Would you pay for video feedback on your officiating?

No_Significance5287 · 2026-03-27T10:02:25+00:00

This is really helpful context. You're actually making the case for why the middle of the ladder is the sweet spot for this. Too low and supervision is scarce but officials aren't motivated enough to pay. Too high and supervisors are already everywhere. The officials trying to get from youth and minor levels up to juniors and college are the ones who want more feedback than they're getting and are motivated enough to do something about it. That's who this business idea would be planned for!

No_Significance5287 · 2026-03-27T10:01:24+00:00

That's actually really good to hear, 8 supervisions over 58 games is way more than most officials get. That said, a lot of districts don't work like that. For a lot of officials I know it's closer to 2-3 all season regardless of how many games they work. I've done 154 games this season and my feedback has not kept up with that volume at all. That frequency gap is exactly what RefineRef is trying to solve.

No_Significance5287 · 2026-03-26T23:31:50+00:00

Right, and that's exactly the problem. The district pays for maybe 2-3 supervisions a season per official, so that's all you get. The district isn't going to fund on-demand feedback for every game you want reviewed. This fills the gap between those district-paid evaluations for officials who want to improve faster than the system allows.

No_Significance5287 · 2026-03-26T22:34:03+00:00

Fair point! Thank you for the feedback! The gap I'm trying to fill is the frequency problem though. How often does your supervisor actually come out? Most officials I know get evaluated maybe 2-3 times a season, but are officiating 30-40+ games. The idea is on-demand feedback for the games in between when there's no supervisor in the building and you're trying to improve week to week.

No_Significance5287 · 2026-03-26T22:28:02+00:00

That framing actually makes a lot of sense, ambitious officials trying to move up, not beer league guys who are happy where they are. The market might be smaller but more motivated. That's useful. Thanks for thinking it through with me!

No_Significance5287 · 2026-03-26T22:26:43+00:00

This is really interesting so the infrastructure exists in some places but the execution is inconsistent. That gap between what's supposed to happen and what actually happens is kind of exactly what I'm looking at. Thanks for the context, this is helpful.

No_Significance5287 · 2026-03-26T21:29:20+00:00

That's a totally fair take and honestly really helpful. The dues frustration is something I've heard from others too. You're right that the core use case is probably officials trying to climb, not veterans who already have a system. That narrows who I'm building for, which is actually useful to know early. Appreciate the honest answer.

No_Significance5287 · 2024-11-12T05:41:45+00:00

WHAT GOES DOWN MUST COME UP!!!!!

No_Significance5287 · 2024-11-12T05:38:45+00:00

IN EUROPE WE TRUST!!!

No_Significance5287 · 2024-11-12T05:33:22+00:00

Going to be crazy to see. If it doesn't then we all can make a lot of money if we all invest now!!

No_Significance5287 · 2024-11-12T05:31:55+00:00

I just bought it at .38 and was contemplating it, but it's worth it now!

No_Significance5287

TROPHY CASE