I'll be Seeing These Guys Tomorrow

[JRutledge]

All ignorance means (as people tend to take offense to the word without knowing the meaning) is that you are unaware and not knowledgable of something. It does not mean that you are stupid or cannot be educated. But when you clearly make statements about a system you have never worked and try to equate it to only covering for a lazy official, well that is rather ignorant. I am sure Tim would not suggest that 4 man in baseball is covering for 2 lazy umpires when the game can be covered with 2. That would be ignorant if someone made that statement about baseball.

And unless I am missing something, most schools only play around 25 games a year in basketball. Maybe 10 of those games are at home. So if you are paying an official at $60 an official and in those 10 games that only comes to $600 a year. A school is not paying officials for the tournaments or shootouts away from the school. And usually those types of events have sponsors and part of the cost of the tournament is added in the cost of the officials and at least around here is not always held by a school and has a big sponsor or sponsors to cover the cost of many things in that tournament. And that does not include when you have safety used for everything, we want officials to see the end of plays where things can get rough or flagrant acts would be better seen clearly and use two officials that have to constantly focus on the ball and have dual areas where we miss more than half the court at times. I think Booster Clubs can raise $600 for basketball to cover their costs if needed. And if not sponsors can cover costs as well. But if that $600 or $1000 is too much to cripple a high school program, then you probably should not have the program in the first place considering all the other costs that are associated with sports.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

All ignorance means (as people tend to take offense to the word without knowing the meaning) is that you are unaware and not knowledgable of something. It does not mean that you are stupid or cannot be educated. But when you clearly make statements about a system you have never worked and try to equate it to only covering for a lazy official, well that is rather ignorant. I am sure Tim would not suggest that 4 man in baseball is covering for 2 lazy umpires when the game can be covered with 2. That would be ignorant if someone made that statement about baseball.

And unless I am missing something, most schools only play around 25 games a year in basketball. Maybe 10 of those games are at home. So if you are paying an official at $60 an official and in those 10 games that only comes to $600 a year. A school is not paying officials for the tournaments or shootouts away from the school. And usually those types of events have sponsors and part of the cost of the tournament is added in the cost of the officials and at least around here is not always held by a school and has a big sponsor or sponsors to cover the cost of many things in that tournament. And that does not include when you have safety used for everything, we want officials to see the end of plays where things can get rough or flagrant acts would be better seen clearly and use two officials that have to constantly focus on the ball and have dual areas where we miss more than half the court at times. I think Booster Clubs can raise $600 for basketball to cover their costs if needed. And if not sponsors can cover costs as well. But if that $600 or $1000 is too much to cripple a high school program, then you probably should not have the program in the first place considering all the other costs that are associated with sports.

Peace

The same schools that can't afford a third official sure seem to have new uniforms all the time. It's priorities. We're not near the top of the list.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

The same schools that can't afford a third official sure seem to have new uniforms all the time. It's priorities. We're not near the top of the list.

Or travel all over the country. We have some rather high profile schools in my area that have been on National TV more than once and went to other states to play multiple tournaments. I am sure it cost them more than a couple of thousand to accomplish that trip, whether it came out their pocket or not.

Peace

[BayStateRef]

For those of us who work in a state where 2-person is the norm, this is an interesting, but purely theoretical discussion. My state tournament game last night used three officials, but that is virtually the only time 3 officials are used in public high school games in Massachusetts.

I have heard several reasons why we don't do it here:

• The officials don't want to take a pay cut.
• The schools can't afford more money.
• The coaches don't like a third set of eyes.

Rut's math ($600 per season for a third official) would be a little low here. Varsity officials get $77/game (so 10 home games would add $770), plus there must be gender parity: so if the boys get 3 officials, so must the girls. That doubles the cost to about $1,500/year.

I have talked with many veteran officials and it disappoints me that most are not interested in making less money and don't see the advantages of a 3-person crew. At a post-season scrimmage last week with a 3-person crew (two teams who will be in the state tournament), both coaches affirmed they do not like a third official. That is hardly a "sample" of high school coaches, but I have heard it regularly enough that there must be more than a little truth to it.

As a mere official, with no other portfolio in public schools, association politics or state office hierarchy, I am interested in hearing how other states got 3 officials on their games. Where did the push come from? Officials? Coaches? A strong state office?

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

For those of us who work in a state where 2-person is the norm, this is an interesting, but purely theoretical discussion. My state tournament game last night used three officials, but that is virtually the only time 3 officials are used in public high school games in Massachusetts.

I have heard several reasons why we don't do it here:

• The officials don't want to take a pay cut.
• The schools can't afford more money.
• The coaches don't like a third set of eyes.

Rut's math ($600 per season for a third official) would be a little low here. Varsity officials get $77/game (so 10 home games would add $770), plus there must be gender parity: so if the boys get 3 officials, so must the girls. That doubles the cost to about $1,500/year.

I have talked with many veteran officials and it disappoints me that most are not interested in making less money and don't see the advantages of a 3-person crew. At a post-season scrimmage last week with a 3-person crew (two teams who will be in the state tournament), both coaches affirmed they do not like a third official. That is hardly a "sample" of high school coaches, but I have heard it regularly enough that there must be more than a little truth to it.

As a mere official, with no other portfolio in public schools, association politics or state office hierarchy, I am interested in hearing how other states got 3 officials on their games. Where did the push come from? Officials? Coaches? A strong state office?

In Washington State, the WOA basically made an agreement with schools that said, "Let us start using 3-man crews, but you will pay for just 2 officials." That agreement was for something like 3 years. So our own state association made it's own members take the hit starting out. It was so much fun, it seems like it was just yesterday......

[Rich]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

In Washington State, the WOA basically made an agreement with schools that said, "Let us start using 3-man crews, but you will pay for just 2 officials." That agreement was for something like 3 years. So our own state association made it's own members that the hit starting out. It was so much fun, it seems like it was just yesterday......

I'd make that deal for a limited amount of time with the promise that we'd stay 3 after that limited time was over.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

Rut's math ($600 per season for a third official) would be a little low here. Varsity officials get $77/game (so 10 home games would add $770), plus there must be gender parity: so if the boys get 3 officials, so must the girls. That doubles the cost to about $1,500/year.

First of all these were some rough estimates based on a couple of things. Not everyone gets paid $60 for a varsity game. Some get paid more, some get paid less. Many here pay less depending on the conference you work for. Private school conferences tend to pay more as well. And those schools do not have a girls basketball program to even factor in the cost. Public schools do, but they have other constant revenue coming into the school that private schools do not. Private schools often have to raise their money and Charter schools are corporate owned, so that is apart of their mission to pay for activities that the school participates in. Even if you factor in both programs less than $2000 is not a lot of money when you consider all the expenses that go into running an athletic program.

So my example would apply to many schools and certainly not all of them. One private school conference I am going to work will pay $75 each for a 3 person crew next year. And I would expect a lower payment if we worked 3 person as opposed to 2 person. Two officials are doing more work.

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

I have talked with many veteran officials and it disappoints me that most are not interested in making less money and don't see the advantages of a 3-person crew. At a post-season scrimmage last week with a 3-person crew (two teams who will be in the state tournament), both coaches affirmed they do not like a third official. That is hardly a "sample" of high school coaches, but I have heard it regularly enough that there must be more than a little truth to it.

As a mere official, with no other portfolio in public schools, association politics or state office hierarchy, I am interested in hearing how other states got 3 officials on their games. Where did the push come from? Officials? Coaches? A strong state office?

My state went to 3 person back in 98 for all playoff games and that pretty much changed the landscape. It took a few years for some schools to go that way full time, but when schools realized that they would not get a chance to see either the same officials or the same style of officiating in the post season that they do in the regular season, they changed quickly. There are a couple of schools that you can find that will assign non-conference games 2 person, but that is few and far between. A school that had some controversy about some transfers played their regular season games at home with 2 person. Well they lost in the Sectional Semi-final the other day in their own gym and I wonder if their adjusting to 3 person played a role. And they were bigger and taller than everyone in their class of 1A which is the smallest class.

Peace

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Rich

I'd make that deal for a limited amount of time with the promise that we'd stay 3 after that limited time was over.

Which is what WA did...we still are not paid enough compared to other states, but it is getting better.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

...
I have heard several reasons why we don't do it here:

• The officials don't want to take a pay cut.
• The schools can't afford more money.
• The coaches don't like a third set of eyes.

...

I say reasons 1 & 3 are the most problem. Officials who only do it for the $$$ who don't want any coming out of their pockets and coaches who know they get away with a lot more when only 2 officials are on the court.

[SperlingPE]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

For those of us who work in a state where 2-person is the norm, this is an interesting, but purely theoretical discussion. My state tournament game last night used three officials, but that is virtually the only time 3 officials are used in public high school games in Massachusetts.

I have heard several reasons why we don't do it here:

• The officials don't want to take a pay cut.
• The schools can't afford more money.
• The coaches don't like a third set of eyes.

Rut's math ($600 per season for a third official) would be a little low here. Varsity officials get $77/game (so 10 home games would add $770), plus there must be gender parity: so if the boys get 3 officials, so must the girls. That doubles the cost to about $1,500/year.

I have talked with many veteran officials and it disappoints me that most are not interested in making less money and don't see the advantages of a 3-person crew. At a post-season scrimmage last week with a 3-person crew (two teams who will be in the state tournament), both coaches affirmed they do not like a third official. That is hardly a "sample" of high school coaches, but I have heard it regularly enough that there must be more than a little truth to it.

As a mere official, with no other portfolio in public schools, association politics or state office hierarchy, I am interested in hearing how other states got 3 officials on their games. Where did the push come from? Officials? Coaches? A strong state office?

The above three arguments were also noted in my state.
The state does not mandate three officials during the regular season.
The large schools went to three man right away and now nearly all schools use three officals. There are a handful of small schools that will contract either way.

The officials took a slight loss in pay ($5 per official per game was the norm).
Pay range is $50 - $85 an official per game for varsity contests.
The loss in pay has been made up and the above range is still the norm.
Some schools will also pay mileage on top of the fees above.

Schools claiming that they cannot afford the increase was given as an excuse by some schools. After the second year of allowing three officials, the excuse was never really brought up again.

The third set of eyes excuse came from coaches who liked to play a physical style of basketball. Physical to the point of grabbing players in the two man dead zone area. These coaches have adjusted to the third official.

Three experienced officials makes for a better called game.

I remember being told by an AD that they shouldn't pay me the same for a three man crew because I don't have to run as much. I told the AD you are not paying me to run, you are paying me to officiate. No further comments were made.

I think the real reason that three man is prevalent in my state is that the officials would ask the schools when getting contracts whether they wanted a three man crew or two man crew. The AD's started to go along with the three man crew. Younger coaches who had three man crews in college asked for three man crews.
The reason this worked is because my state contracts officials as independant contractors. There are no associations to belong to. There are a few assignors for some conferences, but your contract is still directcly with the school, not an association.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

For those of us who work in a state where 2-person is the norm, this is an interesting, but purely theoretical discussion. My state tournament game last night used three officials, but that is virtually the only time 3 officials are used in public high school games in Massachusetts.

I have heard several reasons why we don't do it here:

• The officials don't want to take a pay cut.
• The schools can't afford more money.
• The coaches don't like a third set of eyes.

Rut's math ($600 per season for a third official) would be a little low here. Varsity officials get $77/game (so 10 home games would add $770), plus there must be gender parity: so if the boys get 3 officials, so must the girls. That doubles the cost to about $1,500/year.

I have talked with many veteran officials and it disappoints me that most are not interested in making less money and don't see the advantages of a 3-person crew. At a post-season scrimmage last week with a 3-person crew (two teams who will be in the state tournament), both coaches affirmed they do not like a third official. That is hardly a "sample" of high school coaches, but I have heard it regularly enough that there must be more than a little truth to it.

As a mere official, with no other portfolio in public schools, association politics or state office hierarchy, I am interested in hearing how other states got 3 officials on their games. Where did the push come from? Officials? Coaches? A strong state office?

Interesting. Our 4 and 5 A boys division uses three man for regular season but the girls for the same division only uses 2. I wonder how long this will last.

[fullor30]

Regarding the excuse of not enough money for three man crews, ever look around a game and notice how many staff bodies there are from schools who act as whatever?

I think it's safe to say they could cut back on the 8,9,10 + folks who I'm sure are making at least if not more than we are.

Elimanate one, and you have a three man crew.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

Interesting. Our 4 and 5 A boys division uses three man for regular season but the girls for the same division only uses 2. I wonder how long this will last.

If the two programs are provided the same budget and same facilities and they choose to spend it differently there is no issue. Maybe the went to a camp while the boys didn't. Maybe they bought new uniforms with the money. Using 2 vs. 3 is not necessarily a problem with equity.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If the two programs are provided the same budget and same facilities and they choose to spend it differently there is no issue. Maybe the went to a camp while the boys didn't. Maybe they bought new uniforms with the money. Using 2 vs. 3 is not necessarily a problem with equity.

I might agree with you if it was one school but it is an association/state thing. It is that way across the board. The only time the girls get three officials is during the state tourney. I kinda thought the whole Title 9 thing would have been brought up.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

I might agree with you if it was one school but it is an association/state thing. It is that way across the board. The only time the girls get three officials is during the state tourney. I kinda thought the whole Title 9 thing would have been brought up.

Except that the girls coaches had the choice and voted it down. (or is that a different thread...I can't recall if that discussion was in this one or not and I don't feel like figuring that out)