this post was submitted on
402 points (85% like it)
485 up votes 83 down votes
shortlink:

nfl

unsubscribe91,993 readers

322 users here now

National Football League news and discussion

Please read

  1. Please read:
  2. Posting guidelines
  3. How r/NFL works

Rules

DO

DO NOT

  • Post Flamebait. Inflammatory posts designed to alienate or insult a fanbase will not be tolerated and will be removed.
  • Post Meme type images. Go here instead
  • Create threads asking where or how to stream games. Read the FAQ.
  • Submit breaking news without first checking the new tab. Check if there is already a submission concerning said news - duplicates will be removed.
  • Downvote opinions just because you disagree with them. Down votes are for comments that add nothing to the discussion.
  • Discuss politics or religion in any way. Posts/comments about political or religious subjects will be deleted.
  • Post blogspam. We are not here to build your business or make you money. Go somewhere else.
  • Create Fantasy Football posts. Go here instead.

Week 5

Icons link to that team's subreddit.

Time Home @ Away TV
Thu 8:20 PM ARI @ STL NFLN
Sun 1:00 PM MIA @ CIN CBS
Sun 1:00 PM GB @ IND FOX
Sun 1:00 PM BAL @ KC CBS
Sun 1:00 PM CLE @ NYG CBS
Sun 1:00 PM PHI @ PIT FOX
Sun 1:00 PM ATL @ WAS FOX
Sun 4:05 PM SEA @ CAR FOX
Sun 4:05 PM CHI @ JAC FOX
Sun 4:25 PM TEN @ MIN CBS
Sun 4:25 PM DEN @ NE CBS
Sun 4:25 PM BUF @ SF CBS
Sun 8:20 PM SD @ NO NBC
Mon 8:30 PM HOU @ NYJ ESPN

What games are on TV in my area?

Byes:

Team logos

Misc.

Related subreddits

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

401
402

Is this accurate? (imgur.com)

submitted ago by Packershugh_jewnit

all 160 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]Coltsfinallycreatedaname 125 points126 points ago

No there are several issues they are fighting over.

The biggest one they can not agree about is that the NFL wants the officials to be full time employees. Officials want to stay part time. If they become full time, Hochuli would have to quit his job as an attorney and I am sure many other referees have good full time jobs.

The NFL also wants to hire more crew and be able to review and promote and demote easier. The ref union was not want that to happen as easily.

They also are talking about retirement and pension funds.

The salary is one of many talking points. But I believe that amount is right for the salary part but full and part time is the HUGE sticking point.

Edit: Here is a source of what the different points are.
http://sports.blogs.mydesert.com/2012/09/25/do-you-even-know-what-the-nfl-and-officials-are-arguing-about/

Also, I was probably incorrect in saying full and part time is the huge sticking point. It is one of the points but not a huge one.

[–]GiantsProbablyJustArguing 29 points30 points ago

I believe that the NFL isn't asking for ALL refs to be full time, but just a few crews.

Also, I believe the biggest sticking point is the pension/401k thing as well as the extra crews point and not the part time / full time thing.

[–]Coltsfinallycreatedaname 3 points4 points ago

Alright that is fine. It might not be the biggest sticking point but it is one of the issues. I don't really care what the MAJOR issue is. To answer the original question no the money is not the only reason there is a lockout.

[–]GiantsProbablyJustArguing 5 points6 points ago

Well, it's important to know what the MAJOR issue is because all of this shit seems pretty minor to me in the scheme of things. I mean, this season is on its way to being really fucked, and so there comes a point at which the damage is worse than the cost of prolonging these negotiations.

I get negotiations, but it's time to start weighing the damage that's being done.

[–]Coltsfinallycreatedaname 1 point2 points ago

Well the articles I saw listed 4 issues. And the full and part time thing was one of the 4 issues. I would say it is one of the major issues but probably not the biggest.

[–]BroncosMHLewis 0 points1 point ago

Its not that simple. If the NFL just turns around and gives the NFLRA everything it wants then they set a bad precedent and the NFL looks weak. Its business like everything else.

[–]GiantsProbablyJustArguing 0 points1 point ago

Yep, I get that. But sometimes you just lose negotiations. They "beat" the players, but it looks like they'll have to take the loss against the refs. 1-1 isn't bad, but I think they just have to suck it up and take the loss. It's not a make or break thing for them business-wise. I mean, even the highest stakes, with repercussions and all, are not really going to hurt the NFL all that much. They just want to win at this point. It's time to take the loss and move on before more issues start showing up. Imagine if somebody gets really hurt because of the refs, due to action or inaction, what a shit storm that could turn into for the NFL. It's time they just ate shit and took one in the pooper. It's only making them look bad.

[–]JetsiZ_super_fun_time 23 points24 points ago

The NFL also wants to hire more crew and be able to review and promote and demote easier. The ref union was not want that to happen as easily.

Well, this should happen. Bad refs should definitely be demoted.

[–]Coltsfinallycreatedaname 9 points10 points ago

I agree.

People seem to think because I post the refs views I am siding with the refs. Just stating what the differences are.

[–]SeahawksTonkaTruckin 7 points8 points ago

Unfortunately this could easily cause a degradation in the quality of officiating. It is the same argument against merit pay for teachers: if you are constantly fighting for your job, you hedge your bets, are more likely to stick rigidly to the rulebook, and will rarely make a judgement call. I'm not saying these arguments are entirely correct, but they aren't wrong either.

[–]tosss 1 point2 points ago

It seems pretty easy to review a game and say that a ref either made good calls/bad calls/missed calls.

[–]Seahawksstreet954 0 points1 point ago

A union won't let that happen, COME ON MAN!

[–]49erssmileyman 20 points21 points ago

Peter King had a great bit this morning about it.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/09/25/nfl-referee-negotiations/index.html?eref=writers

The refs and the NFL have been in negotiations now for four days (by phone the last three days), and are stuck in several issues. Peter King cites a "league source" (10:1 it's Goodell) who says

One of the emerging and major reasons why a deal has been so elusive, according to the source, is that the NFL is insisting on getting some control of the officials back that it has ceded in past negotiations with the NFLRA.

Control over discipline matters is a huge part of any labor agreement (I've been through a couple, so I know this from experience). Pay is always part of it, but it's almost always more about benefit packages, retirement packages, and discipline matters.

In this case the NFL wants to be able to more easily demote and suspend bad refs, while the NFLRA doesn't want to give the NFL that kind of power. Also the NFL wants to hire three additional crews without guaranteeing that the refs will work 15 games a year, and I'm perfectly understanding of the NFL's position in this.

The NFL should do some damage control and let the public know that it's not about a few million dollars a year in salary, but that it's about more than that.

[–]Chargersaesimpleton 12 points13 points ago

Thank you for explaining it better than I could have. And the NFL absolutely needs to explain their side better; folks are blaming them entirely for this mess because they think the league is trying to save a buck, but the refs are at fault too.

[–]Coltsfinallycreatedaname 3 points4 points ago

absolutely. Refs almost want to be guaranteed pay and to keep their jobs as long as they want even if they (or some of their friends) are not performing well.

[–]Patriotsthedaveoflife 5 points6 points ago

I don't see how that's an unreasonable demand. job security is a huge part of being able to function properly in your position. A major factor in the poor officiating we are currently seeing is probably a lack of security and confidence for the replacement refs.

[–]Redskinshivoltage815 1 point2 points ago

The NFL should have the best refs available. Period.

If there is a superior ref wanting to be hired and an inferior ref still officiating, the NFL should certainly have the right to demote or fire one.

The replacement refs suck because they are extremely inexperienced and are not at the same ability level.

[–]Seahawkscited 0 points1 point ago

If we want the best refs, the best refs should be able to dictate some of the terms. If not, well, have fun with the alternative.

[–]Patriotsbenk4 0 points1 point ago

Too much job security can be a huge part of not functioning correctly though.

[–]Vik1ng 0 points1 point ago

even if they (or some of their friends) are not performing well.

Just look at the current replacement refs. Do you really think the regular refs can just do a shitty job all the time and keep their job? I would say the pressure from the fans is already high enough that every ref is trying to perform the best they can.

[–]GiantsJayK1026 1 point2 points ago

The former players on ESPN and NFL Network are not thinking like businessmen and sadly, they have a bully pulpit on which to shit on League.

The owners are silent because they don't want to draw heat -- they are laying low and hoping that a fair deal is done that will put this issue to rest in the long run -- albiet through some short term turmoil

[–]GiantsJayK1026 8 points9 points ago

The retirement vs. pension one is really key given how every American industry has Fortune 500 companies moving from a defined benefits (pension) to a define contribution plan (401k). The NFL wants to move in that direction as well.

Add to that the fact the the refs want a Pension and want to stay Part-Time, the Owners can't let the officials have their very expensive cake and eat it too.

The issues aren't separate and they are just a microcosm of the Labor Union disputes happening in the medical, teaching, construction, plant-working, etc. industries all across america.

[–]Packersgman243 16 points17 points ago

The biggest problem I have with the pension thing is the refs aren't asking to keep pensions entirely. They just want the current refs to have their pension system grandfathered in. All new NFL officials would have to start in the 401k plan. This seems completely reasonable to me. The NFL can afford to pay the refs pensions and the refs can keep what they were promised all while ensuring that in the next 20-30 years most refs will be in the 401k benefit plan.

The NFL also wants to hire more crew and be able to review and promote and demote easier. The ref union was not want that to happen as easily.

They want to have three backup crews to replace current officials in cases of inconsistency and bad calls (laughable right now). The refs don't want this because they worry for their job security.

[–]BearsI_I_II_III_IIIII 10 points11 points ago

IMO it's not reasonable at all. The NFL has the money, and should offer pensions to all of their employees. 401ks are for the birds. NFL refs as we can see are an elite, talented bunch and the NFL is nothing without its people, same as any other organization, but even more so in a "talent" industry.

[–]Packerschucknorris10101 -1 points0 points ago

Its not necessarily about money, I think the NFL was just concerned for its own people... that these "temporary" employees would end up with better pensions/retirement funds than most of their full time employees

[–]BearsI_I_II_III_IIIII -1 points0 points ago

They certainly shouldn't have better retirement plans than the players. But does that mean the refs should bump down to a bullshit 401k? Hell no. It means the players should be bumped up to a defined benefits pension. It's terrible what happens to a lot of these guys.

[–]Packerschucknorris10101 0 points1 point ago

I dont think it was the players rather the other employees directly for the NFL...IIRC.

But if you are right and it was referring to players then I agree with you

[–]Cowboysniceville 0 points1 point ago

Pensions are absurd when you think about it. Why should the NFL pay people who worked for them 10+ years ago?

[–]49ersBibliolicious 10 points11 points ago

You really have to stop thinking about it as just work.

A person gives their LIFE to a company. Yes, their LIFE. You spend the best hours of your day and best years of your life working for a company. You do not spend it on your children or your spouse, you spend it on the job.

Hell, even when you're not at work, you think about work. And, when your company does well, it is your right as a motherfucking human being to reap the rewards of your company's success for YOUR LIFE.

And for all the people out there who are on a 401 and are angry at people on a pension? Think about it. You shouldn't be angry at pensioners, you should be angry that you're not getting a pension too. Especially when the top dogs of the company you give your life to make more in a month than you will your entire life.

They call it a livelihood for good reason.

[–]49ersvvo 4 points5 points ago

pensions are destructive to the organisations which offer them. in a best case scenario, they're a bad business idea. and, if the organization hits rough times, pensions can kill it. GM is one of many examples of that. currently, there is over 2 trillion dollars in unfunded pension liabilities for government employees across the US (includes states, cities, ect.) that's $2,000,000,000,000. That number doesn't begin to calculate private sector liabilities. 401ks fund themselves through employee contributions, with employer matching when the employer can afford to. if something happens tomorrow and the employer can't match any more, the 401k remains and the employer can stop matching. pensions work differently, with very different regulations.

[–]Vik1ng 4 points5 points ago

First of all you are ignoring that pensions are a major factor in the decision making of people when they have different job offers and also encourages workers to stay with you. Especially and the past when the economy was booming you had to offer something and that can sometimes still be the case when looking for for talented people. If GM wants a good engineer they have to offer him something.

In addition the pensions for the government employees would have to be pays but the government in some way anyway. And if in the end they get some housing and live of foodstamps. The only problem is that some pensions might have been a bit to high in the past.

[–]PackersTinynDP 2 points3 points ago

Companys have learned that a pension is like paying a person for 20-40 more years than they worked, and that is impossible. Having a ton of pensions to pay is like have an anchor around the company's neck. If they want to hire someone, they pay them now, and if they ever part ways, they stop paying. If you want to hire a good engineer now you just offer him more money upfront. You can't promise that the business will always be successful for the next 50 years.

[–]Seahawkscited 0 points1 point ago

Speaking as a unionized engineer, if they want the best, they should be willing to pay for the best. If they don't want to offer something competitive, have fun doing without - and that's exactly what the NFL is seeing right now. No one seems to have a problem with the owners and stockholders with fistfuls of money, but someone who's doing the actual work should have some security for their future too.

[–]49ersvvo 0 points1 point ago

First of all you are ignoring that pensions are a major factor in the decision making of people when they have different job offers and also encourages workers to stay with you.

I'm not ignoring that. if anything, that's a reason why a 401k is better for the worker. it's portable; your pension isn't.

[–]Broncosbananapanther 0 points1 point ago

Is that argument really valid for guys who work once a week for half a year? I highly doubt many refs are giving their life away to be a ref.

[–]Raidersnwow 4 points5 points ago

It's been said before, but NFL refs (and all refs at any level really), work much more than 1 day a week for 6 months. During the week they have meetings, watch game tape and prepare. They also travel and get things set up at stadiums. During the offseason they participate in referee camps, and study new rule changes.

Before they became an NFL ref, they were probably Div I refs, and before that Div II/III refs. Before that they were high school refs, where they did everything they do now (although probably less film time), and got paid perhaps $50 a game. It's said it costs a referee thousands of dollars a year to be a referee until they get to Div I where they're paid a bit more.

In addition to this, these guys are really athletes. They have to workout to keep up with professional football players, and some refs believe they have to look strong (think Hochuli) so as not to look like a pushover (this from an NCAA ref who did an AMA a while back). And all this makes them some of the best officials in the world. This is obvious, because when you have refs who don't do these things, we get these horrendous calls.

So do they give their lives away? Perhaps not like Bib's hypothetical employee does to his hypothetical company, but they do give a significant portion of it. They spent 30 years to make it to the NFL, calling Div III games in the middle of nowhere. And it's now obvious not just anyone can do the job, so pay them (and give them the benefits they want).

[–]Cowboysniceville 0 points1 point ago

You spend a lot of hours at work, and they pay you for those hours. Why should they continue to pay you after you stop working for them?

Are you willing to take a severe paycut to get a pension? I bet a company would be happy to half your current pay if you want a pension for decades after you stop working, but I doubt you would take that deal. You can't have your cake of a competitive paycheck now and eat it after you stop working too.

[–]49ersBibliolicious 0 points1 point ago

Yes. Yes I would. I'd be happy with a paycut for a guaranteed pension. I'm not saying there is nothing wrong with many current pension systems, especially with the systems where one is able to retire in their 50s.

You also have to realize that a lot of people on pension plans are NOT paying into SS and do not receive SS benefits when they retire.

Furthermore many pensioners are actually paying into their pensions. It's not like all of that money is coming directly from the companies pocket.

Also, to receive a full pension you've got to work for a very long time. For example, the company I work for would require me to work there for 50 years to get a full pension.

You can't have your cake of a competitive paycheck now and eat it after you stop working too.

Generally speaking it's below the market rate. You make less with more security. That's what the deal should be. I do realize that sometimes unions ask for too much, but also take into account that sometimes/oftentimes the top is too heavy as well.

[–]GiantsJayK1026 0 points1 point ago

Right but some would argue that you are compensated for your work when you are AT work. And you are given money that you can put away for savings (i.e. defined contribution 401K) without someone providing for you with a defined benefits plan (i.e. current pension)

Sure, I'm mad that i don't get free money through a pension. But I'm in my 20s and have grown up in a world where that is commonplace. I work my ass off at work but don't feel entitled to guaranteed money later in life because I'm saving it now. That's not a knock on people who are pensioners -- it's just that you see the world differently based on the time period you grew up in.

In today's economy, pensions are a dying option and sadly, these referees will have to learn what countless people across America are learning.

[–]49ersBibliolicious 3 points4 points ago

In today's economy, pensions are a dying option and sadly, these referees will have to learn what countless people across America are learning.

Yes, that the rich get richer and the middle class crumbles away to nothing.

[–]Seahawkscited 0 points1 point ago

I don't think people living on pensions are the rich we have a problem with.

[–]PackersTinynDP 1 point2 points ago

Look, I'm a picko liberal too, but pensions are just impossible. They are built on the assumption that a company will always and forever be mega-successful, and will always grow faster than they add pensioners to the books. That simply isn't true. The economy takes a shit for 2-3 years, and said company can no longer afford to both remain in business and pay out 50 years worth of pensions, so it goes bankrupt. Now the pensioners are out of their pension, and the current employees are out of a job. That is lose-lose.

The only sane way for someone to retire is on their own saving, and maybe with Social Security's help. Not to be dependent on a company that could disappear or tank any day.

[–]VikingsLocalMadman -2 points-1 points ago

Look, I'm a picko liberal too, but pensions are just impossible.

You are not a liberal. A liberal wouldn't say this. sigh

[–]49ersvvo -2 points-1 points ago

pensions don't really make anyone richer. employees are much more mobile is the modern economy. even pre-2008, an employee staying with one company for 40 years was an anomaly. pensions sound great while you are collecting one, but for the worker they're much more like owing the 'company store' since you can't take it with you to another job. you may be forced to sit in a low level position with less pay just to get to your pension. if your company fails and the government has to take over the pension fund, your payout may change drastically.

for a company, funded pension liability is like a giant stone around its neck. unfunded pension liability means it was just pushed off the boat with that stone around its neck. so, it's something that economically hamstrings the employer, and severely restricts the employees work options. they just don't make sense anymore, and haven't for the last 40 years or so.

[–]Vik1ng -1 points0 points ago

Right but some would argue that you are compensated for your work when you are AT work.

But then your work would also have to pay that much more. NFL refs aren't a good example here, but otherwise you are in a free market and if one company offers you $2000+Pensions and the other just $2000 then it's pretty easy to figure out where people will start to work or which company will be able to select the better workers.

[–]PackersTinynDP 0 points1 point ago

Imagine an organize paying 100 current employees, but 300 pensions being paid out. That's completely unreasonable. Your company is entirely upside down. That is why every single company is moving away from pensions to 401K's. If you feel you gave your life to a company, then you done fucked up, because that's ridiculous. The company could go bankrupt and disappear, and you still want to depend on a pension?

[–]49erssmileyman 0 points1 point ago

The biggest problem I have with the pension thing is the refs aren't asking to keep pensions entirely. They just want the current refs to have their pension system grandfathered in.

Source? Nothing I've read suggests that this is the case.

[–]Packersgman243 2 points3 points ago

According to NFLRA sources, offers have been made to grandfather in the existing referees and have the new ones on 401(k) plans, which a source briefed on the negotiations said the league found "untenable", given the climate of the American economy.

From NFL.com

Last week, the referees union offered to grandfather current referees into the pension plan, while new hires would receive the 401(k).

From Wall Street Journal

[–]Seahawkscited 2 points3 points ago

climate of the American economy.

The NFL sure seems like it's just scraping by.

[–]Packersgman243 0 points1 point ago

Considering their whole strategy is "you still watch, we still make money" it's funny they're trying to say "we don't want to pay you, because everyone else isn't making as much money."

[–]Coltsfinallycreatedaname 11 points12 points ago

Random but always curious. Why is the saying have your cake and eat it too? What the hell else are you going to do with cake!?

Yeah there are several issues bigger than just the amount they get paid.

[–]GiantsJayK1026 19 points20 points ago

Haha i think have means you want to "preserve the whole cake as a whole, untouched cake" AND "consume said cake" at the same time. So what you want, is magic cake that you can eat all you want but it never actually goes away.

Source

[–]Packersppfnagain 7 points8 points ago

Man, thank you. This saying has always confused me.

[–]Coltsfinallycreatedaname 1 point2 points ago

But an endless supply of cake would make you sick. Very sick. I would not want an endless supply of cake.

[–]CowboysRachelRTR 1 point2 points ago

Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing, like a giant cookie.

[–]BrownsNieless1 0 points1 point ago

Doesn't matter, the cake is a lie...

[–]PatriotsIsuzuBellet 0 points1 point ago

I read that as 'like a giant nookie.'

[–]joebacca121 0 points1 point ago

When you eat your cake, you no longer have it.

[–]Coltsfinallycreatedaname 0 points1 point ago

So shouldn't the saying be you can eat your cake and have it to? The phrase first says have and then eat. Of course you have cake if you are going to eat it.

[–]joebacca121 -1 points0 points ago

You must first have cake in order to eat it, so no.

[–]Coltsfinallycreatedaname 1 point2 points ago

Right which goes to my original question. What else are you going to do with cake if you have it?

If the assumption is you don't want it to disappear while eating then it should be eat your cake and have it too. (sounds stupid)

[–]PackersIamchrisbrown209 0 points1 point ago

Maybe it should be, " you can eat your cake and have it too"

[–]Coltsfinallycreatedaname 1 point2 points ago

That's what I suggested but was told no.

[–]joebacca121 0 points1 point ago

It doesn't matter what you want to do with the cake when you have it. It just means you can't eat your cake and still have it after.

Thinking about it this whole argument seems rather silly.

[–]Coltsfinallycreatedaname 0 points1 point ago

I agree very silly.

[–]Jaguarsd-listcelebrity 0 points1 point ago

It has to do with ornate wedding cakes. They're so well made that you want to be able to keep it, but you also want to eat it because it's cake!

So if you eat it, you can't show off the cake, and if you keep it to show it off, you can't eat it. Quite a pickle.

[–]PatriotsIsuzuBellet 0 points1 point ago

Pickle? I thought we were talking about cake. Now I'm confused.

Hmmm, could give me an in on a new job wearing cool striped shirts.

[–]Coltsiownacat 0 points1 point ago

You mean moved, almost nobody still gets pensions but these entrenched unions. Hence the issue, as management sees it.....

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

Does the NFL not understand that if they want the refs to work full time they have to pay them more?

[–]PatriotsChewyIsThatU 38 points39 points ago

It's not about money. It's about control.

[–]Packersgggjennings 15 points16 points ago

The above post is only halfway to the point. By becoming full-time employees, the referees would have to go with the new NFL retirement plan, a 401k. They are currently on pensions, which is guaranteed money upon retirement. 401k is not guaranteed, and presents a significantly lower risk than a pension.

These refs, including people like Ed Hochuli who've opted to choose the NFL pension plan as their retirement plan over the plans from their full-time positions, would have to completely break the retirement package they've been depending on and reinvest it at a pretty huge tax penalty.

[–]GiantsJayK1026 0 points1 point ago

Never thought about the tax implications but you are right. Someone will get screwed out of money... they just need to make it so that both sides feel some of that in fair proportion.

[–]InSipiDSkY 5 points6 points ago

They do understand that. Getting the Refs to be fulltime is the issue. They already make like $149k average a year for 60-80 days of work. No wonder they don't want to work full time.

[–]gothams_reckoning 9 points10 points ago

They do understand that. Getting the Refs to be fulltime is the issue. They already make like $149k average a year for 60-80 days of work. No wonder they don't want to work full time.

That $150K is for guys with 10-15 years experience...newbies make maybe $60-70K.

To put in perspective...it's like trying to convince a consultant who bills at $200 an hour to come join your company...sure he'll have to take a pay cut, and his retirement plan will be reduced...but at least he'll get to take a paycut.

The NFL wants to lock these guys as full time employees, but also cut their pay and reduce their pension.

The NFL thought the replacement refs wouldn't be that bad and that they could break the Refs. But unlike the players...refs (like ed hoculi, who is worth like $10-15 million) need the job like they need another hole in their head.

[–]seamouse 3 points4 points ago

How is it a pay cut? They want to hire a few full time refs, but they're not making them all full time, and in fact hey're upping the pay by nearly $40k.

Some of the referees are very skilled, and others make some botched calls, but as we've seen, they're miles above the replacements. But they are heavily rewarded for their skill --- $190k for a part time job is crazy, and even if a few of them work full time and they get 401k, it still seems like they're being valued as a resource.

I suppose the only thing I'm not clear on is the hiring of three other full crews of officials. They're reporting that they'd get a pay raise, but if the three other crews are going to split time to give them rest (they would do this as well as be replacements if officials do poorly), I'm not sure how that would go about without taking heavy pay cuts for every game that someone switches out for. This is the part that doesn't make sense, because on one hand, you have people upset that they would be going full time, but on the other, it seems like some would be even more part time.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points ago

What would they do during the off-season? Train? lol

[–]InSipiDSkY 7 points8 points ago

Yeah actually. One of the problems the NFL has with the current refs is that some are severely out of shape. The fact is they could use their time to practice and learn more scenarios. The rulebook is giant and always changing. The Refs would only get better with more time dedicated to the game. The would probably get time off like everyone else does in the off season.

[–]ChargersBronan_the_Brobarian 0 points1 point ago

They would probably have the refs assigned to each team during training camp and watching them do drills.

[–]49erssmileyman 2 points3 points ago

Actually yes. Plus do more film study. Work together to make sure that all the ref crews are on the same page when it comes to calling rules. Have meetings with the NFL competition committee and safety committees as well as Goodell so that the refs are fully up to date on what the NFL wants out of them.

[–]Chargersjbm91 0 points1 point ago

I really wished that the NHL ref labour dispute would set a precedent for this dispute but it seems it has not. Link about it here I understand that the nfl and nhl seasons are very different but I thought that one dispute being worked out would set the precedent I guess not.

[–]Lionslernington 0 points1 point ago

Thank you for this

[–]ColtsJinno 1 point2 points ago

I believe the reason that Full Time is a sticking point is because there's no proposed increase in pay to go with it.

[–]Eaglesjdol06 12 points13 points ago

If Andy Richter felt the need to RT it, thats enough for me.

[–]NFLwendelgee2 7 points8 points ago

$62k/team is the difference per team between what the union is demanding and the NFL is currently offering.

[–]PatriotsDunDerD 7 points8 points ago

I am calling bullshit on that stat. No way people are buying that many pretzels at games.

[–]LionsFireReadyAim 6 points7 points ago

The big-ass 2lb pretzels at Ford Field are $15 (the only thing I could find with a quick Google search), if a regular soft pretzel costs about half that, they need to sell approximately 8860 pretzels. If Ford Field is sold out, that's one pretzel for every 7 people, and every person who buys the victory knot counts for two. Seems believable enough.

[–]BearsNo_Pepper 3 points4 points ago

That pretzel sounds fucking amazing.

As long as there's plenty of hot mustard to go around, that is.

[–]LionsFireReadyAim 4 points5 points ago

I'll do you one better. It comes with hot mustard, cheese, and cinnamon butter.

http://laist.com/attachments/la_zach/dodgers-victory-knot.jpg

[–]VikingsLocalMadman 3 points4 points ago

As long as there's plenty of hot mustard to go around, that is.

UGH, REALLY?!?

You gotta have nacho cheese with that! C'mon! Hot mustard grumble grumble

[–]BearsNo_Pepper 0 points1 point ago

You're welcome.

[–]BroncosDeric 0 points1 point ago

But they are so darn good.

[–]PackersMaximumDestruction 13 points14 points ago

Come on guys! There seems to be a basic misunderstanding of economics.

If the refs get what they are asking it isn't going to raise the price of beer or pretzels at a game. Those concessions and the price of tickets etc. are %100 a product of how much people are willing to pay. The contract of a new player or the cost of the stadium have zero to do with demand. Demand and supply = price.

The argument that the refs are greedy is laughable. The NFL owners are subsidized at every turn by taxpayers and are rich beyond any of our dreams. They can afford this easily. It is a question of control and power and the lockout is an abuse of both.

[–]Packerspackerfanforlife -2 points-1 points ago

Higher salary does shift the supply curve down however. Probably not by much, but it will mean higher prices nonetheless.

[–]Bearsusernamecharlie 1 point2 points ago

I agree and disagree. It will not impact prices. The monetary change here is miniscule. There would be more of an impact based on salary cap numbers of individual teams than there would with referee pay being increased. Even their retirement/401k benefits are a drop in the bucket. The NFL is a multi-billion dollar industry EVERY YEAR. The owners can absolutely afford to pay the referees what they want, give them full retirement benefits and leave them as part-time employees. There are tons of part-time employee retirement and benefit programs out there with various companies. The NFL can afford to do this as well.

My opinion is that the owners are completely in the wrong here. They might as well give in to the referees demands because they are so inconsequential to the big picture.

[–]Seahawksakurei77 7 points8 points ago

The $62k matches what I've heard, but I can't find a source (I hear it mostly on the radio). I can't find a source with any info on concessions sales with a quick search, though. You should ask him for his, see if he's just blowing hot air.

Assuming an average of $7 per pretzel, though, that would only require around 9,000 of them to be sold each game. Seems doable.

[–]Jetspdpgti 0 points1 point ago

Think about it this way:

Say you have a multi-billion dollar company, such as Wal-Mart. There are going to be two types of employees. The highly-paid, hard to replace executives (CEOs, CFOs, VPs, etc) and the low-paid, replaceable employees (cashiers, guards, store managers, etc).

If this company starts making a lot more money, the executives are able to ask for more money. This is generally because the quality of their work is directly tied to the company's profits. If an executive does really good work, then on average, Wal-Mart makes a lot more money. If an executive suddenly leaves, the company's profits are going to suffer.

Compare that to the other end of the spectrum. No matter how much money Wal-Mart makes, a cashier can never say they want a cut of the profits. Their cashiering ability does not effect Wal-Mart's end product in any important way.

That's what this whole ref lockout boils down to. The NFL (wrongly) thinks that the refs should be treated along the lines of the grunt workers. That since most other part-time workers don't get pensions, the refs shouldn't either.

The NFL is wrong. The refs aren't in the same class as the ball-carriers and the ticket vendors. You can't try to treat the refs like other part-time workers. Other part-time workers don't drastically screw-up your product when they don't show up for work. Ball carriers and ticket vendors can all be replaced in a few days. You try to replace the refs and... Well, you all saw what happened.

[–]VikingsLocalMadman 4 points5 points ago

If this company starts making a lot more money, the executives are able to ask for more money. This is generally because the quality of their work is directly tied to the company's profits. If an executive does really good work, then on average, Wal-Mart makes a lot more money. If an executive suddenly leaves, the company's profits are going to suffer.

This is a bullshit argument. It's the laborers who make a company a success. Executives just leech all the money to themselves.

Source: Wal-Mart associate for 5 years. You have NO IDEA how stupid upper management is.

[–]Patriotskey_lime_pie 0 points1 point ago

Grunt workers who get paid an average of $149,000 annually for a part time job and also receive full medical benefits along with both 401(k) and pension plan benefits for said part time job? And who refuse to go full time because they make more money in their other full time jobs?

[–]BearsStooby 1 point2 points ago

And the players they are standing next to are making millions per year for their "part-time" job because they are the best in the world at that job. The refs are the best in the world at their job too. It isn't an easy job. They aren't easily replaceable. And the value of good officiating is at least equal to the value of a good player.

And while the refs may officially be "part-time" it isn't a one day a week thing for them. It is a real job.

[–]Patriotskey_lime_pie 1 point2 points ago

The refs are the best in the world at their job too.

Agreed.

It isn't an easy job.

Agreed.

They aren't easily replaceable.

Agreed.

And the value of good officiating is at least equal to the value of a good player.

That's where you lost me. Having NFL referees coach high school games wouldn't increase the quality of a high school game. Having high school players play NFL games would dramatically decrease the quality of the NFL game. The players constitute probably close to 95% of the value of the NFL, if not more.

And while the refs may officially be "part-time" it isn't a one day a week thing for them. It is a real job.

It's more than one day a week, but it's not much more than that. Otherwise these guys wouldn't be lawyers and dentists and things of that nature on the side. This is a side business for them. They do it for the prestige of it, and they do it for the ancillary cash that goes along with it. This is not a job that they need. They aren't putting food on the table with their refereeing gig.

[–]BearsStooby 0 points1 point ago

That's where you lost me. Having NFL referees coach high school games wouldn't increase the quality of a high school game. Having high school players play NFL games would dramatically decrease the quality of the NFL game. The players constitute probably close to 95% of the value of the NFL, if not more.

And yet we can see the damage done by bad officials. It tarnishes the NFL image much more than a WR that has bad hands that somehow made it onto an NFL roster.

It's more than one day a week, but it's not much more than that. Otherwise these guys wouldn't be lawyers and dentists and things of that nature on the side. This is a side business for them. They do it for the prestige of it, and they do it for the ancillary cash that goes along with it. This is not a job that they need. They aren't putting food on the table with their refereeing gig.

They spend considerably more than one day a week on officiating. Whether or not they have another job is irrelevant to the discussion of what their value is to the NFL. The only role it plays in the discussion is in the lay people that are jealous of how successful these NFL referees are. It is pointless. Yes, we all wish we could make that much money in a side job, but we also aren't the best in the world at what we do.

Is there value in good officiating? Yes. Does the NFL need good officiating? Yes. Can they afford to provide everything that the officials want? Yes. Does the NFL need the officials more than the officials need the NFL? Yes. Clearly, the referees are not being irresponsible with their requests.

[–]Seahawkscited 0 points1 point ago

If you want the best, you pay for the best. If you think those refs aren't worth 150k a year, we can keep these replacements.

[–]Patriotskey_lime_pie 0 points1 point ago

Not only do I think they're worth $150K, I think they're worth $190K, which is the pay raise that the NFL has already proposed. I'd even say they're worth $250K any maybe more. But I also think that their demands are unreasonable, because I believe that referees from formerly-AQ Division-I conferences would do just as good a job as those currently in the NFLRA given half a season or so of seasoning to get familiar with the rule changes between college and the NFL. Remember that these replacement refs aren't the best available options outside of the NFLRA. They are the only guys that the NFL was able to get - many of them haven't refereed a game above D-III.

[–]Seahawkscited 0 points1 point ago

I assumed there was a reason that the NFL picked up the referees that it did instead of quality college officials.

[–]Patriotskey_lime_pie 1 point2 points ago

Many refs refused simply because they didn't want to cross picket lines. A good number of referees refused because they hope to one day become NFL referees, something that cannot happen if they cross the picket line. Others didn't because there was no guarantee as to how long they would be employed as NFL referees, and opting to be cross the picket line would have forced them to leave the crews they were already assigned to. Furthermore, many of the NFL referees are also involved in an administrative capacity at the collegiate level and are responsible for assigning referees to games. A scab from, say, the SEC who returned to the collegiate ranks after the strike might find himself excluded from big games because the person who assigns crews to games is a disgruntled NFL ref. These D-II and D-III don't believe that there are any real repercussions to doing NFL games and have no qualms crossing the picket line, so they were the ones that ended up as replacements.

[–]Jetspdpgti 0 points1 point ago

That's exactly the point I was making. They're NOT grunt workers. They may work part-time, but judging by the quality of the games the past few weeks, they're nearly as irreplaceable as the players.

[–]jwmojo 2 points3 points ago

This is just flat out untrue. Right now, according to what I've read, the biggest sticking point is pensions. The last labor deal included pensions, the refs want to keep them, the NFL wants to get rid of them.

My gut instinct has been to blame the NFL for this, and I do still think they deserve a healthy chunk of our ire, but then I realized that when we're talking about pensions, we're not just talking about retirement plans. The NFL is offering 401k plans, they want to do away with the literal, actual pensions that are in the deal.

Who the hell gets pensions anymore? No one, that's who. Except for part time refs in the NFL, because that's a reasonable demand. Come on, be serious.

As for the full time/part time thing, the NFL wants 7 full time zebras, one at each "position," because they believe it will help improve the overall quality of the officiating. The NFLRA seems to understand that, and I don't think that's actually a sticking point at all.

[–]rabidpenguin[!] 2 points3 points ago

I don't think that number is correct. That would mean each team only sells about 15 pretzels each game.

[–]Broncosmorlakai 0 points1 point ago

i went to a SF giants game, 9 dollar fuckin beers

highway robbery man T_T

[–]rabidpenguin[!] 0 points1 point ago

Yeah, AT&T park is crazy expensive. I once tried to order a white russian and the lady said that they weren't allowed to sell mixed alcohol at the park but that they COULD sell me the liquors separately and then mix it. Being the drunk idiot I was, I agreed and drank a $22 white russian.

I don't know if she fucked me or if it is in fact their policy, but when I got back to my seat I realized that I could have just said no...

[–]Chiefsmannpt 1 point2 points ago

I'm getting an extra pretzel on Sunday.

[–]Coltsiownacat 0 points1 point ago

Its not about money.

[–]tokeacola 1 point2 points ago

If that's true, it's absolutely disgusting. 62k is pocket change to the nfl executives and players, there's no excuse to not give the referee union what it wants.

This country's relationship with unions has gone to shit ever since Reagan fired the entire air traffic control. From a political standpoint, I'm glad to see the nfl tanking like this; it's just what union labor needs. Unfortunately, it's come at the cost of fans, players, etc.

[–]GiantsJayK1026 1 point2 points ago

I mean there is an alternative. The NFLPA helps pitch in some money out of a slushfund for the NFL Referee Union. If they really want the lockout ended, and the owners wont do it because the financial onus isn't on them... let's see the players help chip in for the NFL Referee Pension Plan.

I think it is very easy to vilify one side or another over a single issue. The $62K is pocket change, I agree. But out of whose pocket?

Side note: Players can ask the league to "Pay The Refs" all they want but it's the 31 (and Packer Shareholders) owners who have to foot the bill. Those same owners pay the players salary. Why don't all the players take a cut from their pot to help cover the difference.

Just a contrarian view to help shed light on the complexity of this issue. Neither side's hands are clean in this matter but because one side is viewed as having more power than another, it becomes easy for us to vilify.

[–]tokeacola 2 points3 points ago

I agree with you, if the owners don't want to pay it, the players could easily step up and pay just as easily. You've got individual players on almost every team in the NFL making upwards of 10mil, so an entire TEAM could easily raise the funds.

It depends on whom the officials are turning to for their pay. If owners have always paid them, that's who they're going to ask.

The $62K is pocket change, I agree. But out of whose pocket?

Owners like Dan Rooney, who also is the ambassador to Ireland. Seriously. There's no excuse for these financial elite to not pay up, when the honor of the sport they live off of is in jeopardy.

[–]BuccaneersRB94 -2 points-1 points ago

There's no an excuse for these financial elite to not pay up, when the honor of the sport money they live off of is in jeopardy.

[–]tokeacola -2 points-1 points ago

Except none of them, nor their families, need that 62k to live. The officials, on the other hand, might need it.

[–]ChargersBronan_the_Brobarian 1 point2 points ago

The officials themselves make plenty. They aren't some poor folks who break their backs judging NFL games. I'd say with their salaries, and given that they only work part of the year and have full time jobs on top of that, the poorest ref in the NFL probably makes at least 6 figures.

[–]Bearsfelix_dro 0 points1 point ago

I think they make 150,000 a year just for reffing, on top of what they already make. I'm not siding with the owners though, they probably make over 100 times that.

[–]Eldilia 2 points3 points ago

the owners wont do it because the financial onus isn't on them...

You're implying the burden of a safe and fair work environment doesn't lie with the owners.

That seems very wrong.

[–]PackersTinynDP 0 points1 point ago

Safety has nothing to do with refs. No ref was going to stop Mays from clobbering Schaub. Safety in the NFL comes from some players not giving a shit if they kill other players. Flags or fines and just band-aids on that problem.

[–]Eldilia 0 points1 point ago

Absurd argument. Remove referees completely: does the game become more or less safe? If we agree with your premise, we must conclude that there will be no change.

That seems very wrong.

[–]PackersTinynDP 0 points1 point ago

No, it means different change. Flags aren't enough, or players would have learned to stop these shit decades ago. Suspend Mays for a year for that hit on Schaub, and see if unsafe hits don't stop in a hurry.

[–]Eldilia 0 points1 point ago

I think you've misunderstood.

Safety has nothing to do with refs.

If we take your premise at face value then we should expect player safety under the current rules to be unchanged if we remove the refs completely.

By suggesting suspension for Mays, you're introducing an effective change in rules, a variable entirely unrelated to your original assumption.

If we stick to your original assumption, and look at the case where we remove referees completely, then player safety ought to be unchanged.

As I said, this is absurd.

[–]PackersIamchrisbrown209 1 point2 points ago

How great would it be if one of these owners stepped up and said he would foot the bill himself. Most any of them can certainly afford it. And the great PR for his team would be worth it.

Now that would be awesome.

I'd do it, but I'm a lowly Packers owner with a grand total of 2k in my bank account.

[–]GiantsJayK1026 0 points1 point ago

Yeah but let's be realistic. The NFL is one of the few leagues where collusion is not only allowed by actually part of the overarching business model. The "owners union" will not step away from that at the risk of alienating fellow owners.

These guys need each other for things like new stadium construction (where the other 31 teams help the builder with a loan). Imagine if Art Blank of the Falcons came out and said "I'm your savior referees. Here, have your millions in salary and pensions annually"... the cost for making the other guys look bad will mean no votes when he wants a new Atlanta stadium.

This is just one example of how the 32 teams colluding is the modus operandi of the NFL. They share their goals and their revenue so no one will dare step a toe out of line. If you want a temporary panacea, maybe the NFLPA is a place to turn... but those guys love their $$ as much, if not more than the owners they are afraid to criticize.

[–]Packerslucentcb 1 point2 points ago

The number I read was $200,000 a team, but it's still nothing compared to the revenue they're bringing in.

[–]Coltsrazpotim -3 points-2 points ago

Both sides are being complete and utter arseholes, and no matter what it should be set aside until the offseason, because this way, everyone loses, especially the NFL.

There doesn't have to be that many people who stop watching and stop buying merch for this to be the worst thing ever to happen to professional football from a business standpoint.

[–]NFCduxup -5 points-4 points ago

Naw man rich dudes had to buckle under to the players union... now they have to stick it to someone so hey refs union!

Unfortunately they brought a wet noodle to break them with...

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 28188 on app-205 running cd44a23.