50 for each ref at a varsity game, I would likely reconsider my position.

This is just a little bit condescending. Many people disagree who DO know how education is funded and how funding is being cut back.

Sorry to crush your feelings...... hope I didn't destroy your self-esteem .... but then again, it's difficult to find very many comments on this forum that are not condescending.

As in....anyone who does not agree with you is wrong?

not wrong - it just was not my intention to have my "condescending" words crush anyone. I never stated that no one knew how education is funded. By that - I mean the majority of people do not know how funding formulas work and that each district/school does not receive equal funding - even equal per pupil funding - and that these formulas are different from state to state. It was not my intent to condenscendingly imply that people do not know that the funding originates with taxes. It was more with what happens after the taxes are collected and monies are being dispursed.

Don't worry, my feelings aren't crushed and my self-esteem isn't affected. Neither is so fragile as to be susceptible to condescention from someone I don't know personally.

I was just pointing out two things.

1. Many who disagree with you are informed in the matter.
2. Implying that those who disagree with you aren't informed is a bit condescending and not at all convincing.

Not necessarily in that order.

On what statistics are you basing the above conclusions on?

I'm kinda interested in what the exact majority figure is. Is it 51% of the people that don't understand what you're talking about, or is it 99%?

Let us also put this in perspective. Some schools pay people that hardly do anything. I have worked football games where the chain crew working only the varsity game gets more money than the officials working both games (varsity and JV/sophomore). If schools stop trying to pay people that would do the job for next to nothing, then you might have more money for officials.

Peace