PDA

View Full Version : Ed Hoculi responds to an email.


24champ
09-25-2012, 01:18 PM
http://m.deadspin.com/5946306/heres-nfl-referee-ed-hochulis-adorable-response-to-a-fan-who-emailed-to-say-he-missed-him

Some of the comments are funny.

Drunken.Broncoholic
09-25-2012, 01:22 PM
http://m.deadspin.com/5946306/heres-nfl-referee-ed-hochulis-adorable-response-to-a-fan-who-emailed-to-say-he-missed-him

Some of the comments are funny.

We've all yelled at refs in the past. But that is a span of years and years. There's more screw ups in 3 weeks than a decade of real ref blunders

DBroncos4life
09-25-2012, 01:46 PM
We've all yelled at refs in the past. But that is a span of years and years. There's more screw ups in 3 weeks than a decade of real ref blunders

That is the part that posters like gort don't get.

SleepingTiger
09-25-2012, 01:55 PM
Screw Hoculi and the other refs. I am for one don't think this is the NFL fault. The refs are demanding too much considering they only work 5hrs per week for 25 weeks and making well over six digits. Now they want a pension plan? Please.. whatever. I say let the scabs continue to ref the games.

houghtam
09-25-2012, 01:59 PM
Screw Hoculi and the other refs. I am for one don't think this is the NFL fault. The refs are demanding too much considering they only work 5hrs per week for 25 weeks and making well over six digits. Now they want a pension plan? Please.. whatever. I say let the scabs continue to ref the games.

Cool story, bro.

Get used to watching watered down games and hour long first quarters. Oh and constant bitching in the media.

Because if you love football, the thing you want to watch most on Tuesday isn't a recap of the weekend's games, it's how badly the refs screwed up.

Crushaholic
09-25-2012, 01:59 PM
Screw Hoculi and the other refs. I am for one don't think this is the NFL fault. The refs are demanding too much considering they only work 5hrs per week for 25 weeks and making well over six digits. Now they want a pension plan? Please.. whatever. I say let the scabs continue to ref the games.

I guarantee that this place would be melting down, if the Broncos were the ones playing the Seahawks last night...

DBroncos4life
09-25-2012, 02:02 PM
Screw Hoculi and the other refs. I am for one don't think this is the NFL fault. The refs are demanding too much considering they only work 5hrs per week for 25 weeks and making well over six digits. Now they want a pension plan? Please.. whatever. I say let the scabs continue to ref the games.

Ha ha the NFL wants these guys to quit their fulltime jobs to just work for the NFL so they will make less money per year! Who Doesn't want less money per year! Another poster that doesn't know what is really going on!

SleepingTiger
09-25-2012, 02:10 PM
I guarantee that this place would be melting down, if the Broncos were the ones playing the Seahawks last night...

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not going to sit here and point my finger at the NFL while the locked out refs are sitting at home laughing it up. If you were the owners, would you give into the refs? i wouldn't.

SleepingTiger
09-25-2012, 02:14 PM
Cool story, bro.

Get used to watching watered down games and hour long first quarters. Oh and constant b****ing in the media.

Because if you love football, the thing you want to watch most on Tuesday isn't a recap of the weekend's games, it's how badly the refs screwed up.

its a business and should ran like a business. the fans are bitching, yet watch every single second of the game. until the fans boycott, it wont change.

Agamemnon
09-25-2012, 02:16 PM
Screw Hoculi and the other refs. I am for one don't think this is the NFL fault. The refs are demanding too much considering they only work 5hrs per week for 25 weeks and making well over six digits. Now they want a pension plan? Please.. whatever. I say let the scabs continue to ref the games.

The integrity of a multi-billion dollar league is clearly worth what they are asking for. To think otherwise, especially after the last three weeks is beyond laughable.

SleepingTiger
09-25-2012, 02:17 PM
Ha ha the NFL wants these guys to quit their fulltime jobs to just work for the NFL so they will make less money per year! Who Doesn't want less money per year! Another poster that doesn't know what is really going on!

please inform me than enlighten one. this is what i hear on the radio and read on the news. is this lock out because the refs don't want to quit their fulltime job or is it because they want a pension plan?

SleepingTiger
09-25-2012, 02:21 PM
The integrity of a multi-billion dollar league is clearly worth what they are asking for. To think otherwise, especially after the last three weeks is beyond laughable.

i think this is just the first step. giving into the refs can cause a ripple effect. i think of this as a business and as bad as things have been going, the money is still rolling in, sponsors are still lining up and the fans are still watching.

DBroncos4life
09-25-2012, 02:23 PM
please inform me than enlighten one. this is what i hear on the radio and read on the news. is this lock out because the refs don't want to quit their fulltime job or is it because they want a pension plan?

Full-time officials

The NFL wants seven full-time officials -- one at each officiating position -- to improve the overall quality of the group. Potentially, the number of full-timers could grow.

The NFLRA knows that to be full-time, officials would have to leave their other (full-time) jobs and lose income. The NFL is not going to pay them an amount equal to their present sum of two incomes, nor will it pay what MLB or NBA full-time referees make.
Again, the NFL is trying to make a change in the culture.

Proposed solution: The NFL caps the number of full-time officials and provides year-round physical training and rules seminars throughout the offseason to improve the quality and fitness of its officials group.

http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=8421697

DBroncos4life
09-25-2012, 02:27 PM
To think this is just about a pension is wrong.

Houshyamama
09-25-2012, 02:27 PM
i think this is just the first step. giving into the refs can cause a ripple effect. i think of this as a business and as bad as things have been going, the money is still rolling in, sponsors are still lining up and the fans are still watching.

for now

SleepingTiger
09-25-2012, 02:34 PM
Full-time officials

The NFL wants seven full-time officials -- one at each officiating position -- to improve the overall quality of the group. Potentially, the number of full-timers could grow.

The NFLRA knows that to be full-time, officials would have to leave their other (full-time) jobs and lose income. The NFL is not going to pay them an amount equal to their present sum of two incomes, nor will it pay what MLB or NBA full-time referees make.
Again, the NFL is trying to make a change in the culture.

Proposed solution: The NFL caps the number of full-time officials and provides year-round physical training and rules seminars throughout the offseason to improve the quality and fitness of its officials group.

http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=8421697

ok, im wrong for stating this is only about the pension, stupid mike and mike in the morning.

c'mon, you can't even compare NFL refs to NBA or MLB. NBA plays 80 games while MLB plays a gazillion games a year. to pay them on the same scale would be crazy.

do the college refs have some pension plan or paid as full time employees?

Jetmeck
09-25-2012, 02:35 PM
Screw Hoculi and the other refs. I am for one don't think this is the NFL fault. The refs are demanding too much considering they only work 5hrs per week for 25 weeks and making well over six digits. Now they want a pension plan? Please.. whatever. I say let the scabs continue to ref the games.

whatever, they have a pension plan and the cash flush nfl wants to terminate it.........maybe you will get treated this way someday......?

regardless there is a significant difference between the replacements and the real ones..............plain as day.

SleepingTiger
09-25-2012, 02:35 PM
for now

im not going to stop watching even if the product on the field is bad.

Jetmeck
09-25-2012, 02:37 PM
ok, im wrong for stating this is only about the pension, stupid mike and mike in the morning.

c'mon, you can't even compare NFL refs to NBA or MLB. NBA plays 80 games while MLB plays a gazillion games a year. to pay them on the same scale would be crazy.

do the college refs have some pension plan or paid as full time employees?

blah, blah, blah..........

strike a deal in the middle, give them something positive and move.

nfl is being greedy

Broncos4tw
09-25-2012, 02:38 PM
Screw Hoculi and the other refs. I am for one don't think this is the NFL fault. The refs are demanding too much considering they only work 5hrs per week for 25 weeks and making well over six digits. Now they want a pension plan? Please.. whatever. I say let the scabs continue to ref the games.

The refs don't work "5 hours a week." How ridiculous. They typically work 25 to 30 hours a week, more if you are the head ref. They have to review game tape, make reports to the NFL, they work offseason as well, to get on the same page. They have full time jobs as well, which the NFL wants them to basically quit. Many are business owners, lawyers, judges, even doctors.

Would YOU work without any sort of a pension plan? And that's not even scratching the surface of the real issues behind this.

It's pretty clear from the first few weeks, how much more they do ref, than the people we have reffing right now. They may screw up on occasion, but they control the games. They never seem out of control of a game. They see at the speed of an NFL game - the current refs are slow as hell, they miss so much that is going on. It's why players are getting away with so much.

If they can afford to pay players and coaches the amount they do, they can afford to pony up to get real full time refs, and give them the pension they deserve.

Houshyamama
09-25-2012, 02:38 PM
im not going to stop watching even if the product on the field is bad.

But you're hardcore. The majority of NFL fans are casual and they can and will eventually be turned off by a poor product.

peacepipe
09-25-2012, 02:38 PM
NFL ref already have have a pension,the big problem is the NFL wants to freeze & switch it to a less attractive 401.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/nfl-referee-lockout-pensions_n_1879049.html

peacepipe
09-25-2012, 02:39 PM
But you're hardcore. The majority of NFL fans are casual and they can and will eventually be turned off by a poor product.

XFL anyone?

houghtam
09-25-2012, 02:50 PM
They typically work 25 to 30 hours a week, more if you are the head ref.

Hmm...sounds a little short to me. Does that include travel time? Because, you know, any job I've ever worked has also included my travel time.

But you're hardcore. The majority of NFL fans are casual and they can and will eventually be turned off by a poor product.

Exactly. And I have four hardcore friends (Packers fans, god bless em) who threw up their hands last night and swore off the rest of the season until the refs come back. How do I know that? They withdrew from our fantasy league.

Casual fans don't tune in to watch 4 hour games marred with penalties. They are the ones constantly complaining that the games last long enough as it is. They also don't like watered down product. TV ratings dropped 20% in 1987 for the time the players were on strike, and that was only 3 weeks long.

Pontius Pirate
09-25-2012, 02:52 PM
I believe the referee situation for the NFL would be better if there was not a labor union involved. Free market talent etc. etc.

I.e. instead of having to negotiate with a union to represent all ~150 refs on pay, benefits, hours, working conditions, safety, etc. - just pay wages based on skill (not tenure) and keep the best & fire the rest. Having a labor union in the middle of all that complicates things as they treat the entire labor pool as one entity and individual skill becomes much less important.

I'd argue that labor unions for professional athletes is silly as well BUT I can see how vital their impact is relative to player safety i.e. working conditions.

peacepipe
09-25-2012, 03:00 PM
I believe the referee situation for the NFL would be better if there was not a labor union involved. Free market talent etc. etc.I.e. instead of having to negotiate with a union to represent all ~150 refs on pay, benefits, hours, working conditions, safety, etc. - just pay wages based on skill (not tenure) and keep the best & fire the rest. Having a labor union in the middle of all that complicates things as they treat the entire labor pool as one entity and individual skill becomes much less important.

I'd argue that labor unions for professional athletes is silly as well BUT I can see how vital their impact is relative to player safety i.e. working conditions.

BS,free market is a two way street. LOL whenever there's a problem blame the workers

houghtam
09-25-2012, 03:05 PM
I'd argue that labor unions for professional athletes is silly as well BUT I can see how vital their impact is relative to player safety i.e. working conditions.

And you can't see how vital the impact of the refs is to things like...oh I dunno, quality of play and watchability?

Pontius Pirate
09-25-2012, 03:08 PM
BS,free market is a two way street. LOL whenever there's a problem blame the workers

Where am I blaming the workers?

I'm saying the layer of bureaucracy of the NFLRA is what can go away. Clearly the NFL needs strong Ref talent ASAP. I don't see how the NFLRA helps solve that problem - let the 150 people be free to negotiate their own terms. If the going rate for an NFL Ref is x dollars and Ref-A has a better resume than Ref-B, then the NFL should be able to pay what they feel is right and when Ref-A decides he wants a more lucrative job elsewhere, the NFL can try to re-negotiate new terms with him if he's good - or let him go if he's not.

SonOfLe-loLang
09-25-2012, 03:12 PM
i think this is just the first step. giving into the refs can cause a ripple effect. i think of this as a business and as bad as things have been going, the money is still rolling in, sponsors are still lining up and the fans are still watching.

The NFL can easily afford their demands, and the refs have proved to have a unique skill set. It would be nice to have full time refs, and I don't mind the "competition" factor that the NFL would like to bring, but this bull**** cannot continue. Hopefully they find some sort of middle ground.

houghtam
09-25-2012, 03:14 PM
Where am I blaming the workers? I

'm saying the layer of bureaucracy of the NFLRA is what can go away. Clearly the NFL needs strong Ref talent ASAP. I don't see how the NFLRA helps solve that problem - let the 150 people be free to negotiate their own terms. If the going rate for an NFL Ref is x dollars and Ref-A has a better resume than Ref-B, then the NFL should be able to pay what they feel is right and when Ref-A decides he wants a more lucrative job elsewhere, the NFL can try to re-negotiate new terms with him if he's good - or let him go if he's not.

That's a great idea! ...for the NFL. The refs apparently disagreed with you.

See, the refs did negotiate their own terms. They did so by choosing to unionize.

peacepipe
09-25-2012, 03:15 PM
Where am I blaming the workers?

I'm saying the layer of bureaucracy of the NFLRA is what can go away. Clearly the NFL needs strong Ref talent ASAP. I don't see how the NFLRA helps solve that problem - let the 150 people be free to negotiate their own terms. If the going rate for an NFL Ref is x dollars and Ref-A has a better resume than Ref-B, then the NFL should be able to pay what they feel is right and when Ref-A decides he wants a more lucrative job elsewhere, the NFL can try to re-negotiate new terms with him if he's good - or let him go if he's not.

bureaucracy?! BS! If the NFL wants quality refs they need to cough up the money. Like I said,free market is a two way street.

Pontius Pirate
09-25-2012, 03:16 PM
And you can't see how vital the impact of the refs is to things like...oh I dunno, quality of play and watchability?

Quality of play and watchability have nothing to do with the NLRB & NLRA, which governs the relationship of the union & company.

Quality of play and watchability have no link to whether a union definitively impacts either of those.

Yes, quality of refs impact play & watchability. A union does not, and I'd actually argue that having a union in the midst negatively impacts the NFL's ability to get the best quality refs on the field. That's why I'm saying the NFLRA should go away.

The only NLRA related case you could make for the NFLRA (which is the same for the NFLPA) is about safety i.e. working conditions. But it's a more tangential argument at best. You could get great Refs without the NFLRA simply by having a free market talent pool that pays the highest based on skill, supply, and demand

peacepipe
09-25-2012, 03:18 PM
Quality of play and watchability have nothing to do with the NLRB & NLRA, which governs the relationship of the union & company.

Quality of play and watchability have no link to whether a union definitively impacts either of those.

Yes, quality of refs impact play & watchability. A union does not, and I'd actually argue that having a union in the midst negatively impacts the NFL's ability to get the best quality refs on the field. That's why I'm saying the NFLRA should go away.

The only NLRA related case you could make for the NFLRA (which is the same for the NFLPA) is about safety i.e. working conditions. But it's a more tangential argument at best. You could get great Refs without the NFLRA simply by having a free market talent pool that pays the highest based on skill, supply, and demandYou can't have it both ways,the refs are the union.

SonOfLe-loLang
09-25-2012, 03:18 PM
That's a great idea! ...for the NFL. The refs apparently disagreed with you.

See, the refs did negotiate their own terms. They did so by choosing to unionize.

For real.

I don't understand why people continue to think the powers that be will always be fair and honest...when they never are.

Of course the refs have to unionize. They don't want to get screwed over. Can they back off their demands a bit? Of course! Hopefully a common ground is found and SOON!

Pontius Pirate
09-25-2012, 03:20 PM
That's a great idea! ...for the NFL. The refs apparently disagreed with you.

See, the refs did negotiate their own terms. They did so by choosing to unionize.

We'll see if that winds up beneficial for either party. My hunch is no.

houghtam
09-25-2012, 03:25 PM
For real.

I don't understand why people continue to think the powers that be will always be fair and honest...when they never are.

Of course the refs have to unionize. They don't want to get screwed over. Can they back off their demands a bit? Of course! Hopefully a common ground is found and SOON!

I hope they do whatever they need to in order to get the regular refs back. If that means the refs union listens to compromise or the NFL caves, then great.

Personally, I wouldn't blame the refs for upping the ante at this point. They hold all the cards. All of them. Most have regular jobs, and not having this won't hurt them. Public opinion of the NFL will continue to drop as mistakes keep being made. They can wait it out as long as they need to. Or they could walk into the league office tomorrow morning and say, "These are our new demands...have fun!"

The league has no leg to stand on here, and I don't think they'll be willing to wait it out.

Rock Chalk
09-25-2012, 03:26 PM
Cool story, bro.

Get used to watching watered down games and hour long first quarters. Oh and constant b****ing in the media.

Because if you love football, the thing you want to watch most on Tuesday isn't a recap of the weekend's games, it's how badly the refs screwed up.

Funny thing is, none of us are going to stop watching.

And, eventually, if the refs dont cave (because the NFL wont), then these replacement refs will get better and put them out of work. Practice makes perfect and while the refs are currently horrible, they will get better over time.

The NFL knows this.

peacepipe
09-25-2012, 03:27 PM
For real.

I don't understand why people continue to think the powers that be will always be fair and honest...when they never are.

Of course the refs have to unionize. They don't want to get screwed over. Can they back off their demands a bit? Of course! Hopefully a common ground is found and SOON!

the big problem is the NFL wants them to give up their pension. they might as well not be a union if they give up on that.

SonOfLe-loLang
09-25-2012, 03:27 PM
Funny thing is, none of us are going to stop watching.

And, eventually, if the refs dont cave (because the NFL wont), then these replacement refs will get better and put them out of work. Practice makes perfect and while the refs are currently horrible, they will get better over time.

The NFL knows this.

I dont know about the middle, but they'll eventually replace them with ones that might be more competant. But that would be more difficult than just negotiating with the current.

But I disagree with the product not being affected. If this sorta **** continues, they might lose some viewership.

Pontius Pirate
09-25-2012, 03:28 PM
You can't have it both ways,the refs are the union.

From a union-busting POV, I would say that assumption is false. If the NFL is trying to break them (and I think they definitely are, because the NFL sees no value in the union), the NFL will realize that significant disagreement will be happening within the union ranks and that time will exacerbate that tension.

Rock Chalk
09-25-2012, 03:29 PM
I dont know about the middle, but they'll eventually replace them with ones that might be more competant. But that would be more difficult than just negotiating with the current.

But I disagree with the product not being affected. If this sorta **** continues, they might lose some viewership.

Whoa, I never said the product wasn't affected. I just said no one is going to stop watching. This country loves football too much to just not watch it.

peacepipe
09-25-2012, 03:29 PM
Funny thing is, none of us are going to stop watching.

And, eventually, if the refs dont cave (because the NFL wont), then these replacement refs will get better and put them out of work. Practice makes perfect and while the refs are currently horrible, they will get better over time.

The NFL knows this.Not if there is public pressure to make something happen.

Rock Chalk
09-25-2012, 03:29 PM
Not if there is public pressure to make something happen.

Ha!

That's cute.

houghtam
09-25-2012, 03:30 PM
Funny thing is, none of us are going to stop watching.

Hmmm...don't count on that. Like I said in another thread, our fantasy football league had to disband after four of my Packers fan friends quit the season until the real refs come back. And I know these people. All but one of them have been Packers fans since before I was born. They're as good as their word, and they're not the only ones who've done it.

That's not counting the casual fans who won't watch long, drawn-out, boring football. Diehards like you and me and my friends don't line the NFL's pockets neraly as much as casual fans do.

Tombstone RJ
09-25-2012, 03:36 PM
Hmmm...don't count on that. Like I said in another thread, our fantasy football league had to disband after four of my Packers fan friends quit the season until the real refs come back. And I know these people. All but one of them have been Packers fans since before I was born. They're as good as their word, and they're not the only ones who've done it.

That's not counting the casual fans who won't watch long, drawn-out, boring football. Diehards like you and me and my friends don't line the NFL's pockets neraly as much as casual fans do.

that doesn't mean they will quit watching the games. Also, how do you define the causual fan from the die hard fan?

Pontius Pirate
09-25-2012, 03:36 PM
For real.

I don't understand why people continue to think the powers that be will always be fair and honest...when they never are.

Of course the refs have to unionize. They don't want to get screwed over. Can they back off their demands a bit? Of course! Hopefully a common ground is found and SOON!

The union is just adding one more "powers that be."

It's a layer of bureaucracy that you pay a tax to, that may or may not actually represent your own individual concerns, has elected officials that take money to have a cush job basically just politicking all day.....people falsely assume that unions at all times are these noble infallible bodies that are always good and that companies are always bad. It's like how dems assume republicans are bad and vice versa. The truth is more complicated

peacepipe
09-25-2012, 03:36 PM
Ha!

That's cute.

well,now that it is getting noticed nationally,by both parties and mainstream news you will see pressure. noone noticd this past offseason but now everybody is noticing.

Rock Chalk
09-25-2012, 03:36 PM
Hmmm...don't count on that. Like I said in another thread, our fantasy football league had to disband after four of my Packers fan friends quit the season until the real refs come back. And I know these people. All but one of them have been Packers fans since before I was born. They're as good as their word, and they're not the only ones who've done it.

That's not counting the casual fans who won't watch long, drawn-out, boring football. Diehards like you and me and my friends don't line the NFL's pockets neraly as much as casual fans do.

Fine, stop watching. Not enough of you are going to stop watching to even dent the ratings.

Im going to keep watching the same games I always watch. The Bronco games.

Real refs or not, I ****ing love football. And ****ty officiated games is better than no games.

peacepipe
09-25-2012, 03:37 PM
The union is just adding one more "powers that be."

It's a layer of bureaucracy that you pay a tax to, that may or may not actually represent your own individual concerns, has elected officials that take money to have a cush job basically just politicking all day.....people falsely assume that unions at all times are these noble infallible bodies that are always good and that companies are always bad. It's like how dems assume republicans are bad and vice versa. The truth is more complicated

you're FOS.

Pontius Pirate
09-25-2012, 03:41 PM
you're FOS.

Pretty compelling argument. I wonder if that's what Hoculi goes into negotiations with.

houghtam
09-25-2012, 03:42 PM
The union is just adding one more "powers that be."

It's a layer of bureaucracy that you pay a tax to, that may or may not actually represent your own individual concerns, has elected officials that take money to have a cush job basically just politicking all day.....people falsely assume that unions at all times are these noble infallible bodies that are always good and that companies are always bad. It's like how dems assume republicans are bad and vice versa. The truth is more complicated

..................and you're not doing the same thing by saying the union is the problem?

When the positions are "unions good, corporations bad", and "unions bad, corporations good", the compromise isn't "get rid of unions".

Pontius Pirate
09-25-2012, 03:51 PM
..................and you're not doing the same thing by saying the union is the problem?

When the positions are "unions good, corporations bad", and "unions bad, corporations good", the compromise isn't "get rid of unions".

Yes, the actually body of the NFLRA (not the individual refs, mind you) is vestigial. Two parties = makes sense. Three parties? Does not make sense.

Would only make sense to me if they had a direct link to wages, hours, and working conditions. Unions, to me, make sense in areas where the company is unfairly leveraging their power to pay below market (i.e. where the free market doesn't help the worker; farm unions fit this bill), work employees on hours that are unreasonable based on their power (ATC's fit this bill), or have workers performing work in unsafe conditions - this is really the only area to me where the NFLPA makes sense and, again, the NFLRA makes only tangential sense here.

SonOfLe-loLang
09-25-2012, 04:11 PM
The union is just adding one more "powers that be."

It's a layer of bureaucracy that you pay a tax to, that may or may not actually represent your own individual concerns, has elected officials that take money to have a cush job basically just politicking all day.....people falsely assume that unions at all times are these noble infallible bodies that are always good and that companies are always bad. It's like how dems assume republicans are bad and vice versa. The truth is more complicated

I'm not saying Unions cant be corrupt and power hungry, but thats not reason to ban them. Without them, and i experience this first hand on a daily basis, corps can do whatever the hell they please

peacepipe
09-25-2012, 04:15 PM
Pretty compelling argument. I wonder if that's what Hoculi goes into negotiations with.

you're making the same old BS anti-union argument.

houghtam
09-25-2012, 04:21 PM
Yes, the actually body of the NFLRA (not the individual refs, mind you) is vestigial. Two parties = makes sense. Three parties? Does not make sense.

Would only make sense to me if they had a direct link to wages, hours, and working conditions. Unions, to me, make sense in areas where the company is unfairly leveraging their power to pay below market (i.e. where the free market doesn't help the worker; farm unions fit this bill), work employees on hours that are unreasonable based on their power (ATC's fit this bill), or have workers performing work in unsafe conditions - this is really the only area to me where the NFLPA makes sense and, again, the NFLRA makes only tangential sense here.

Two things:

Number one, and most importantly, how in the world do you figure "the corporation" is one entity and "the individual" is the other? I can see if you were talking about an individual owner negotiating with an individual employee how that would be the case. But we're not. As specifically relates to the NFL, there is no one owner. The refs have every right, and indeed it is in their best interest to unionize because they are not negotiating 1 on 1.

Number two, you mention pay as relates to market. What if there is no market to compare to? Default judgement for the corporation in your opinion, I'm assuming?

The NFL, already the most profitable league of the big four, pays its officials less than MLB, NHL and NBA. That's not exactly a comparable market, but suffice it to say if I'm employed by a very profitable corporation, have a skillset that is in demand and unique, and those at other corporations that are far less profitable than my own, you're damn right I'm going to be pissed. And since the big corporation has the money to simply replace me at a whim if I disagree, it's in my best interest to find everyone who feels the same way and form a union.

Bacillus Anthracis
09-25-2012, 04:25 PM
Edited: I need to read the whole thread before spouting off. Second time today. I'm going home.

errand
09-25-2012, 05:06 PM
We've all yelled at refs in the past. But that is a span of years and years. There's more screw ups in 3 weeks than a decade of real ref blunders

...or are their mistakes being amplified due to the intense scrutiny they're under?

How many games can you actually say these replacement refs have cost an NFL team? Green Bay, sure...ok, that's one. Ed Hochuli himself cost the chargers a game, Bill Leavy and his all-star crew cost the Seahawks a SB win.

The real ref blunders haven't been scrutinized like these replacement refs are.....but honestly, how many times in your NFL watching life have you cursed the refs or claimed the refs sucked prior to this season?

Pontius Pirate
09-25-2012, 05:10 PM
Two things:

Number one, and most importantly, how in the world do you figure "the corporation" is one entity and "the individual" is the other? I can see if you were talking about an individual owner negotiating with an individual employee how that would be the case. But we're not. As specifically relates to the NFL, there is no one owner. The refs have every right, and indeed it is in their best interest to unionize because they are not negotiating 1 on 1.

Number two, you mention pay as relates to market. What if there is no market to compare to? Default judgement for the corporation in your opinion, I'm assuming?

The NFL, already the most profitable league of the big four, pays its officials less than MLB, NHL and NBA. That's not exactly a comparable market, but suffice it to say if I'm employed by a very profitable corporation, have a skillset that is in demand and unique, and those at other corporations that are far less profitable than my own, you're damn right I'm going to be pissed. And since the big corporation has the money to simply replace me at a whim if I disagree, it's in my best interest to find everyone who feels the same way and form a union.

#1 - Employee & Manager = two people.

#2 - The market for refs is whatever the market dictates for the various ref jobs across professional & collegiate sports. NCAA gets about $800-$1,600 per game and NFL refs can make up to $100k a year (for a part-time job). And this isn't even their main source of income - they do it on the side. An even more compelling case for why wages (market) doesn't necessitate a union for refs. Now, sell me a case of someone whose livelihood (i.e. sustaining a living wage) depends on the sole income of the job, and the company knows they have a unique position to offer **** pay, then we can talk about market being important.

And on your point in bold - why does the NFL need to pay the same as the other professional sports? Do NFL refs work as much as NBA & MLB refs? I think not. If they can make a higher earning elsewhere, they should learn that craft and go for those jobs and then the NFL will be forced to up pay. Free market.

Cito Pelon
09-25-2012, 05:12 PM
I heard there's a lot of issues beyond the pension thing. Something about the NFL being able to increase the pool of officials they can draw on, and related to that, the NFL having more laxity in firing officials.

Basically, it's your age-old battle, an entrenched Union that got a wee bit too much power and now the employers want some of that power back. I just sit back and see how it plays out anymore.

brncs_fan
09-25-2012, 05:12 PM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-dsv8SXJghQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

errand
09-25-2012, 05:16 PM
Fine, stop watching. Not enough of you are going to stop watching to even dent the ratings.

Im going to keep watching the same games I always watch. The Bronco games.

Real refs or not, I ****ing love football. And ****ty officiated games is better than no games.

This ^

I'd laugh my ass off if goodell and the owners said -

"OK, since we've been swamped with complaints about how the games are being officiated by players coaches and fans alike, we're suspending the 2012 NFL season until a new CBA can be reached...."

What then people?

Agamemnon
09-25-2012, 05:18 PM
This ^

I'd laugh my ass off if goodell and the owners said -

"OK, since we've been swamped with complaints about the games being officiated by players coaches and fans alike, we're suspending the 2012 NFL season until a new CBA can be reached...."

What then people?

Meh. Another 8-8 season missed out on. Oh noes...

houghtam
09-25-2012, 05:22 PM
#1 - Employee & Manager = two people.

#2 - The market for refs is whatever the market dictates for the various ref jobs across professional & collegiate sports. NCAA gets about $800-$1,600 per game and NFL refs can make up to $100k a year (for a part-time job). And this isn't even their main source of income - they do it on the side. An even more compelling case for why wages (market) doesn't necessitate a union for refs. Now, sell me a case of someone whose livelihood (i.e. sustaining a living wage) depends on the sole income of the job, and the company knows they have a unique position to offer **** pay, then we can talk about market being important.

And on your point in bold - why does the NFL need to pay the same as the other professional sports? Do NFL refs work as much as NBA & MLB refs? I think not. If they can make a higher earning elsewhere, they should learn that craft and go for those jobs and then the NFL will be forced to up pay. Free market.

Or they can unionize, as is their right, and force the NFL to pay up anyway. Free market.

Pontius Pirate
09-25-2012, 05:28 PM
Or they can unionize, as is their right, and force the NFL to pay up anyway. Free market.

Yep, we'll see how it pans out for them. For the rest of free market America, it's a decision that fewer and fewer people are going for.

http://newsjunkiepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Union-percent-1950-2010-442x336.png

SonOfLe-loLang
09-25-2012, 05:32 PM
Yep, we'll see how it pans out for them. For the rest of free market America, it's a decision that fewer and fewer people are going for.

http://newsjunkiepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Union-percent-1950-2010-442x336.png

Uhhhh, its cause they also have been busted at insane rates.

houghtam
09-25-2012, 05:34 PM
Yep, we'll see how it pans out for them. For the rest of free market America, it's a decision that fewer and fewer people are going for.

Hilarious!

If you think decreased union membership is a result of the "decision" of the workforce...you need to go study up on some labor history, bub.

Hilarious!

Pontius Pirate
09-25-2012, 05:38 PM
Uhhhh, its cause they also have been busted at insane rates.

Unions are never "busted" by the company - they are decertified from within. So, they decide to form it and they ultimately decide to end it. Generally that comes from the byproduct of the union having run it's course, gotten the company to do the basics that it wants, and the company proving to the employees that the union is no longer needed.

"Union busting" is generally the tactics the company uses to get to that point - in some cases it's tough tactics like not bending over a strike. Union busting is also the term given to companies that put efforts into preventing the formation of new unions - the optimist wil tell you that the company does this by operating in good fait. The pessimist will tell you that it's the company operating deceptively to outsmart the union organizers at every turn.

houghtam
09-25-2012, 05:52 PM
#1 - Employee & Manager = two people.

This is an incredibly simplified and ignorant statement that doesn't address the realities of the employee manager relationship.

Whom does the manager represent? The corporation. Whom does the employee represent? Him or herself. Not a fair fight, and not a fair comparison, and definitely not "one on one", as I'm sure you know but will for obvious reasons refuse to admit.

Pontius Pirate
09-25-2012, 06:13 PM
Hilarious!

If you think decreased union membership is a result of the "decision" of the workforce...you need to go study up on some labor history, bub.

Hilarious!

Oh, it must've been that companies prevented people from organizing or joining unions? But wait, that would be an NLRA violation.

As a historian of the labor movement in America, can you enlighten me?

Pontius Pirate
09-25-2012, 06:15 PM
This is an incredibly simplified and ignorant statement that doesn't address the realities of the employee manager relationship.

Whom does the manager represent? The corporation. Whom does the employee represent? Him or herself. Not a fair fight, and not a fair comparison, and definitely not "one on one", as I'm sure you know but will for obvious reasons refuse to admit.

Welcome to capitalism.

houghtam
09-25-2012, 06:23 PM
Welcome to capitalism.

Yep. Welcome to capitalism. You're seeing the results on the field.

peacepipe
09-25-2012, 06:57 PM
Unions are never "busted" by the company - they are decertified from within. So, they decide to form it and they ultimately decide to end it. Generally that comes from the byproduct of the union having run it's course, gotten the company to do the basics that it wants, and the company proving to the employees that the union is no longer needed.

"Union busting" is generally the tactics the company uses to get to that point - in some cases it's tough tactics like not bending over a strike. Union busting is also the term given to companies that put efforts into preventing the formation of new unions - the optimist wil tell you that the company does this by operating in good fait. The pessimist will tell you that it's the company operating deceptively to outsmart the union organizers at every turn.

you lying MFer. Ive been part of a unionizing process,and it the corp. who hire union busters.

peacepipe
09-25-2012, 06:59 PM
Welcome to capitalism.

capitalism isn't going to survive.

Pontius Pirate
09-25-2012, 07:02 PM
you lying MFer. Ive been part of a unionizing process,and it the corp. who hire union busters.

Yes, the companies actively campaign to have a union decertified - that's not a secret.

But can they decide that a union ceases to exist? Nope. That's the employees making that choice.

"MFer" - lulz

Pontius Pirate
09-25-2012, 07:03 PM
Yep. Welcome to capitalism. You're seeing the results on the field.

But unions are a sociali.....ah forget it

HAT
09-25-2012, 07:26 PM
Holy crap....its been a long time since I've seen so much ownage in a single thread. Mad rep Pontius

gyldenlove
09-25-2012, 08:30 PM
#1 - Employee & Manager = two people.

#2 - The market for refs is whatever the market dictates for the various ref jobs across professional & collegiate sports. NCAA gets about $800-$1,600 per game and NFL refs can make up to $100k a year (for a part-time job). And this isn't even their main source of income - they do it on the side. An even more compelling case for why wages (market) doesn't necessitate a union for refs. Now, sell me a case of someone whose livelihood (i.e. sustaining a living wage) depends on the sole income of the job, and the company knows they have a unique position to offer **** pay, then we can talk about market being important.

And on your point in bold - why does the NFL need to pay the same as the other professional sports? Do NFL refs work as much as NBA & MLB refs? I think not. If they can make a higher earning elsewhere, they should learn that craft and go for those jobs and then the NFL will be forced to up pay. Free market.

It is in deed the free market, the NFL is not willing to pay what the market is demanding so they have ****ty refs and it is ruining their product.

The market has been set, in this case the best refs available have decided what the minimum price is, the NFL is more than welcome to go higher if they want, but since they have failed to meet that price they are not getting the product.

gyldenlove
09-25-2012, 08:33 PM
I heard there's a lot of issues beyond the pension thing. Something about the NFL being able to increase the pool of officials they can draw on, and related to that, the NFL having more laxity in firing officials.

Basically, it's your age-old battle, an entrenched Union that got a wee bit too much power and now the employers want some of that power back. I just sit back and see how it plays out anymore.

From what I can read out of the sparse news available, the NFL is offering a 2.5% raise in return for a reduction in pension contribution greater than the 2.5% raise, introduction of replacement refs who would be required to fullfil physical tests but would not be guaranteed any games and would only be paid for the games they actually do referee as well as the ability to fire referees during the season based on ambigious quality claims.

It is a tough sell to offer a reduction in total remuneration along with decreased job security - normally in a negotiation you give something to get something.

Cito Pelon
09-25-2012, 09:33 PM
From what I can read out of the sparse news available, the NFL is offering a 2.5% raise in return for a reduction in pension contribution greater than the 2.5% raise, introduction of replacement refs who would be required to fullfil physical tests but would not be guaranteed any games and would only be paid for the games they actually do referee as well as the ability to fire referees during the season based on ambigious quality claims.

It is a tough sell to offer a reduction in total remuneration along with decreased job security - normally in a negotiation you give something to get something.

That's all I've heard also. That bolded may actually be the stuck point. The League is trying to get some new blood into the referee corps. Happens in every industry.

SleepingTiger
09-26-2012, 06:34 AM
But you're hardcore. The majority of NFL fans are casual and they can and will eventually be turned off by a poor product.

i'm not hardcore by any means. i haven't watched any college football in the last 3-4 seasons except for the championship game. I will watch an occasional monday night or thursday night football game IF i don't have anything else planned. I rather spend my day fishing, doing outdoor activities than stay home and watch football. However, i will try to watch every Broncos possible. Being married and having a baby sure changed my priorities in life.

SleepingTiger
09-26-2012, 06:40 AM
The refs don't work "5 hours a week." How ridiculous. They typically work 25 to 30 hours a week, more if you are the head ref. They have to review game tape, make reports to the NFL, they work offseason as well, to get on the same page. They have full time jobs as well, which the NFL wants them to basically quit. Many are business owners, lawyers, judges, even doctors.

Would YOU work without any sort of a pension plan? And that's not even scratching the surface of the real issues behind this.

It's pretty clear from the first few weeks, how much more they do ref, than the people we have reffing right now. They may screw up on occasion, but they control the games. They never seem out of control of a game. They see at the speed of an NFL game - the current refs are slow as hell, they miss so much that is going on. It's why players are getting away with so much.

If they can afford to pay players and coaches the amount they do, they can afford to pony up to get real full time refs, and give them the pension they deserve.

ok, i exaggerated a little when i said 5hrs. it actually close to 36hrs a week for roughly 22 weeks. however, they are paid about $150k per year. for a part time job, that is damn good.

pension plan. fyi, im a contractor and been one for awhile now and i don't have a pension plan. many workers today don't have one. im all about the little guy trying to make it big. but my point in this is that the refs are the blame as well. both side are being greedy. both side wants more and more.

gyldenlove
09-26-2012, 07:59 AM
That's all I've heard also. That bolded may actually be the stuck point. The League is trying to get some new blood into the referee corps. Happens in every industry.

Apparently just this morning they seem to have been able to agree in principle to creating a training program for replacement refs, although it is not clear what will happen to these refs once they are through the program and when they will be ready to take on ref work.

Pontius Pirate
09-26-2012, 12:40 PM
Since this turned into a bit of discussion on the role of unions in the U.S., I thought I'd share this very brief & relevant aside....feel free to tune-out now:

There is this cool new service in select cities right now called Uber. It's basically a GPS-enabled on-demand car service. I love it. I love it because it basically addresses everything I hate about cabs. Namely, that you can request it on your phone without having to call some rude hotline, you see your car coming to you, and the drivers are professional, cars are clean (they are towncars on par with limos) and it's only a bit more expensive than cabs.

Guess who is opposing this? You got it: unions.

http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/26/fcc-chairman-hearts-uber-even-if-he-cant-help/

Doesn't surprise me though. Unions are always going to oppose any innovation that disrupts their racket.

houghtam
09-26-2012, 01:12 PM
Since this turned into a bit of discussion on the role of unions in the U.S., I thought I'd share this very brief & relevant aside....feel free to tune-out now:

There is this cool new service in select cities right now called Uber. It's basically a GPS-enabled on-demand car service. I love it. I love it because it basically addresses everything I hate about cabs. Namely, that you can request it on your phone without having to call some rude hotline, you see your car coming to you, and the drivers are professional, cars are clean (they are towncars on par with limos) and it's only a bit more expensive than cabs.

Guess who is opposing this? You got it: unions.

http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/26/fcc-chairman-hearts-uber-even-if-he-cant-help/

Doesn't surprise me though. Unions are always going to oppose any innovation that disrupts their racket.

Huh. Imagine that. Businesses...trying to protect...their business.

I wonder how much money oil companies spend each year lobbying against green technologies...Hmmmmmmmmm...

BroncoBeavis
09-26-2012, 01:25 PM
I guarantee that this place would be melting down, if the Broncos were the ones playing the Seahawks last night...

That fumble call during the Falcons game was just as bad. Only difference was it wasn't the last play of the game. It was potentially just as game-changing though.

peacepipe
09-26-2012, 03:56 PM
ok, i exaggerated a little when i said 5hrs. it actually close to 36hrs a week for roughly 22 weeks. however, they are paid about $150k per year. for a part time job, that is damn good.

pension plan. fyi, im a contractor and been one for awhile now and i don't have a pension plan. many workers today don't have one. im all about the little guy trying to make it big. but my point in this is that the refs are the blame as well. both side are being greedy. both side wants more and more.

that's their problem,when they retire they are going to wish they had a pension. how many people having a pension has nothing to do with the refs or whoever has a pension. alot of people having a pension is not a requirment for getting a pension.

peacepipe
09-26-2012, 04:00 PM
Yes, the actually body of the NFLRA (not the individual refs, mind you) is vestigial. Two parties = makes sense. Three parties? Does not make sense.

Would only make sense to me if they had a direct link to wages, hours, and working conditions. Unions, to me, make sense in areas where the company is unfairly leveraging their power to pay below market (i.e. where the free market doesn't help the worker; farm unions fit this bill), work employees on hours that are unreasonable based on their power (ATC's fit this bill), or have workers performing work in unsafe conditions - this is really the only area to me where the NFLPA makes sense and, again, the NFLRA makes only tangential sense here.

there are only 2 parties. the refs & the NFL. you can't seperate the 2.

houghtam
09-26-2012, 04:14 PM
that's their problem,when they retire they are going to wish they had a pension. how many people having a pension has nothing to do with the refs or whoever has a pension. alot of people having a pension is not a requirment for getting a pension.

It's a dullard's argument. The sword cuts both ways. Just as one can suggest that if a worker wants a pension he should go find a job where they're offering one, if a company doesn't want to give it up, they're more than welcome to find employees who are willing to work for less. Unfortunately we are seeing the results of what happens when you try to replace highly skilled workers with ****ty ones.

Drunken.Broncoholic
09-26-2012, 04:32 PM
...or are their mistakes being amplified due to the intense scrutiny they're under?

How many games can you actually say these replacement refs have cost an NFL team? Green Bay, sure...ok, that's one. Ed Hochuli himself cost the chargers a game, Bill Leavy and his all-star crew cost the Seahawks a SB win.

The real ref blunders haven't been scrutinized like these replacement refs are.....but honestly, how many times in your NFL watching life have you cursed the refs or claimed the refs sucked prior to this season?

Spotting the ball at the wrong 44 yard line had something to do with a win Sunday. I think they blew the bronco falcon game. the tony carter PI and botched fumble recovery had huge implications on the game. By saying "screw ups" I don't mean a missed hold or missed illegal formation. I mean 4 timeouts in one half. Spotting the ball 20 yards away from its correct spot. Spotting a ball at the 20 when it's downed at the 4. Throwing flags for college fouls. These are blunders that wouldn't happen by real refs.

Pontius Pirate
09-26-2012, 04:48 PM
Huh. Imagine that. Businesses...trying to protect...their business.

I wonder how much money oil companies spend each year lobbying against green technologies...Hmmmmmmmmm...

Wait, so unions are businesses now? Like, they operate with the profit motive? That's interesting - I'll have to remember that. It's good to know that we can treat unions as just another business and therefore they don't need the NLRA & NLRB. Good to know.

Or maybe you meant just the taxicab business is lobbying against Uber - because that'd be false on one hand, or simply a bad business tactic on the other. In fact, Uber is actively seeking out cab companies who want to join forces and the cab companies that are embracing innovation are actually the ones that will survive.

Innovation = good

Fighting change = not so good

ThirtyDegrees
09-26-2012, 05:03 PM
I think it's pretty clear that the referees needed to unionize, anyone claiming otherwise is being ignorant, willfully or otherwise.

The NFL owners were attempting to gain massive and draconian concessions from the referees despite NFL revenues growing something like 7-9% last year. The amount it would take to fully fund the pension fund and keep their promises to the referees amounted to something like $300,000 a year per team.

Note that the referees did not strike, they were locked out. The referees were fine with the status quo, and the NFL owners decided to lock them out in order to increase profits even more than the 7-9% growth they saw last year.

This is pure, unbridled greed.

The owners haven't approached a single labor negotiation in good faith, which makes it hilarious to suggest that they would approach salary negotiations in good faith with individuals.

The referees are protecting the NFL from itself. As we've seen, there is a clear difference in skill level between these trained and experienced officials and the scabs. The referees are simply ensuring that they are paid fair market value for what they provide the NFL: legitimacy.

I guarantee that many of these idiot owners have already lost more money than they would have stood to gain by screwing the union in the first place.

How much did Oakland lose out to DHB's injury? How much will the loss to Baltimore cost the Patriots if they miss out on a home playoff game?

Pontius Pirate
09-26-2012, 05:14 PM
I think it's pretty clear that the referees needed to unionize, anyone claiming otherwise is being ignorant, willfully or otherwise.

The NFL owners were attempting to gain massive and draconian concessions from the referees despite NFL revenues growing something like 7-9% last year. The amount it would take to fully fund the pension fund and keep their promises to the referees amounted to something like $300,000 a year per team.

Note that the referees did not strike, they were locked out. The referees were fine with the status quo, and the NFL owners decided to lock them out in order to increase profits even more than the 7-9% growth they saw last year.

This is pure, unbridled greed.

The owners haven't approached a single labor negotiation in good faith, which makes it hilarious to suggest that they would approach salary negotiations in good faith with individuals.

The referees are protecting the NFL from itself. As we've seen, there is a clear difference in skill level between these trained and experienced officials and the scabs. The referees are simply ensuring that they are paid fair market value for what they provide the NFL: legitimacy.

I guarantee that many of these idiot owners have already lost more money than they would have stood to gain by screwing the union in the first place.

How much did Oakland lose out to DHB's injury? How much will the loss to Baltimore cost the Patriots if they miss out on a home playoff game?

I don't even know where to begin with all the logical leaps you take here. My favorite one is the bold one. That somehow DHB's injury would've been prevented had the NFL come to terms with the NFLRA beforehand. Bravo. Skiers would call that a double-black diamond slippery slope.

ThirtyDegrees
09-26-2012, 05:16 PM
I don't even know where to begin with all the logical leaps you take here. My favorite one is the bold one. That somehow DHB's injury would've been prevented had the NFL come to terms with the NFLRA beforehand. Bravo. Skiers would call that a double-black diamond slippery slope.

Yeah, that's cool. I really don't care what you think anyway because it's pretty clear that you're completely uneducated about anything you've been spouting off in this thread.

Drunken.Broncoholic
09-26-2012, 05:20 PM
Yeah, that's cool. I really don't care what you think anyway because it's pretty clear that you're completely uneducated about anything you've been spouting off in this thread.

Actually he's been pretty thorough in this thread. But since you don't agree with his view he's "completely uneducated"

peacepipe
09-26-2012, 05:27 PM
Actually he's been pretty thorough in this thread. But since you don't agree with his view he's "completely uneducated"actually he hasn't been.

Pontius Pirate
09-26-2012, 05:29 PM
Yeah, that's cool. I really don't care what you think anyway because it's pretty clear that you're completely uneducated about anything you've been spouting off in this thread.

Tied for second in my list of favorite logical leaps from your post are these two doozies:

#1 The owners haven't approached a single labor negotiation in good faith

#2 The referees are protecting the NFL from itself

#1 is funny because it takes an actual legal term under the NLRA and just casually (yet at the same time dramatically) throws it out there as if it's true when, if it was true and the NFLRA (who have lawyers in their ranks) really thought it was happening, could file a complaint with the NLRB and immediately gain leverage. And yet, the NFLRA has filed no such charge - only a charge of "direct dealing" but nothing about good faith

#2 is funny because hyperbole always makes me laugh

colorado jones
09-26-2012, 05:34 PM
How much did Oakland lose out to DHB's injury?

There is not a valid argument that you can make that his injury WOULD NOT of occurred with the regular refs.

Good try tho.

KipCorrington25
09-26-2012, 05:41 PM
Reading what he wrote in both emails, the one in the comments about the Denver/SD incident a few years back I am impressed at what a classy guy he is.

errand
09-26-2012, 06:02 PM
whatever, they have a pension plan and the cash flush nfl wants to terminate it.........maybe you will get treated this way someday......?

regardless there is a significant difference between the replacements and the real ones..............plain as day.

I wonder what kind of pension plan Ed Hochuli's law practice offers his employees?

errand
09-26-2012, 06:06 PM
im not going to stop watching even if the product on the field is bad.


Exactly...the NFL used replacement players in '87 and people still watched the games....and several of those "scab" players actually outplayed their union counterparts. Sean Payton was a "scab" QB for the Chicago Bears...

broncocalijohn
09-26-2012, 06:08 PM
The problem with the NFL not giving into the refs demands (if that is what we are calling it) is that they were not better prepared to give us replacement refs that were somewhat on par to what we see now. This could have been handled last year but of course we also don't have a league like NFL Europe to help these guys along. We all have complained about refs not having this as a full time gig and we think it has affected the product. Of course we now see that the NFL should have been working on this issue years ago not bringing the 21 man workforce they want to implement.
This was a complete **** up by Goodell and owners. If they wanted our sympathy or understanding, they needed to give us a better replacement. They have clearly failed at this notion.

broncocalijohn
09-26-2012, 06:13 PM
Yeah, that's cool. I really don't care what you think anyway because it's pretty clear that you're completely uneducated about anything you've been spouting off in this thread.

I actually think he has been spot on and has answered every question thrown at him. I doubt that makes him "uneducated". Seems he has you in a headlock currently.

errand
09-26-2012, 06:21 PM
The refs don't work "5 hours a week." How ridiculous. They typically work 25 to 30 hours a week, more if you are the head ref. They have to review game tape, make reports to the NFL, they work offseason as well, to get on the same page. They have full time jobs as well, which the NFL wants them to basically quit. Many are business owners, lawyers, judges, even doctors.

So they're rich enough, and should already have retirement plans.....

Would YOU work without any sort of a pension plan? And that's not even scratching the surface of the real issues behind this.

Most part time employees do not get pensions...they are eligible for 401K's in some companies

It's pretty clear from the first few weeks, how much more they do ref, than the people we have reffing right now. They may screw up on occasion, but they control the games. They never seem out of control of a game. They see at the speed of an NFL game - the current refs are slow as hell, they miss so much that is going on. It's why players are getting away with so much.

Agreed with the speed of the game and control being an issue, but they screw up more than "on occasion" all you have to do is go back and read some old gameday threads etc. from the past few seasons and you'll hear numerous people bitching about calls made or not being made....I personally think that these new guys are under more scrutiny because of their inexperience at this level, and that magnifies their blunders.

If they can afford to pay players and coaches the amount they do, they can afford to pony up to get real full time refs, and give them the pension they deserve.

Players and to a lesser extent coaches help generate revenue as a lot of people go to games to see certain players and coaches only...none go to the games to see a ref. And the NFL wants them to be full time refs, but with a 401K that the refs and NFL contribute to, vs. a pension the NFL solely has to contribute to...ponying up for full time refs isn't the issue with the league...it's a deal breaker for the union evidently.




In bold

errand
09-26-2012, 06:29 PM
I believe the referee situation for the NFL would be better if there was not a labor union involved. Free market talent etc. etc.

I.e. instead of having to negotiate with a union to represent all ~150 refs on pay, benefits, hours, working conditions, safety, etc. - just pay wages based on skill (not tenure) and keep the best & fire the rest. Having a labor union in the middle of all that complicates things as they treat the entire labor pool as one entity and individual skill becomes much less important.

I'd argue that labor unions for professional athletes is silly as well BUT I can see how vital their impact is relative to player safety i.e. working conditions.

good points...

food for thought...if any of the union refs called games as poorly as these replacement refs have, the union would prevent the NFL from canning them....what would that mean to the integrity of the game?

errand
09-26-2012, 07:00 PM
I hope they do whatever they need to in order to get the regular refs back. If that means the refs union listens to compromise or the NFL caves, then great.

hopefully they will work it out, but the NFL won't cave unless they see a marked drop in attendance and ratings....too bad, nobody goes to or watches the games for the officials. people thought that NFL would cave in '87...but faced with no paychecks and the NFL continuing the games the players caved.

Personally, I wouldn't blame the refs for upping the ante at this point. They hold all the cards. All of them. Most have regular jobs, and not having this won't hurt them. Public opinion of the NFL will continue to drop as mistakes keep being made. They can wait it out as long as they need to. Or they could walk into the league office tomorrow morning and say, "These are our new demands...have fun!"

Or the NFL could say "what demands? you no longer work for us, remember?"

The NFL holds all the cards....first off the CBA expired, the union refs are no longer employees. the NFL can stay the course and while these replacement refs will make mistakes, they will eventually get better....and not every ref in the union voted for the union...which means some will come back. short of a total boycott by the entire fan base of the NFL, the league will probably stand firm.

The league has no leg to stand on here, and I don't think they'll be willing to wait it out.

Well, we're looking at how many weeks now? 4 preseason and now 4 regular season games? If the union doesn't accept the offer by 8th game...I'm gonna guess the NFL will roll with what they have...and if the races for playoff spots are still close....the fans will still fill the stadiums, because like I stated before...nobody goes to watch the refs, no matter how good they are





In bold

errand
09-26-2012, 07:07 PM
Whoa, I never said the product wasn't affected. I just said no one is going to stop watching. This country loves football too much to just not watch it.

Exactly! the NFL has huge fan base....hell, they're now on 3 nights a week and ratings still remain high. Add in the gameday attendance at the stadiums and all the NFL merch purchased.....they don't have to give into anyone.

errand
09-26-2012, 07:28 PM
It is in deed the free market, the NFL is not willing to pay what the market is demanding so they have ****ty refs and it is ruining their product.

The market has been set, in this case the best refs available have decided what the minimum price is, the NFL is more than welcome to go higher if they want, but since they have failed to meet that price they are not getting the product.


The NFL's product is selling at a record pace...regardless of blown calls. The product isn't ruined.....the officiating is not currently what it use to be (which was mediocre at best in my opinion), but the game still is as exciting as always.

errand
09-26-2012, 07:37 PM
Unfortunately we are seeing the results of what happens when you try to replace highly skilled workers with ****ty ones.

so if these union refs are highly skilled, would you have a problem with the NFL giving them what they want but having the right to fire any ref not worth a ****

How about fining the refs for blown or missed calls?

Sorry but if I was paying someone over $100K a year, I'd expect damn near perfection from them......

RAIDERCZAR
09-26-2012, 07:40 PM
The problem with the NFL not giving into the refs demands (if that is what we are calling it) is that they were not better prepared to give us replacement refs that were somewhat on par to what we see now. This could have been handled last year but of course we also don't have a league like NFL Europe to help these guys along. We all have complained about refs not having this as a full time gig and we think it has affected the product. Of course we now see that the NFL should have been working on this issue years ago not bringing the 21 man workforce they want to implement.
This was a complete **** up by Goodell and owners. If they wanted our sympathy or understanding, they needed to give us a better replacement. They have clearly failed at this notion.

I actually think they knew exactly what they were doing all along. They know the "regular" refs were and are atrocious. They've been hearing it every week for what seems like eternity now.

What better way to show the average fan that it can get worse, MUCH worse, than putting high school/D3/fired lingerie league refs out there to prove their point? Things have gotten so bad that the fans and media completely forget how terrible the regular refs are and begin demanding they bring the morons back in an outrage felt coast to coast.

Meanwhile, they get the added benefit of using the lockout as leverage to shake the ref union down.

Now in a few weeks, people will start getting pissed at the regular refs again for blowing calls left and right just like they used to and the NFL can come back and say "Hey! You demanded we put these guys back in!"

Brilliant

errand
09-26-2012, 07:46 PM
Spotting the ball at the wrong 44 yard line had something to do with a win Sunday. I think they blew the bronco falcon game. the tony carter PI and botched fumble recovery had huge implications on the game. By saying "screw ups" I don't mean a missed hold or missed illegal formation. I mean 4 timeouts in one half. Spotting the ball 20 yards away from its correct spot. Spotting a ball at the 20 when it's downed at the 4. Throwing flags for college fouls. These are blunders that wouldn't happen by real refs.

Fair enough...but you don't think they'll get better as the season progresses?

BTW, the real refs have done some of those things too....all you have to do is go back and read every gameday thread from the past few seasons. Luckett between the 1998-2001 seasons has three MAJOR game changing blunders with the ****ed up coin toss...the Vinny helmet TD, and failing to get out of Joe Horn's way on a sure TD pass....and was involved with the Music City Miracle TD that to this day is controversial as to whether or not it was a lateral or forward pass. And his union thinks he deserves a raise and pension?

Granted that's only one of many...but he is considered "highly skilled" by Houghtam

errand
09-26-2012, 07:52 PM
Note that the referees did not strike, they were locked out. The referees were fine with the status quo, and the NFL owners decided to lock them out in order to increase profits even more than the 7-9% growth they saw last year.




Umm, the CBA expired. That's why they're not working...the NFL owes them nothing.

and the refs generate no income for the NFL. I've yet to meet one solitary fan that watches the game or follows a team for the refs. The stands are filled with player or team jerseys....not zebra stripes. I've never sat down and said "Gee, I hope Ed Hochuli is officiating this week..." and I doubt anyone other than Ed's relatives has said that either.

errand
09-26-2012, 08:02 PM
How much did Oakland lose out to DHB's injury? How much will the loss to Baltimore cost the Patriots if they miss out on a home playoff game?

Well I guess two can play this game.....

How much did the Vikings lose with Adrian Peterson's injury

How much did the Steelers lose with Rashard Mendenhall's injury

What about Demarco Murray of the Cowboys?

And surely you don't think blowing a regular season game is on par with blowing a SB with an all-star cast of union refs.....

DBroncos4life
09-26-2012, 08:27 PM
Errand is to the replacement refs as Beavis is to Tebow