2 or 3 Man

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

The number of officials is of no consequence to me, since I always get 100% of the total game fees. The other official(s) work for free because they consider it such an honor to work with me.

Three words for you: Meds, meds, and meds.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Three words for you: Meds, meds, and meds.

Even without my meds, I know that's four words.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Even without my meds, I know that's four words.

It's my public school education catching up with me again

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

3 man all the way. Not really a money thing for me anymore. I doubt seriously I'll accept a 2 man non-varsity assignment next year, and even the varsity 2 mans are getting scarce.

Nor is it for me now nor has it ever been....I'd have probably made more over the span of my career if I didn't referee. But there are a lot of people for whom the dollars matter.

Plus it's the principle of it. I think it is a fairly universal opinion that HS officials are underpaid for the job they do....with all the time and effort that is expended along with all the abuse that is heaped on them.

How any anyone can feel it is reasonable to suggest officials work 50% more games (that is what it would take to cover every 2-person game with 3 officials) for the same money is beyond my imagination. Would any of use be willing to work an extra 20 hours a week at our jobs (for free) if our employer made it just a little easier and got a better result from us at the same time?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Would any of use be willing to work an extra 20 hours a week

Camron - did you mean "us" or "youse"? Either one makes sense.

[zebraman]

3 person, without a doubt.

I agree, in theory, with those who say you should not have to take a pay cut. Here in Washington State, we were already one of the lowest-paying states in the country from what I can tell. Just under $50.00 per game plus an average about $15.00 per official for travel per game when we were two-person.

Our state's schools were dead-set against 3-person if it cost them one cent more. The only way our WOA could get 3-person implemented was to offer the schools 3 officials for the price of 2 for a 3-year test period. Now there is no going back to two-person and the fees will be going up regularly for several years.

Yes, it was painful for the officials who depend on the money, but the officiating for the kids is much, much better. In reality, we now generally send 3 officials to do 2 games so the take-home per night is more. It has extended the careers of some of our excellent veterans who would have otherwise probably quit or just done college ball only had we not gone to 3-person.

[Lcubed48]

Originally Posted by ajs8207

Would you guys rather:

Run a 2 man system and split the game fee two ways?

or

Run a 3 man system and split the game fee three ways?

This was brought up at our meeting last night. They are somewhat considering going to 3 man for all scholastic games and I was wondering which everyone would rather have.

3 person always anytime - no doubt. All varsity games on all levels in this area are 3 person. Also, many of the JV games are also 3 person because we are sent as one 3 person crew to do a doubleheader. What that means is that the games on the lower levels (A and AA) see more 3 person crews than do the AAA schools do. Go figure! Money and numbers of officials are the two main reasons that have given as answers, but that's a discussion for another day/thread.

[Mwanr1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

2...doesn't make any sense to split it 3 ways. The fees paid for 2 just barely cover the cost of actually doing it. It would be an insult to ask officials to take 66% of the money for nearly the same job (same amount of travel, same amount of time, same amount of BS, same amount of expense, a little less physical exertion, and a generally better outcome).

The customers are getting a better product and should fairly pay for what they're getting. That amount may not be the same per official as a 2 person crew but it is certainly NOT the same amount split 3 ways.

Crew of three doesn't mean the game is better officiate. So I can't agree that the customers are getting a better product because there are three stripes on the court.

[Mwanr1]

This question arise last week and I'm curious of what you guys think...

Would you rather work a

2 person game with another official who knows what he/she is doing

or

3 person, but one official is new to it and who doesn't know much about 3 person

[lukealex]

Originally Posted by Mwanr1

This question arise last week and I'm curious of what you guys think...

Would you rather work a

2 person game with another official who knows what he/she is doing

or

3 person, but one official is new to it and who doesn't know much about 3 person

Depends on the level of play if you're thinking from the player's view.

For me, I was an IM supervisor for a couple years, so I like teaching people and I would go with 3-man.

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by Mwanr1

Crew of three doesn't mean the game is better officiate. So I can't agree that the customers are getting a better product because there are three stripes on the court.

What is your point? If you have a crew of 3 quality officials vs. a crew of 2 quality officials, the crew of 3 will always provide a better game. Watch the tape.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Mwanr1

Crew of three doesn't mean the game is better officiate. So I can't agree that the customers are getting a better product because there are three stripes on the court.

It does if they are 3 officials who know the 3 man system.

If it's just 3 guys who only know the 2 man system then we agree, better off leaving the 3rd at home.

[ace]

if all three have an inkling of an idea - then three.

Varsity for $50.00 or less? oof - that's a tough pill to swallow.

Texas Aggie - have you been reading some of the stories in the paper about how some of these big school districts are having some $$$ with the way the stock market is going and depending on bonds to pay off debt? It's gunna be a tough year to negotiate with school districts who were already penny pinching before.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ace

if all three have an inkling of an idea - then three.

Varsity for $50.00 or less? oof - that's a tough pill to swallow.

Texas Aggie - have you been reading some of the stories in the paper about how some of these big school districts are having some $$$ with the way the stock market is going and depending on bonds to pay off debt? It's gunna be a tough year to negotiate with school districts who were already penny pinching before.

The teacher's union always seems to squeeze a nice raise and better retirement perqs out of the districts. The money is there...it is just matter of finding it.....over $200,000 in taxes is gathered for each classroom per year. The teachers are not getting most of it...but it is going somewhere.

[Texas Aggie]

Plus it's the principle of it. I think it is a fairly universal opinion that HS officials are underpaid for the job they do

The problem is that as long as there are people that WILL accept the going rate, whatever that is, we have no leverage. So, you can work all you want to raise fees, and sometimes that gets done, but if it doesn't you have to decide whether you are going to continue officiating or not.

The Texas UIL (state association) has said loud and clear they don't care whether officials quit or not. They are in bed with the school districts first and the coaches association second. I imaging within the next 5 years, our basketball chapter will no longer work many jr. high games. Within 10 years, we may get to where we only work subvarsity games that are tied to varsity games (i.e. doubleheaders). We will lose officials left and right, I think, unless fees are paid, and this fall -- with gas prices going out of control, we will see the first taste of this.