3 crew-v- 2 crew

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If more organizations would simply quote the schools a flat game fee no matter how many officials are used, then this "money saving" idea would go away.

Just keep it simple and have the officials divide the fee equally. That way the schools have no valid reason to prefer only two officials.

This part makes it sound like the cost would be the same either way, but let us look closer.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I wasn't suggesting any number for the flat fee. I really don't think that it matters. The main point is simply to get the schools out of the mindset of paying different fees based upon how many officials work the contest. Once the officials are able to accomplish that, the resistance to 3-man will disappear.

However, if you want a suggestion for the fee structure, I propose what my state did about three years ago.

NV has four classifications by enrollment. We were already using 3-man for both boys and girls varsity games at the largest schools. We wanted to introduce 3-man in the 2nd biggest classification. We made a deal with the schools that we would provide three officials for the price which they were currently paying for two officials. The 2-man rate was about $10 more per official than the 3-man rate. So, yes, we each took a temporary cut to get 3-man into that level. We also told the schools that the following season we would be charging the same price that the biggest class was paying for three officials. It went through without any problems. Think about what we got. We put in 3-man at a whole extra level and only lost a few dollars on a few games for one season. In the long run we are far better off. We have more slots for our officials and thus we can work many more games, which probably made up for the difference and then some in the very next year, and if not then certainly over the next two seasons.

Obviously, not every group is going to be able to strike such a deal. They may have to go 3 for the price of 2 for a year and then 3 for the price of 5/2 for a couple of years and then achieve 3-man at the per official rate that two were previously getting. However, even if it takes five years to complete the process, it is my opinion that the officials come out better off. They simply have to understand that there will be more officiating opportunities available with more 3-man games in the area. In the long-run that means more games to work and more $ to be made.

Lastly, less physical demand on the body means extending the career a few extra years, feeling better the next morning, and probably the ability to work more double-headers.

Afterall, some of the current D1 guys are in their mid to late 60s. There is no way that they could be out there if it was 2-man.

So, you distract them with a discount for a season or two, then they just accept the higher fee and like it?

At many small rural schools, paying 2 officials takes a significant percentage of the gate. Couple that with the fact that the average fan/coach/principal/AD/whoever would not be happy with the officiating regardless of the number involved, I think it is safe to say that 3 officials for all varsity level games is not something we will see any time soon.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So, you distract them with a discount for a season or two, then they just accept the higher fee and like it?

You can characterize it that way if you wish, but I think that the reality of it was that with only a small number of officials in the area and they all belong to the same association, the schools didn't have a choice once the officials decided that it was time to go to three. They basically got told this is what we are going to do and if you don't like it, then you can find and provide your own officials.
The schools made a reasonable claim that their yearly budget which had been set prior to the start of the school year didn't account for the desire of the officials' association. Therefore, the officials group agreed to work under the current amount for that year and then the schools would have to budget for the increase the following year.

Originally Posted by just another ref

At many small rural schools, paying 2 officials takes a significant percentage of the gate. Couple that with the fact that the average fan/coach/principal/AD/whoever would not be happy with the officiating regardless of the number involved, I think it is safe to say that 3 officials for all varsity level games is not something we will see any time soon.

If the people in charge of those schools don't care for the officials anyway and want to hard@sses about the few extra dollars on top of it, then what have you got to lose by telling them to take it or leave it? If they won't give you guys three, then work somewhere else that will and let these folks find other people willing to stick it out in the 2-man system.
Plus it would save you a long trip to a rural area if you live in the city. I can only see this being a negative for officials who live in the less populated areas or if you have a school which is very classy and takes good care of the officials who work their contests. We have a few of those in our outlying areas and do enjoy going out there for those communities.

Finally, I will add that I would consider a move to 3-man to be comparable to a raise. How big of a raise would depend upon how much of a cut it would take to get it introduced. Yet if you could get three at the same rate, then that would have to be considered a BIG raise. You are now only doing 2/3 of the work. So really if you drop your current per official game fee by anything less than 1/3, then you are actually gaining.

For example, if each ref is getting $50 to work 2-man, then tell the schools that you will do 3-man for $40 each. That's only a $10 cut per ref, and only a $20 increase for the schools, but when the added benefits of 3-man are thrown in and the realization of the increase in opportunites are acknowledged, it has to be a positive.

You could even get a $3 increase per year, per official and be back to what you were making in 2-man in only three seasons.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

[/color]
You can characterize it that way if you wish, but I think that the reality of it was that with only a small number of officials in the area and they all belong to the same association, the schools didn't have a choice once the officials decided that it was time to go to three. They basically got told this is what we are going to do and if you don't like it, then you can find and provide your own officials.
The schools made a reasonable claim that their yearly budget which had been set prior to the start of the school year didn't account for the desire of the officials' association. Therefore, the officials group agreed to work under the current amount for that year and then the schools would have to budget for the increase the following year.

If the people in charge of those schools don't care for the officials anyway and want to hard@sses about the few extra dollars on top of it, then what have you got to lose by telling them to take it or leave it? If they won't give you guys three, then work somewhere else that will and let these folks find other people willing to stick it out in the 2-man system.
Plus it would save you a long trip to a rural area if you live in the city. I can only see this being a negative for officials who live in the less populated areas or if you have a school which is very classy and takes good care of the officials who work their contests. We have a few of those in our outlying areas and do enjoy going out there for those communities.

Finally, I will add that I would consider a move to 3-man to be comparable to a raise. How big of a raise would depend upon how much of a cut it would take to get it introduced. Yet if you could get three at the same rate, then that would have to be considered a BIG raise. You are now only doing 2/3 of the work. So really if you drop your current per official game fee by anything less than 1/3, then you are actually gaining.

For example, if each ref is getting $50 to work 2-man, then tell the schools that you will do 3-man for $40 each. That's only a $10 cut per ref, and only a $20 increase for the schools, but when the added benefits of 3-man are thrown in and the realization of the increase in opportunites are acknowledged, it has to be a positive.

You could even get a $3 increase per year, per official and be back to what you were making in 2-man in only three seasons.

They are talking about adding 8-man or 9-man football in WI at the WIAA meeting today. I can already see it -- they will try to do it with 4-man instead of 5-man crews. Since these schools will be a distinct minority in the state (if any), I will simply not take any games that don't use 5 officials on Friday nights. My crew is set.

If we ever get to the point where more schools use 3 in basketball, I will use the same mindset. Pay for 2 or 3? 2? No thanks. We're not there yet, not even close.

[FrankHtown]

I have to preface this by saying living in a large metropolitan area has some advantages, but even for rural schools, ask the question: What percentage of an AD's budget is for officials? Think of the school's expenses for insurance, uniforms, paying the coaches, trainers, travel, etc. for all their sports, not just basketball, and I would guess official's expenses are a VERY small part of it. So asking for another few dollars a game for 3 officials would not cause the school to file for bankruptcy any time soon.

[CoachP]

From my area....23 team conference (3 divisions).

Column: Tri-Valley Conference will go to two officials next season - MLive.com

[Lcubed48]

Originally Posted by CoachP

From my area....23 team conference (3 divisions).

Column: Tri-Valley Conference will go to two officials next season - MLive.com

Horse manure reasoning is being used by that conference. I worked one GV game this past season. It was due to a late season addition to the home team's schedule. The calls that I remember the HC from the visiting team complained about would have come from the C had we had one that night. So, I have a hard time believing that a 2 person game in general is the same for all involved that a 3 person game would be.

[Nevadaref]

I still say that the problem lies here:
"Each official working a TVC game in a three-man crew receives $60. With boys and girls varsity games on the same night, the home school pays six officials $360. Officials working in a two-man crew receive $65, but because just four officials would work the two games, it would cost schools only $260."

What group of officials would accept only $5 more to work the game 2-man?

These associations need to take a serious look at their fee structure: Saginaw Officials Association, the Midland Officials Association, the Heart of Michigan Officials Association and the Bay Metro Officials Association.

2-man is FAR more difficult and deserves a greater compensation difference than that. In fact, if the fee was $80 per official in the 2-man system, then the schools probably wouldn't be looking at this as a money saving option. The difference would be negligible. IMO these groups are suffering for their mistake of setting or allowing their 2-man fee to be set too low.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by FrankHtown

I have to preface this by saying living in a large metropolitan area has some advantages, but even for rural schools, ask the question: What percentage of an AD's budget is for officials? Think of the school's expenses for insurance, uniforms, paying the coaches, trainers, travel, etc. for all their sports, not just basketball, and I would guess official's expenses are a VERY small part of it. So asking for another few dollars a game for 3 officials would not cause the school to file for bankruptcy any time soon.

Even if there are only 200 people in the stands, it would only cost them each about a quarter more each to pay for a third official. Whining about budgets is just an excuse. We're no more important to the schools than the basketball they play the game with and considerably less important than the uniforms (which they seem to replace far too often).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

[/color]
You can characterize it that way if you wish, but I think that the reality of it was that with only a small number of officials in the area and they all belong to the same association, the schools didn't have a choice once the officials decided that it was time to go to three. They basically got told this is what we are going to do and if you don't like it, then you can find and provide your own officials.

That is assuming the officials organizations set their own terms. Here in Oregon (and I' bet we're not the only one), the state athletic organization establishes the fees. We can't ask the schools for a dime more.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Finally, I will add that I would consider a move to 3-man to be comparable to a raise. How big of a raise would depend upon how much of a cut it would take to get it introduced. Yet if you could get three at the same rate, then that would have to be considered a BIG raise. You are now only doing 2/3 of the work. So really if you drop your current per official game fee by anything less than 1/3, then you are actually gaining.

I've done enough of 3 to know that it is not only 2/3rd of the work. I'm still there for the same amount of time whether it is 2 or 3. I may sweat a little less but I have to be there and be focused for just as long.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

For example, if each ref is getting $50 to work 2-man, then tell the schools that you will do 3-man for $40 each. That's only a $10 cut per ref, and only a $20 increase for the schools, but when the added benefits of 3-man are thrown in and the realization of the increase in opportunites are acknowledged, it has to be a positive.

That would be about the limit of what I'd consider a resonable comprimise.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You could even get a $3 increase per year, per official and be back to what you were making in 2-man in only three seasons.

[Nevadaref]

Camron raises some good points concerning the true value of an official in the different systems. I'll give my thoughts on the concerns that he raised.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not a chance. I have no interest in spending the same amount of time, working just as hard, taking just as much grief, for 33% less money than if one of the other guys wasn't there. And, given the issues of the day, the flat fee the shcools would be interested in would be the one equivalent to 2-person. So, we'd be taking a 33% pay cut. The "right" fee may not be directly proportional to the number of officials assigned, but it is also not unrelated.

1. Time - are we paid for our time or our service? Camron is 100% correct that it takes just as much time to work a game 2-man as 3-man. However, it is a debatable question whether officials should be paid like an hourly wage earner or as a contractor who charges a fee for completing a project no matter what length of time it takes.

2. Amount of effort and grief - I have to disagree here. I certainly don't work as hard physically in 3-man. I do agree that 3-man involves more mental concentration and awareness of your coverage areas and what your partners are doing. On the other hand, 2-man involves having to actually run to stay with play or cover the weak side of the court for your partner. It is especially difficult to be in the best positions when both teams are running from end to end and pressing. That is very different than two deliberate teams working the ball in their half-court offensive sets. There is definitely movement in 3-man, but it is of a totally different nature. Far fewer sprints to cover a crash that your partner just can't help with because he is too far away, and much more simple adjustments of taking a step or two for an angle. I'll take the extra mental effort over the physical exertion any day.

As for grief, you take what you allow. I can't say that it is necessarily related to the number of officials, but it makes sense that if there are more officials, then these people can take turns listening to whomever is complaining. Also, with the more frequent rotations in 3-man an official should find himself near a complaining coach less often.

3. Your last sentence is very valid. In fact, I am arguing that the number of officials should have NOTHING at all to do with the fee. It should solely depend upon the amount of work required to officiate a game. Therefore, the total game fee should be invariant. It is just a matter of how many people those involved wish to use to do the job. The overall task doesn't change though. Why aren't the schools asking to use only a single official? They could pay him 1.5 times his 2-man rate and save even more money!

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That is assuming the officials organizations set their own terms. Here in Oregon (and I' bet we're not the only one), the state athletic organization establishes the fees. We can't ask the schools for a dime more.

Who do you think sets the fees in this state? Yeah, the state office. But the officials associations have to be consulted and there is a negotiation and contract involved. If the officials don't like the fees that are set, then they don't have to work the games and where would that leave the state governing body? I think that you are underestimating the collective power of your officials. A strong, united group can accomplish what they desire.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I've done enough of 3 to know that it is not only 2/3rd of the work.

If you are doing more than 1/3 of the work in a 3-man game or 1/2 in a 2-man contest, then your partner isn't pulling his share of the load. It's really that simple.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Camron raises some good points concerning the true value of an official in the different systems. I'll give my thoughts on the concerns that he raised.

1. Time - are we paid for our time or our service? Camron is 100% correct that it takes just as much time to work a game 2-man as 3-man. However, it is a debatable question whether officials should be paid like an hourly wage earner or as a contractor who charges a fee for completing a project no matter what length of time it takes.

Both.

Contractors build "time" into their bid since they can only do so much at one time. If they guess wrong, they eat it or profit, but they do build it in. The amount contracted for officiating a game should consider the time it takes to provide the service, not just the service itself.

Adding the 3rd person increases the quality of the service...and should the pay should scale accordingly....Chevette vs. Corvette.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

As for grief, you take what you allow. I can't say that it is necessarily related to the number of officials, but it makes sense that if there are more officials, then these people can take turns listening to whomever is complaining. Also, with the more frequent rotations in 3-man an official should find himself near a complaining coach less often.

Somewhat true. I was not necessarily talking about solely the coach/player behavior. Sometimes he situation is just not ideal you just have to deal with it.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

3. Your last sentence is very valid. In fact, I am arguing that the number of officials should have NOTHING at all to do with the fee. It should solely depend upon the amount of work required to officiate a game. Therefore, the total game fee should be invariant. It is just a matter of how many people those involved wish to use to do the job. The overall task doesn't change though. Why aren't the schools asking to use only a single official? They could pay him 1.5 times his 2-man rate and save even more money!

However, if you agree that the quality of the product provided by 3 is imporved, you can make the claim that the amount of total work done is actually increased.

They could even have 0 do the job and have no need for that part of the budget...but you know the quality of those games would be like.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If you are doing more than 2/3 of the work in a 3-man game or 1/2 in a 2-man contest, then your partner isn't pulling his share of the load. It's really that simple.

You inferred the wrong baseline....I'm saying one officials workload in 3 doesn't drop to 2/3rds of the workoad in 2. I'm not talking about the share between members of the crew.

[Nevadaref]

Again a couple of excellent comments. I would like some clarification of your thoughts though.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

However, if you agree that the quality of the product provided by 3 is imporved, you can make the claim that the amount of total work done is actually increased.

A thought-provoking statement. We agree that the 3-man system does a superior job of covering the game, but whether the total amount of work done is actually more may not logically follow.
For example, the 3-man crew may catch an illegal screen or other off-ball play in the 1st quarter that the 2-man crew wouldn't have seen, and by penalizing that action the players might understand that they are being better observed and adjust by playing in a cleaner manner. Presumably that would then result in LESS total work that the crew would have to do for the rest of the game.

I'll come back to this thread when I have more time and post some thoughts based upon the assumption that the game is contested in an identical manner, but officiated by a crew of 3 instead of 2, so that more illegal activity is observed and penalized. That is the only premise upon which your claim would have merit.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You inferred the wrong baseline....I'm saying one officials workload in 3 doesn't drop to 2/3rds of the workoad in 2. I'm not talking about the share between members of the crew.

It doesn't? Please explain to me how that is the case. The way I look at it in any given game there are X fouls, Y violations, and Z plays for which no whistle is the correct decision, but a decision must still be made. Add to that some game management situations, G, and that is the total workload for the officials no matter how many are used. Just because a higher percentage of the sum total (X + Y + Z + G) is observed and correctly called doesn't mean that the overall workload is increased. It simply means that the crew of 2 was covering less of the whole, say only 90% vs 98% that is handled by the team of 3. However, if we assume that the total remains constant, then the amount that each official is responsible for MUST decrease as the number of officials increases. Furthermore, if we are going to pay each official equally, then in fairness each one must be held responsible for an equal share of the work. Thus, I get 2/3.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The way I look at it in any given game there are X fouls, Y violations, and Z plays for which no whistle is the correct decision, but a decision must still be made. Add to that some game management situations, G, and that is the total workload for the officials no matter how many are used. Just because a higher percentage of the sum total (X + Y + Z + G) is observed and correctly called doesn't mean that the overall workload is increased.

The number of calls/decisions does not necessarily correspond to the amount of "work" in a given game. A game may have a huge amount of turnovers which obviously translate into more trips up and down the floor, but possibly with very few whistles. Also, a game where one team sits on the ball for a large portion of the game, may have less trips and less whistles, but may be considered a boring, tedious job for the officials involved. "Work" is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It doesn't? Please explain to me how that is the case. The way I look at it in any given game there are X fouls, Y violations, and Z plays for which no whistle is the correct decision, but a decision must still be made. Add to that some game management situations, G, and that is the total workload for the officials no matter how many are used. Just because a higher percentage of the sum total (X + Y + Z + G) is observed and correctly called doesn't mean that the overall workload is increased. It simply means that the crew of 2 was covering less of the whole, say only 90% vs 98% that is handled by the team of 3. However, if we assume that the total remains constant, then the amount that each official is responsible for MUST decrease as the number of officials increases. Furthermore, if we are going to pay each official equally, then in fairness each one must be held responsible for an equal share of the work. Thus, I get 2/3.

That is precisely my point.

(using your numbers)

The 2-crew has to chose to not cover something somewhere just becasue they have to...They're completing 90% of the work and leaving 10% undone/incorrect....each successfully completing 45% of the job at hand.

The 3-crew is able to cover a greater part of the work...98%...8% more than the 2 crew and with a greater certainty on the original 90% that the 2-crew covered. Each official has covered 32.67% of the workload.

The official in the 3 crews had covered less of the total load, but not 1/3 less (that would have been 30%).

This angle also ignores the fact that 3-crews often double cover certain parts of the floor, more so than 2-crews, in order to get a more accurate result. So, the officials responsibilities overlap a bit more and the amount of situations that need to be covered is less cleanly divisible among the 3 officials.

Now, the amount of running does decrease too, but not by 1/3....maybe 1/6. If feels a alot less only becasue the strain of running more/faster is not linear...running a little more/faster takes a lot more energy.