Pay debate

[Terrapins Fan]

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[Terrapins Fan]

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Terrapins Fan

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

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 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

[Treeguy]

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.

[Terrapins Fan]

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

[Treeguy]

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.

[Remington]

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.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Rich

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

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.

[biggravy]

Originally Posted by Rich

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

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...

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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.

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.

Originally Posted by biggravy

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...

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.