Re: Yes, what is $189,000 a year, for 17 days' work and no accountability! Mere crumbs!!! - Edit 1
Before modification by Dannymac at 19/09/2012 06:55:21 AM
I understand, they are refusing the offered salary mentioned above and I believe they are also resistant to being held accountable for bad calls.
Actually, they were locked out because they didn't want to have their pension plan turned into a 401k. Remember that they were LOCKED OUT, they are not striking.
How much do part-timers expect to get?! You seem to be saying that their part-times status is some sort of affliction or hardship. It's a sideline for most of them. And comparisons to the other sports officials are ridiculous, since the jobs are so different. There was a point a few years ago when Marshall Faulk with a brand new contract commensurate with his status as reigning NFL MVP was making less than the #6 starter for the Yankees. Football players make less than baseball or basketball players, so why should the referees make more than the other sports' officials?
This is a good point. If the refs were striking to get more money, it would be the telling one. But this is different. If the game is the product, refs are something like quality control. They don't make the rules on the field, they enforce them. The product is worth billions in revenue... what is it worth to spend to assure the quality of that product? Make no mistake, the quality of the product is suffering.
Also, NFL refs make from $25 to $75k a year depending on the number of games they call. This is more or less unchanged from five years ago. Now, like you say, not bad at all for less than a month of actual work. (I would guess about two days of work per game played, between film review, rules review, training, etc.) So no one is claiming hardship for these guys, and most of them have other jobs. (Which is also why the lockout is odd... you probably can't starve an NFL ref into signing on the dotted line.)
But why not make NFL refs full time? Pay them $75-$100k per year, maybe 75 as a baseline with bonuses earned based on performance (and also reflected in Playoff gigs) and expect a full work week. Everyone knows they could do their jobs better, why not make sure they are all spending the weeks studying the teams they will be playing, watching film, learning play styles, reviewing rules, critiquing each other, etc? it could only be good for the game, and would actually assure higher league control of officiating. (Which is probably why it doesn't exist... it would turn a rich man's hobby into a working man's livelihood, current refs probably wouldn't stand for it. Good lord, did I just make an anti-union point? Better move on.)
Why should the Saints' suspensions be overturned? Those actions were immoral and possibly criminal, let alone against the specific rules of the NFL. Back when the Patriots were getting excoriated for Spygate, their defense of "no harm done" was getting brushed aside with the point that what was done was explicitly against NFL rules. Well, so was what the Saints did, in addition to being against any reasonable standards of morality, and at a time when the NFL was making a definite, if somewhat misguided and misapplied attempt to curtail injuries to players.
Can you prove it? If so, do so, because it hasn't happened yet, which is why the players appeal was upheld. Goodell serving as both prosecutor and judge led to the overturning that already occurred. The question there is not "is a bounty system legal?" The question is "Do we need due process in order to deprive players of their livelihoods in punishment?"
As for flexing their muscles, what else are muscles for? Why should they knuckle under to any demands from a peripheral group that is not essential to the job? The replacements are inexperienced, and will get better. They have not yet cost anyone a game with their errors, and will need to do a lot worse before they convince me that they are significantly inferior to the sorts of top-quality officiating crews that extended two touchdown drives in a playoff game with extremely bad calls last season, or who cost the Giants a playoff game in 2003 with such an egregious miscalling of the final play that the NFL apologized!
Again, it is the NFL, not the refs, making demands. Lockout, not strike, remember? That said, you do make good points... nobody is claiming the old refs were perfect. but as I said in my response to Trzas... Anonymous up above, it is less about bad calls and more about poor control of game flow and zero ability to command respect from players or coaches. That lack of respect stems from a simple dynamic you cannot ignore in a situation like this: It is nearly impossible for a scab to earn the respect of a union guy, and after the recent labor dispute, every last player is pretty darn pro-union.
In my opinion, that will be what finally forces the hand of the NFL if anything does. If it doesn't happen soon, the old refs may even gain some clout and respect, allowing them to actually start demanding stuff.