Miami University Widowmaker Open & Team Cup

[rhetta]

Deleted

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by rhetta

PAID DIRECTORS:

There are 6 non competing director positions and 4 competing director positions available per event. Non Competing directors will be paid $10 per event and competing directors will be paid $5 per event. We will pay 6-7 directors per event. Non competing directors and rated directors will be given priorty over competing directors for paid positions. Remaining paid directing positions will be filled first come first serve. *Miami Fencers are not eligble for payment*

Woooooo! Look out for the competition for THOSE positions. TEN DOLLARS! Boy, I wish people around here would pay $10 for a day's work....

:eyeroll:

-B

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Woooooo! Look out for the competition for THOSE positions. TEN DOLLARS! Boy, I wish people around here would pay $10 for a day's work....

:eyeroll:

-B

Yeah, but there's this kick-ass kitchen where you can queue for FREE SOUP... but you're only allowed to go through once... so it's not perfect

[keith]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Woooooo! Look out for the competition for THOSE positions. TEN DOLLARS! Boy, I wish people around here would pay $10 for a day's work....

:eyeroll:

-B

It's the free market, clearly far to many refs in Florida.

Perhaps we should organise a cull to thin them out so their numbers match the resources in the environment?

Maybe the USFA could sell coaches ref hunting permits as a fundraiser.........

[keith]

Originally Posted by rhetta

Keith -

Miami University is in Oxford, Ohio; not Florida. : )

Ah, well clearly in addition to there being too many refs in florida there are also too many refs in Ohio


... and for the record, no matter what the street, signs say; Oxford is in Oxfordshire not Ohio.

[Mauler]

Originally Posted by rhetta

MUFC is paying $10 an event, not a day : ) This means you can earn up to $30 dollars a day, if you were willing to direct all three events (foil, saber and epee), and $60 dollars for the weekend, if you were willing to direct all three events both days, (team and open). sorry for the confusion in my original post!

Hmmm.... Wondering about the state of refereeing market in your neck of woods, if the compensation scale you published is somehow intended as an incentive to draw referees?

Any apprentice referee could do significantly more than that (entire weekend's pay) in less than 1 hour of "work" at a scholastic meet in this part of the country, involving beginner level, one-weapon team match. Without demonstrated proof yet that they can ascertain the difference between green and red, or ability to count from 1 to 5. Subject to immediate "on-the-job training/feedback," of course.

So basically you're asking the competitors to detract their attention from their own competitive priorities in exchange for a $5 bill. And/or stick around for the rest of the day for the possibility of earning $10 more?

In the case of non-competing referees, who may have no other reason to be there that day, to somehow transport their set of eyes (and even possibly brain, if needs be) to the venue, commit themselves to the interests of the events, make dozens of split-second decisions (assuming small turnout) based on their expertise in complex rules, expand valuable calories in moving their arms about, wear out their voice, and get paid the maximum of $30 which probably doesn't even cover the cost of transportation and food to make their presence possible?

It's refreshing to see that your event is offering unique bent in the form of special prizes (tickets to area events) as well as offering amenities in the venue (box lunches, massage table, etc). I'm just curious as to the intention/response of how you're approaching the staffing of referees. Also what sort of referees you were intending on attracting.

Within your division (which doesn't seem to keep a busy competition schedule), as well as neighboring divisions, you have access to some of the best refereeing talents in the country. With the same budget you were willing to spend, I'll bet you would have been able to offer very attractive enticement to such talents instead and still keep your cost comparable (or even lower) in referee staffing. A single referee of such calibre would easily taken on the workload (with far greater quality) of 2~3 "referees" who would've responded to the incentives you laid out.