2 or 3 Man
 

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.

I would rather work 3 Person any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Not even a question.

Now how they pay is another issue and separate. But I would be willing to make sacrifices to work 3 Person on some level. If you want a better officiated game or more quality calls, you have to have 3 Person with well trained officials.

Peace

There was a time when the wording of your question would have led to total war.

Anyway, to answer your question I don't know why your negotiating starting point is to add a 3rd official for absolutely free. Why don't you start from a position of at least 70% of the per official fee going to each of the 3 officials. Your goal should be to preserve as much of the per man fee you have now and move to 3 man... if that makes sense

You might want to ask for more than 70% of the per official fee.

Proof:
$50 per official, 2 man game = $100 per game.
$100 per game / 3 officials = $33.33 per official
$33.33 / $50 = 66.66%

75% = $37.50 per official = $112.50 per game
80% = $40 per official = $120 per game

You're asking for $1.67 more :D

Math is sooo hard. Anyways...

Do people actually work HS varsity for $50?

I was thinking along the lines of a 15% to 20% drop per man, in your world $40 per official (geeze I think twice before working AAU at $40 a game... but that's another topic).

Net is do not just add a third official for no additional outlay from the school.

3-person and 3-way split without hesitation. Always.

$50 is what I got for varsity in Da UP two years ago, don't know if its changed. Using 50 is much easier for the math too!

True. But 100 is even easier still :)

You got me Batman! You got me! :D

Well... to be fair I'm only 70% as good as Batman.

that's good, aint it??

Depends on who Batman is.
And even Batman ain't as good as he once was.

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.

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.

We are having problems with our younger officials who work 3 man during camps and then don't work it at all during the season. Even some varsity officials get maybe 5-8 3 man games during the year and none after December. You can't get better at 3 man mechanics by working it only 18 times a year. I've suggested that we go 3 man in all high school games which would ensure training of officials and might encourage some older guys to accept sub-varsity assignments on nights they don't have a varsity game.

State associations need to stand up to school districts, many of whom would probably put the fees for an additional official in their budget if they get the notice in time. That's one thing we've heard and while I suspect some districts are saying that as an excuse, for many its true. We've been working 5 man in JV football games for 2 decades around here. No reason not to go to 3 man in HS basketball.

That is what we get in NV for both girls and boys HS varsity 3-man games.

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. :p

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

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

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

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?

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

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.

3 vs 2
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Everytime a school/coach complains about the officials just mention that while there are some great officials who will do it for token amounts of money it is hard to keep a full roster of the best when they can make more money doing something else without all the hassles. If they want better, they've got to pay better. The average official is not going to take 2-4 days off work without pay and also pay $200-$500 for camp fees when they only gross $1000-2000/year form HS games.

I would much rather work a game with 3 quality officials. However, there's no measure to whether crew of 3 will provide a better game.... matter of fact, no one here can define what "better" is.

I've had coaches and players tell me they rather coach/play in a game with two officials only. Crew of three tends to call too many fouls/violations.

Just because there are more foul and/or violation calls, it doesn't mean the game is "better."

Done generally right, it does mean the accuracy of the calls will improve and the call selection improves. It doesn't mean there are more foul calls. Even if they are, it will generally lead to a cleaner and better flowing game.

In 10-15 minutes, you can teach a good, intelligent 2-person official a poor-man's version of 3-person and you'll instantly have better coverage simply due to the smaller areas of responsibility and better angles. You do it with no live-ball rotations and only basic primary areas. They may not be the smoothest with dead ball switches and rotations but just about anything they do will work and the only people that will even know the difference would be other officials. This doesn't give you all of what 3-person has to offer but it gets you most of it.

Even full 3-person is just not THAT complicated....it is simply an elitist attitude to claim so. I think that most officials can pick it up in just a few games if they are working with partners who already know it. So, the quality you get is largely a matter of how you phase it in.

Now, if you were to look at the other angle...who that 3rd person would be, you might have a different point. Assuming your top 100 officials were working your top 50 games on any given night, you now need 150 officials to cover the same number of games. You'll have officials getting games they otherwise wouldn't be getting.

Assuming that 2 of the 3 are the same two that would have been on the game already, those two will not drop in quality with the addition of a third. The third might be a little softer but in the long run it would far better to bring in a greener official with two vets in a crew of three than with one vet in a crew of two. You'll also have younger officials getting opportunities sooner and also get veteran officials that can keep up a little longer.

3-person is generally a plus in nearly every area....but no one should let the schools get away without paying for it.

well said...but there aren't too many " intelligent 2-person official " out there that don't know 3-person. T

Yeah, I've heard that crap from a couple coaches too. The ones who never met an off-ball foul they liked because they always watch the ball and don't teach their players how to get open without an illegal screen. :)

The fact is that three person, worked properly, puts officials in better positions to see plays and also allows officials to see the entire play rather than just the end of it. I don't know how you could argue that not to be better. :confused:

Except in a few remote areas, no HS games in Oregon are worked by 3. That means that few-to-none of the HS-only refs (and there are some good ones) have ever had an opportunity or a need to work 3. I'm sure Oregon is not alone in this regard.

I had a coach this year that complained that we called about 5 illegal screens and the coach complained that I should not have called that many because of what happen all year. Now for the record these where the worst screens I have seen all season. All of them had elbows high and looked more like football blocks than basketball screening principles.

I concur.

Peace

You tackled the point: if these are competent officials that work properly, then Yes. The extra set of eyes will increase the chances of calling the play correctly. However, in my original post I said just because there are three stripes on the court, that doesn't mean the game will officiate better (given if the three zebras aren't competent of three-person officiating).

I'm not arguing two person officiating is better than three. But I would much rather work a two person game if I can trust one of my partners versus working a three-person game if I can't trust one or both of them. JMO!

I think in your second option, if the third official is a decent 2 person official, they can adjust. Personally, this is a no-brainer and I don't understand why there would be any debate.

I'm sorry, but this is just crap.

2 vs 3
 

3 any day, here in washington we went 3-man 3 years ago, IMO this was the first year that there was a noticable improvement of officiating as 3-man crews, when switching from 2 to 3-man crews there will be a learning curve but once that happens you will never want to do 2-man crews again, in the summer we use 3-man to help some of our less experienced people, this seems to help our local people the most....