Any creepy referees in Denver area?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm sure we have an official in Oregon who disagrees with this sentiment. He believes officials should absorb all costs associated the privilege of officiating basketball games.

I'm fine with background checks. I understand why the state wants to eliminate some people and also wants to limit liability. Unlike Nevada, I am willing to subject myself to such a check. I just want to know why officials end up bearing the costs of such things and it isn't passed through to the schools.

To me, it's the same answer to one of my favorite jokes: Because they can.

(There's part of me that wonders why officials need to pay anything to officiate games. Why do we? Same answer - "Because they can.")

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Rich

I'm fine with background checks. I understand why the state wants to eliminate some people and also wants to limit liability. Unlike Nevada, I am willing to subject myself to such a check. I just want to know why officials end up bearing the costs of such things and it isn't passed through to the schools.

To me, it's the same answer to one of my favorite jokes: Because they can.

(There's part of me that wonders why officials need to pay anything to officiate games. Why do we? Same answer - "Because they can.")

I'm still trying to figure why officials have to pay so much for camps.

One thing I liked about Ed Rush (PAC-12, not current NBA ref) is that he didn't believe officials should have to pay to try out for a conference. Pay for teaching camps, yes, try-out camps, no. He said part of the reason coordinators get paid by conferences is to find officials to work.

It's crazy. Conference supervisor gets paid by the host to provide 3 officials/game for X amount of games. Then 40-80 officials pay the supervisor $300-$600 to participate in the camp.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm still trying to figure why officials have to pay so much for camps.

One thing I liked about Ed Rush (PAC-12, not current NBA ref) is that he didn't believe officials should have to pay to try out for a conference. Pay for teaching camps, yes, try-out camps, no. He said part of the reason coordinators get paid by conferences is to find officials to work.

It's crazy. Conference supervisor gets paid by the host to provide 3 officials/game for X amount of games. Then 40-80 officials pay the supervisor $300-$600 to participate in the camp.

I think Ed Rush is absolutely right. It's trickled down to the HS level, too. I worked a junior college game with a HS assignor a while back (it may have even been a season ago) and he mentioned I did a good job and that he could use me for some games. When I followed up, he told me he had a camp in the summer he wanted me to come to before he'd assign me.

Really? For 2 or 3 HS dates? You can't get a feel for my work WORKING WITH ME for 40 clock minutes of basketball?

I have already paid for 3 camps this summer and I feel that camps are an important way for me to fine tune my game -- but I won't be adding a fourth.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm still trying to figure why officials have to pay so much for camps... Pay for teaching camps, yes, try-out camps, no. He said part of the reason coordinators get paid by conferences is to find officials to work.

It's definitely a way for the coordinators to make money, but it's a double-edged sword as far as charging vs not charging for a try-out camp.

If it's paid anyone can go if they pony up the dough — if it is free, then there has to be some sort of selection process. Otherwise you'd have tons of people showing up for free that otherwise wouldn't (and shouldn't) be there. Plus, it adds a layer of politics to it —*moreso than there already is.

So, I agree with you, since I think the process is too expensive for those wanting to move up, but I'm not sure that making the camps free solves the problem rather than simply trading one set of problems out for another.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by Rich

I'm fine with background checks. I understand why the state wants to eliminate some people and also wants to limit liability. Unlike Nevada, I am willing to subject myself to such a check. I just want to know why officials end up bearing the costs of such things and it isn't passed through to the schools.

To me, it's the same answer to one of my favorite jokes: Because they can.

(There's part of me that wonders why officials need to pay anything to officiate games. Why do we? Same answer - "Because they can.")

Ultimately, it is the schools that will bear these costs. If they force you to pay for a background, you simply reciprocate by raising the game fees you charge them to work their games.

[BillyMac]

Here in Connecticut we went to background checks about four years ago. Those who were already officiating at that time were grandfathered in and didn't have to pay any fees. Those who were new to officiating were charged, and are charged, a fee. I'm not sure what the fee was, or is.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Here in Connecticut we went to background checks about four years ago. Those who were already officiating at that time were grandfathered in. Those who were new to officiating were charged, and are charged, a fee. I'm not sure what the fee was, or is.

Grandfathered in? As in no background check was done?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

Grandfathered in? As in no background check was done?

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The state interscholastic sports governing body paid for all the background checks for "existing" officials.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

Ultimately, it is the schools that will bear these costs. If they force you to pay for a background, you simply reciprocate by raising the game fees you charge them to work their games.

If only it worked that way.

It doesn't.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

Ultimately, it is the schools that will bear these costs. If they force you to pay for a background, you simply reciprocate by raising the game fees you charge them to work their games.

Originally Posted by Adam

If only it worked that way.

It doesn't.

Everything is negotiable. Officiating is a business. If you're willing to just sit there and take what they're offering, then that's your perogative. But if a school wants to start taking money out of my pocket, I can choose to stop providing the service, or raise my fees to cover my costs. If you get other officials to stand with you, it can work that way.

[tomegun]

I think many of the posts are accurate.

Unfortunately, we live in a society where protecting our personal information is important. I would like to think my local association is an organization I can trust. If not, and my information was used in a negative way the association would become the "Tomegun Officiating Association"...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

Everything is negotiable. Officiating is a business. If you're willing to just sit there and take what they're offering, then that's your perogative. But if a school wants to start taking money out of my pocket, I can choose to stop providing the service, or raise my fees to cover my costs. If you get other officials to stand with you, it can work that way.

Sure, but the way it really works is, "Well, if you don't want to do it, someone else is willing to."

I'm ok with it, it is what it is. But at some point, they have to realize that you're going to start weeding out good officials. $30 here and there starts to add up.