Louisiana Officials

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Rich

It's despicable to pay HS officials different amounts for doing the same job.

The point is that maybe they aren't doing the same job.

Questions:
Is the guy with 12 years more valuable to crew than the guy with four who just moved up from JV?
Is the person who scored an 80 on the rules exam providing the same service to the schools as the guy who scored 96? Which people would the schools rather have?
What about physical fitness? If one guy can run a mile in 7 minutes and it takes another 10, are they both performing equally on the court?
If a veteran helps out by taking a Frosh or JV contest with a first or second year official, do you think that they will be providing equal service?

If the lower classified official truly is pulling his own weight, then it is imperative that the association's evaluation and classification system detect that and properly place him.
In the end, people who dedicate the time to do certain things which are conducive to quality officiating will be rewarded for it (study the rules, work on physical fitness, go to instructional camps, etc.) and those who don't put in the effort will get what they deserve. The important aspect is that the system must be open and achievable by anyone in the group (except perhaps for the newbies--1st and 2nd year refs).

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

It's despicable to pay HS officials different amounts for doing the same job.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So are you saying that we should be paid for doing a lower level game the same way we are paid for a varsity game? If that is the case I do disagree with that totally. One might generate more revenue the other one might not. And if there is a difference between 2 person and 3, you are not really doing the same job. For one varsity players are usually bigger, faster and stronger and the coaches you are dealing with are not the same either.

If that is not what you are suggesting, then I apologize in advance.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The point is that maybe they aren't doing the same job.

Questions:
Is the guy with 12 years more valuable to crew than the guy with four who just moved up from JV?
Is the person who scored an 80 on the rules exam providing the same service to the schools as the guy who scored 96? Which people would the schools rather have?
What about physical fitness? If one guy can run a mile in 7 minutes and it takes another 10, are they both performing equally on the court?
If a veteran helps out by taking a Frosh or JV contest with a first or second year official, do you think that they will be providing equal service?

If the lower classified official truly is pulling his own weight, then it is imperative that the association's evaluation and classification system detect that and properly place him.
In the end, people who dedicate the time to do certain things which are conducive to quality officiating will be rewarded for it (study the rules, work on physical fitness, go to instructional camps, etc.) and those who don't put in the effort will get what they deserve. The important aspect is that the system must be open and achievable by anyone in the group (except perhaps for the newbies--1st and 2nd year refs).

Some schools will hire the cheaper officials in a system like this.

A varsity slot in a game should pay a certain fee. If a person is qualified to work that position, he or she should be paid the fee.

And no, I never once said a JV game should pay the same as a varsity game. Matter of fact above in this thread I advocated a meaningful gap between the levels.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Rich

It's despicable to pay HS officials different amounts for doing the same job.

At the HS level, I absolutely agree. I know some college conferences have tiered systems where the R gets more than the U's (Big 12 is one of them, I believe) but I'm not sure if this is commonplace or not.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

At the HS level, I absolutely agree. I know some college conferences have tiered systems where the R gets more than the U's (Big 12 is one of them, I believe) but I'm not sure if this is commonplace or not.

Tiered system isn't based on who is the R and who are the U's. Each conference sets their own criteria. A game may have 3 guys on the same tier or 3 guys each on a different tier. Many conferences do this. It helps the mid major and smaller conferences get some of the so called big names to work their games because it allows them to pay a higher fee than they do for most of the guys working those games.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Tiered system isn't based on who is the R and who are the U's. Each conference sets their own criteria. A game may have 3 guys on the same tier or 3 guys each on a different tier. Many conferences do this. It helps the mid major and smaller conferences get some of the so called big names to work their games because it allows them to pay a higher fee than they do for most of the guys working those games.

Ahhhh. That actually makes very good sense. Thanks for clarifying.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

Ask Billy where Connecticut ranks in terms of cost of living...for that matter all of the Northeast including NYC. I've lived in the Hartford, Boston and Orlando metros. I contend that my $55 varsity fee in Florida is a better rate than $94 in CT.

And your contention would be wrong. Close, but almost only counts in horseshoes, and hand grenades.

From an online cost of living calculator (below):

You are currently earning $94 in Hartford, Connecticut as a Umpire, Referee, or other Sports Official. You need to earn $76 to maintain the same standard of living in Orlando, Florida.

Bad Zebra does have a valid point. You should see my monthly electric bill. Of course, I just turned my air conditioner on for the first time this season this past Sunday.

Connecticut has the fifth highest cost of living, only New York, Alaska, California, and Hawaii are higher. Florida has the 22nd highest cost of living.

[Remington]

Originally Posted by Rich

We agree completely on this. I assign for 22 schools and each school has their stable of officials who have (1) been doing this for years and (2) have no desire to work varsity games. Close to home, early start time.

People think I'm joking when I say I think they should raise the varsity rates and leave the JV rates alone, but I'm completely serious.

We have a group of people the feel the same and want to stay close to home. I believe the reason for our increases is that it is hard to get officials in our area for a few reasons: (1) People don't want to put up with the BS (2) People can't sneak out of their job early to work the games (3) Many of our games over 60 miles to get to making it a late evening (4) People's children are in many more activities now than when I was a kid so they don't have the time.

I know in the last 5 years the cost of living in ND has skyrocketed due to the oil activity. My house here is smaller than friends of mine in the twin cities and theirs is much less (especially when you add in our real estate taxes and specials). An average house in our larger towns is now $350K - $400K. With property taxes of $4700 and specials of $20K added to your escrow, they payment really jumps up.

The gap is being discussed at length. I believe they will leave varsity rates the same during the next 2 year rate lock but raise the JV rates to narrow the gap a bit.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Rich

Some schools will hire the cheaper officials in a system like this.

A varsity slot in a game should pay a certain fee. If a person is qualified to work that position, he or she should be paid the fee.

I'm sure that some schools will hire the lower tier officials in an attempt to save money, but I'm also certain that other schools will strive to only hire the top-tiered guys. Additionally, there would be some rather unhappy parents and perhaps coaches when it comes out that school X is purposely not hiring the best available officials, especially if a kid gets injured. The AD won't like answering to that probe.

Several college conferences now pay on a tier system. It is a way to entice top quality officials to work their games. I believe that competition at the HS level for the best officials would be positive.

I'm absolutely positive that due to the shortage of officials at the HS level, assignors are sometimes forced to put people on games for which they aren't truly qualified, so just going by the criterion of "if assigned" won't cut it.

[Rich]

I'm a high school assigner. I don't even want to pay travel for the reason I posted above -- schools will start questioning why I'm hiring guys from a longer distance.

My point is this -- currently officiating is a fixed cost. I'm against anything that makes it (even partially) a variable cost.

By any criteria I would benefit from such a system as an official monetarily, and I'm still not interested.

[just another ref]

There are experience restrictions here, too. Previously, you could only be the lowest level for the first year, regardless of test score, then the second level the second year if you made over 80, then top level (certified) after that so long as you made over 90. I don't know what those restrictions will be now. And our travel is paid from the home of the association to the school, regardless of actual distance traveled by the officials. Means feast or famine for some of us. This is particularly true for me personally, since I live at one extreme end of our territory.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The point is that maybe they aren't doing the same job.

Questions:
Is the guy with 12 years more valuable to crew than the guy with four who just moved up from JV?
Is the person who scored an 80 on the rules exam providing the same service to the schools as the guy who scored 96? Which people would the schools rather have?
What about physical fitness? If one guy can run a mile in 7 minutes and it takes another 10, are they both performing equally on the court?
If a veteran helps out by taking a Frosh or JV contest with a first or second year official, do you think that they will be providing equal service?

If the lower classified official truly is pulling his own weight, then it is imperative that the association's evaluation and classification system detect that and properly place him.
In the end, people who dedicate the time to do certain things which are conducive to quality officiating will be rewarded for it (study the rules, work on physical fitness, go to instructional camps, etc.) and those who don't put in the effort will get what they deserve. The important aspect is that the system must be open and achievable by anyone in the group (except perhaps for the newbies--1st and 2nd year refs).

When it comes to "equal pay for equal work laws," one may be in a tenuous position to change the criteria to the "perceived quality of performance" in doing the same job. I've not understood that to be the intent of such statements - (equal pay for equal work). And whereas schools are generally government entities, such laws, whether state or federal, certainly are to be considered.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

When it comes to "equal pay for equal work laws," one may be in a tenuous position to change the criteria to the "perceived quality of performance" in doing the same job. I've not understood that to be the intent of such statements - (equal pay for equal work). And whereas schools are generally government entities, such laws, whether state or federal, certainly are to be considered.

It is very hard, in my opinion, to define "equal work" or set standards for it. Some of the 4 year (or less) guys are better than some of the 12 year (or more) guys. Some of the 80 test scores are waaaay better than some of the 95 guys. And yes, one can be terribly slow and out of shape and still do a better job than some who are in prime physical condition.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

I'm a high school assigner. I don't even want to pay travel for the reason I posted above -- schools will start questioning why I'm hiring guys from a longer distance.

We pay travel, but it isn't based on where the official comes from. It is based on how far the school is from the center of town. A given school's amount is fixed regardless of who works the game.

For any given official and any given game, the amount may not reflect the actual distance driven but over time it averages out and generally reflects the differences in travel to different sites. It has the effect of making the outer schools more appealing to go to.

It serves to balance the appeal of different locations. Why would an official want to drive 40 miles (each way) to a low level school that is unlikely to have a good game when they can go 5-10 to a big school that is more likely to have a good game? Without travel to some of the distant locations, an official would actually lose money on some games.

Also, the assignor's pay isn't affected by the travel. It is based only on the base game fee without the travel portion.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I'm sure that some schools will hire the lower tier officials in an attempt to save money, but I'm also certain that other schools will strive to only hire the top-tiered guys.

With some of my customers that have tiered pay rates for the officials, they charge the schools a fixed rate that is essentially based on the average official pay. It isn't the per game average, but the overall season average. It isn't precisely the average but based on historical averages. The school pays the same for every game but the organization reallocates between the officials the money based on the official levels. Some games may pay more out than collected from the school and some may pay less. Also, the schools don't have a say in who is assigned...the assignor does that.