3 crew-v- 2 crew

[AKOFL]

Good vs evil, Dark vs light, Big vs little. 3 crew vs 2 crew? What are our feeling on the advanteges,disadvantages, likes, dislikes, personal preferances of these 2 crews? There seem to be a constant battle with officials between these two options. Wanted to see how it was viewed outside my little world.

[JRutledge]

I really do not need to go into great detail. There is a reason every advanced level uses 3 Person crews and not two person crews. It is better for the game and the players, coaches and officials hands down. The game is much better called and officials do not have to guess.

Peace

[Raymond]

An advantage of 3-man?

More no-calls b/c the officials are not guessing.

[Nevadaref]

The biggest difference is that I'll accept assignments using 3-person.

[DonInKansas]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The biggest difference is that I'll accept assignments using 3-person.

Must be nice to have that option. Elitist.

I can't think of any advantages of 2 person, except to the organizations that cut the checks.

[just another ref]

Assuming that all parties involved are accustomed to 3 man, and properly follow its guidelines, it is simply logical that 3 can see/correctly call the game better than 2. However, when an association (such as mine) calls mainly 2 man, and only an occasional 3 man, I find that the unfamiliar surroundings result in more uncertainty of what to call/not call, so the net result may or may not be an improvement.

[Mark Padgett]

All of you who are using the terms "3 man" and "2 man" better switch to "3 person" and "2 person" before Juulie has a hissy fit.

[eyezen]

3 'man and 2 'man

now everyone can be happy

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by DonInKansas

Must be nice to have that option. Elitist.

Not elite, just a primadonna.

Originally Posted by DonInKansas

I can't think of any advantages of 2 person, except to the organizations that cut the checks.

And therein lies the problem. 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.

[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.

Are you suggesting that this "flat fee" be the current 2 man fee, the current 3 man fee, or some other number?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Are you suggesting that this "flat fee" be the current 2 man fee, the current 3 man fee, or some other number?

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.

[AKOFL]

I agree Nevada.
Sometimes thing are bad before they get good. People suffer all the time if the reward is worth it. I started working three crew three years ago. My first games I was thinking "this is boring". The more I worked it however the better it got. You get more off ball coverage is an advantage I like. Pay is still a issue at State games for smaller schools. 1A and 2A is still two crew. I had the boys championship game and believe you me i was run preety hard. We still run 2 crew for C and JV games but most all our V games are three crew. I'm sure in time the rest of the world will come around and see the advantages outweigh the cost.

[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.