Pay debate
 

Our association is asking for a raise in pay. We service about 12 schools. All but 3 schools have that are balking at the pay increase.

They have contacted the others 9 schools and told them not to pay it.

Has anyone run into a problem when asking for an increase?

How did it turn out? Our members have not had a raise in 6 years. We used to get a check for travel ( several of our schools are 40 miles away. ) We lost that about 10 years ago.

Pay from schools are up to the individual schools or individual conferences. There is an organization of schools that acts like a cartel to keep fees similar across the area (mostly suburban schools), but otherwise schools can pay what they want. Usually this works at the conference level and if they agree on pay increases, they increase or not increase the pay.

Peace

We have no associations here that assign games, so it's a different setup here than in the OP's situation.

I am the commissioner of a conference with 20 basketball schools. The pay rate is set by the conference. If we don't pay enough, in theory, officials will go elsewhere.

I haven't seen rates increase meaningfully here in at least 5 years. I moved here about 12 years ago and rates were $50 to $55 then. Most places pay $60 now. Main difference is that quite a few of the conferences are paying for 3 officials now instead of 2. That's kept individual game fees from going up, IMO.

We are using 3 man. The schools would like us to use 2 man, but if you've done 3 man, there is a big difference.

There was a time when, we could not do 2 man because we had to many member who were over 60 yrs. old. That's not a problem now. We are getting somewhat younger, but the coverage for 2 man vs 3 man is dramatic.

Don't give in on this. If you do, it will take forever to get back to 3-person.

We are not assigned by associations either. We are assigned by conference supervisors or supervisors of tournaments on individual schools. So any pay is never handled through our associations because we have no power to do anything other than make a suggestion. Honestly, it seems like the private schools drive the pay as they typically pay more and schools feel like they want to be in line with their payments.

Peace

During the recession, we lowered our rates after a couple of schools asked for it. We did it for all the public schools, not just the ones that asked. This year we rounded them up to a dollar amount. It was a % drop, so instead of $52.61, we have $53.00. We did that in the 3 sports we do. Have not had an increase in a long time.

TreeGuy, where do you referee? Are you working 3 man Varsity?

We do three man Varsity, our association (MI) only does out of conference varsity. The pay is only an example, I can't thionk of what the actual pay is. We did this from jr. high through varsity. CYO and jr football did not see a pay cut.

Boy, I am glad I am in a progressive state for officiating (apparently). Our pay is $70-$75 for varsity contests and I would guess that 3/4 of our games are 3 whistle coverage. We also get paid mileage (1 per crew) to get to games outside the city limits. I would say we work w/in 75 mile radius to our city.

I agree, don't give in regarding what those who hold the purse strings consider merely an issue of economics. Three-person is preferable.
On the other hand, an association has gotta do its part to demonstrate that three-person must be retained. But consider this: we don't do a very good job of that when . . .
> . . . when old, out-of-shape officials who should have quit long ago continue officiating because of the perception that there's not such a stringent conditioning requirement to do three-person. Laziness and walking up and down the court makes every three-person crew look bad. If an official can't handle the demands of two-person, chances are s/he won't properly handle the real expectations of quality three-person either.
> . . . when there are six eyes on the ball. Ballwatching, lack of PCA surveillance and off-ball observation are the bane of three-person crews.
Either of those two characteristics common for crews of your association? Then it's not difficult for any knowledgeable stakeholder holding the purse strings to rationalize, "Why are we paying three officials to do this? We can get the same quality and save money by paying just two officials." And, with either of the aforementioned conditions present, they'd be correct.
Fight for keeping the three-person system. But make sure your association isn't its own worst enemy.

Yep. We went through this about four years ago. 3 whistle was viewed (in my opinion) as a needless expense and a crutch for old guys or those who lack hustle to coast through a game. We spent the next three years trying to prove that 3 person simply provided a better officiated contest and would mirror the 3 person mechanics they would encounter in post-season. A raise would be great, but I am much happier now that we are all 3 whistle... except for one penny pinching school that is now having a hard time finding officials...

There's another side to this -- there are great officials out there that lose a step because they get older. I know there are a lot of younger officials that think those guys should hang it up and get out of the way, but as someone who started assigning, I disagree completely. There's a small, but real difference in 2-person vs. 3-person in a lot of games. Quite a few of the older NCAA officials wouldn't do a great job handling a 94-foot court 2-person, but that doesn't mean they should get out of the game.

Being able to run like a gazelle isn't and shouldn't be a requirement for working this sport.

Good for that school.

I worked 2-person last night. My next 2-person game is December 16. I'm amazed that we've gotten there, but for the first time my schedule is heavily 3-person this season. Two more conferences locally go 3-person next season, 2 more the year after that.

At some point officials will simply stop working conferences that only hire 2 officials.

All Varsity is 3 person in my state, excepting the urban school here and there who want to save a little bit of money on their girls shitfests.

Just want to quote this to preserve it when you decide this was a stupid thing to say. :D

We are still 2-person for the large majority of our games around here, and we almost always work JV/V doubleheaders. Some schools even play three games a night on occasion and we send two people to work those. I think we would send three and split it up but we don't have enough people on most nights.

I would love to have every JV/V night be 3-person but the schools around here won't go for it yet, and I don't think we have enough officials anyway.

Profanities aside, this seems to be an obvious Title IX issue which will cost somebody a lot of money when the barristers come a callin'.

I do not believe Title IX covers officiating contracts.

Years ago, when conferences started going 3 man for boys basketball around here, one of the hang ups preventing everybody from doing it was that the schools did not want or feel the need to use 3 officials on girls basketball, but they were all afraid that if they didn't, they would get sued under title IX. Unfortunately title IX has far reaching implications. I have seen schools have to put lights up on their softball fields because they had them on the baseball field and were sued under title IX. I have seen D3 college conferences change their schedule because of title IX lawsuits. In the past, whenever there were women's/men's double headers, the women's game was always the early game, now some of the conferences around here alternate by game or year because a parent sued on conference under title IX and won.

It may not be specific with officiating contracts, but I believe if you do not provide the girl's with the best opportunity, you can be seen as not compliant and at the very least deal with a lawsuit to settle the issue. And most places are afraid of the lawsuit, not just the result. And if you do not pay officials the same, it might be seen as not getting the best officials to work their games. I am not so sure I agree and feel like sports like softball should not pay the same as baseball for instance, but the Title IX fear is what prevents that even being tried.

Peace

For the longest time here, AAA BV was using 3 person while AAA GV only got 2 officials.

As long as the two sides (boys/girls) are provided with the same budget, I don't think it would be a Title IX issue if they chose to spend their resources differently.

Until a girl gets hurt and the parent/coach says " Why didn't they have 3 officials on that game?"

I would like to see the definitive proof that a girl is less likely to get hurt with at third official.

There likely isn't any, but if you have more people seeing things and calling things, it is hard to argue that more is better.

Peace

only if "seeing" and "calling" are also preventative, which they rarely are -- they are punitive.

Doesn't mean, of course, that someone won't claim that the injury could have been prevented, and it will cost time and / or money to refute that claim.

It was that way for years. It changed when my local association self-imposed a pay cut across the board to finance a 3rd official for those games.

My point being, though, was there were never any conversations about Title IX being violated.

In my neck of the woods we get...wait for it...$35 for JV and $45 for V. All three man crews, always a JV/V DH and travel is a flat rate regardless of how far you drive. My assoc covers a stretch of interstate 196 miles from point A to Z...and I happen to be in the middle...average drive for me is 60 miles one way and I get a flat rate. The state sets the high-limit that we can charge as an assoc so we don't have say in it. Good thing I don't do this for the money!

WOW! This sounds like rec ball fees ...

Proof is not always required for change.

I'm always curious about this: can a school legally, intentionally get 2 officials in all their girls games while getting 3 for the boys games of the comparable level?

Let's be honest, there are some varsity girls games out here that really only need two, but they get three. The JV boys at these schools could not be reasonably worked with 2, however. Those schools get 3 for JV/V B and G.

I think this is the key phrase. What is reasonable? Some of us here can remember when the NBA used two officials. Were all the games up to this point "unreasonable"? Most things eventually come down to money, at least to some degree. If the schools think they can't afford it for both, some would probably cut back to 2 for the boys rather than go to 3 for the girls.

I don't think there is a simple answer to this. For example, if you have different budgets and different decision-makers deciding how to spend those budgets, it would be harder to criticize different choices as to the best place to spend the money. If it is the same decision-maker or same budget, a lot easier to infer gender bias and inequality as part of the decision.

Very strong case against the school. when you have both genders playing the same sport what you provide them with must be substantially similar. the dollars will always be close but they do not have to be the same. the experience, facilities etc must be equal. officials are integral to the game. there are many games, boys and girls, where we could get by with just 2. when you make the decision to hire 2 for all girls and 3 for all boys you are discriminating based on gender.


We have 3 officials on games because the thought is it makes the game better. the girls game might not be as athletic as the boys game at a school but 3 should make that particular game better. also, some of the most difficult games ive worked are when the athletes aren't as quick, strong or fast. attitudes..etc. any game, boys or girls, can be hard justifying 3. classifying the number of referees assigned just on gender wouldn't fly imo. the end..

It really depends on who is making the choice. If the girls programs have the opportunity to have 3 but choose to use their resources elsewhere (presumably each program is equally funded), then that is no longer an issue. Maybe the girls program would chose to spend that money by having a team camp for one more day or buying new uniforms. It isn't about having everything the same but having the choice to have it the same.

Actually, it is about sameness or equal experiences when you are talking about a sport that both genders play. The "who" you refer to making the choice is always the institution. The institution has the duty to make the experiences equal. The head of the girls program, when making decisions, is the institution. His or her actions are imputed to the institution. It is not enough for the institution to say we gave boys and girls programs same amount of money. Then walk away. The girls administrator chose inequality. Girls program made a "choice" --- 2 referees a game or chose every practice in the crap gym while boys got Taj Mahal. they can't choose inequality and get away with it. The entire institution works together to make sure there is gender equity.
It is not a defense to a player's claim of discrimination that the school gave the women's athletic department same amount of money and that the department made the choices.
If you look at the programs and you see an inequality that matters, 2 referees for all games or girls always practice in the dump, any affected player could raise the issue. And win..because it isn't equal.

Yep, and some of the smaller schools do. What is reasonable now can't be compared to what was reasonable in 1984, unless you're in the land that time forgot.