What is up with AZ?

[stripes]

I just moved to AZ and called the local assignor about refereeing here. I was shocked to find out that the whole state does only 2-person! Most of the basketball world is on the 3-person bandwagon and they are woefully behind the times. Can someone explain the rationale for this as well as the possibility of changing this? I lived in Utah when the change to 3-person came about so I know that it is NOT ABOUT MONEY. Schools can fund raise the $500-1000 extra that it will cost.

Not sure that I want to go back to 2-person...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by stripes

... AZ ... state does only 2-person.

You better not move to Connecticut.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

You better not move to Connecticut.

Or Oklahoma

[Rich]

Well, you have a decision to make. From what I hear the state controls ALL officiating assignments and all hoops are 2-person.

Good time to retire, perhaps.

[SAK]

After moving from PA to AZ I found that all games are 2 person and there is very few colleges to officiate. The reason that I have been given is that schools cannot afford the increased costs in addition, it would be extremely difficult to get all the officials up to speed on 3 person. It actually is not as bad as it seems.

Yes 3 person would be better but for now it is what it is.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Rich

Well, you have a decision to make. From what I hear the state controls ALL officiating assignments and all hoops are 2-person.

Good time to retire, perhaps.

Reminds me of my Rhode Island days. State board controls all assignments, and all games except state tourney are 2-person.

California is still mostly 2-person from what I understand. Oregon was until just this year and the decision to switch is still made at the local level which means the transition will be very slow.

It's not all about the money, but money is a big factor. Supply of officials is another (if the supply is already sparse, going to 3-p advances a lot of officials to varsity before they may be ready, thus negating the value of 3-p). And then of course there's the inertia of, "if it aint broke, why fix it?" Of course it IS broken (a little time with good 3-person crews shows everyone that it creates a far smoother basketball game), but coaches, ADs and administrators don't see it that way because they resist change.

In short, changing to 3-p requires a perceived leap of faith and a few years of growing pains to get the supply of officials up to varsity speed. Worth it in the long run, but like long-term capital investments, hard to get past the upfront "cost."

Oh, and for the OP, from a guy who moves a lot....dude, I totally feel your pain.

Edit: Thought of another obvious reason.....established officials organizations have some folks who would rather protect their $80 2-p game fees then make the sacrifice to ~$60 (give or take) that is often asked for when switching to 3-p. Silly when you consider that 3-p gives you more game opportunities and less chance of injury over the course of a season....but again, resistance to change...

[deecee]

I wouldn't want to reduce my per game fee. We aren't paid enough for what is expected and I'm damn sure not going to take a cut so that the schools can get a "better" product. That's ass backwards.

So it's ok to do more games for less money??? That's also ass backwards. The point in life is to get better, make more, and work less. Not make less, work more.

I would stop officiating if that choice was presented to me. This doesn't pay my bills or allow me to live the lifestyle I want. It's a hobby, that takes quite a bit of time and effort for at least 3 months a year.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by deecee

I wouldn't want to reduce my per game fee. We aren't paid enough for what is expected and I'm damn sure not going to take a cut so that the schools can get a "better" product. That's ass backwards.

So it's ok to do more games for less money??? That's also ass backwards. The point in life is to get better, make more, and work less. Not make less, work more.

I would stop officiating if that choice was presented to me. This doesn't pay my bills or allow me to live the lifestyle I want. It's a hobby, that takes quite a bit of time and effort for at least 3 months a year.

7 years ago a HS conference we worked was payning $75/official for 3-man BV and 2-man GV. We elected a new commissioner and the following season the body of the association agreed to take a $12.50/game cut for BV & GV so that we could get a 3rd official on the court for GV. So we went from $75/game to $62.50/game, but we thought the pay cut was worth getting five extra varsity slots every Tuesday and Friday.

Personally, I would rather work 3-man at a lower rate than 2-man at a higher rate.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

7 years ago a HS conference we worked was payning $75/official for 3-man BV and 2-man GV. We elected a new commissioner and the following season the body of the association agreed to take a $12.50/game cut for BV & GV so that we could get a 3rd official on the court for GV. So we went from $75/game to $62.50/game, but we thought the pay cut was worth getting five extra varsity slots every Tuesday and Friday.

Personally, I would rather 3-man at a lower rate than 2-man at a higher rate.

Why would you want to work more for less money? Im just curious.

[BlueDevilRef]

Most of the schools around me are 2 person. Just gotta deal with it.

Look on the bright side, you never have to worry about going back and forth from 2p-3p!

[Nevadaref]

The VAST majority of HS games in CA are 2-person simply because there are so many schools and not enough officials to cover all of the contests.

[Rich]

We've gone from being behind the curve to putting some states behind us.

I'll never work another HS game 2-person and just five years ago only one conference here used 3.

[JRutledge]

It it makes anyone feel even worse, we have not had a single playoff game done with 2 person (assigned of course) since 1998 in our state, which means the vast majority if not all regular season games are 3 person. I have probably done no more than five 2 Person varsity games since 1998.

Peace

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by stripes

Most of the basketball world is on the 3-person bandwagon and they are woefully behind the times.

Schools can fund raise the $500-1000 extra that it will cost.

First, I'm in a state that has had 3 man officiating for all varsity games, boys and girls, since 1991. So I'm all for 3 man. But you have a couple of mistaken ideas.

#1, there are still a large number of states that do not use three man. Some only use it during the playoffs, if at all. There are a more 2 man states than you think.

#2, Not sure why you think it's only an extra $500-$1000. Most schools play at least 20 games a year, so they're paying for officials for at least 10 games. Then, you have girls and boys varsity, so now we're back to 20 games plus tournaments and playoffs. So it's much more than $500 or $1000.

Also, if schools are going to have fundraisers to raise money, it's damn sure not going to be to pay officials more money. Schools have a world of things they need to spend money on before they get to a 3rd basketball official.

I would love to have 7 man football crews but I know that's not happening anytime soon. I accept that. If I don't, then I make a personal decision.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

First, I'm in a state that has had 3 man officiating for all varsity games, boys and girls, since 1991. So I'm all for 3 man. But you have a couple of mistaken ideas.



#1, there are still a large number of states that do not use three man. Some only use it during the playoffs, if at all. There are a more 2 man states than you think.



#2, Not sure why you think it's only an extra $500-$1000. Most schools play at least 20 games a year, so they're paying for officials for at least 10 games. Then, you have girls and boys varsity, so now we're back to 20 games plus tournaments and playoffs. So it's much more than $500 or $1000.



Also, if schools are going to have fundraisers to raise money, it's damn sure not going to be to pay officials more money. Schools have a world of things they need to spend money on before they get to a 3rd basketball official.



I would love to have 7 man football crews but I know that's not happening anytime soon. I accept that. If I don't, then I make a personal decision.

The conference I assign went 3-person last season. We did not cut pay per official. We paid $60 per official 2-person and last year paid $60 per person 3-person. This cost each school $1320 -- 22 home games (11 boys, 11 gjrls).

In 2017-18, we're likely implementing our first real pay increase in a decade across the board. Football and baseball will go from $60 to $75 and basketball will go to $65. One reason for a small increase in hoops is the incremental costs incurred from the switch from 2-person to 3-person. Also, we hire, by far, more hoops officials than anything else. So we probably are going to pay $10 less per official than if we had stayed 2-person. The question is moot - going back to two is not an option in my opinion.

As an administrator, I've heard from officials suggesting we stay 2-person and "just pay us more." With rare exceptions, these were not our best officials -- these were guys who cared more about the amount on the check than the job they did.

Once all the local conference started going 3-person, it was only a matter of time. Good officials weren't going to work 2-person, even for a few more shekels.