DrDawkinstein Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 How about "Ref Labor Dispute"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) As a profit-oriented private sector business, the NFL has the ability to improve it's on-field product for its paying customers. IMO, it's silly to spend $165,000 a year on guys who aren't full-time employees and treat Sunday's like a hobby, since the list of candidates willing and able to do the job--as well as anything else the NFL would ask them to do 200 other days of the year--is at least a mile long. The NFL's product seems to be doing quite fine despite the insistance of some that the officiating is a grave threat to the future of the league. I don't understand the 'full-time' thing either. So they make $165,000 either way, but you just insist they spend 200 days a year watching tape or officiating practices? I don't really see how that improves performance on game day. How about "Ref Labor Dispute"? How about "On the internet people will get their panties in a bunch over absolutely anything" Edited June 7, 2012 by KD in CT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 The NFL's product seems to be doing quite fine despite the insistance of some that the officiating is a grave threat to the future of the league. I don't understand the 'full-time' thing either. So they make $165,000 either way, but you just insist they spend 200 days a year watching tape or officiating practices? I don't really see how that improves performance on game day. It's the same line of thought behind the NFL's requirement that refs have a certain amount of prior experience. The more you do something, the more your brain is used to seeing it, analyzing it, and reacting to it... the better you will be. Same reason why players practice. Have you ever noticed in the beginning of the football season, it takes your "fan eyes and brain" a little while to get used to the speed of the game again? By the end of the season, you're catching things in real time that you might not have seen at the opener. Now apply that to the refs. If you are spending 8 months a year doing something completely different (lawyer, accountant, etc) and then have to come back, it takes a while to get back into the swing of things. Just like it does for the players when they come back to camp. Same reason they start early with these OTAs and what not. Keeping your body and mind immersed in the game. If you give the refs an opportunity to see more action, discuss the rules more, etc., then there is a better chance their ability to react to what they are seeing in the game improves. Right now, it's not only the blown calls, but the inconsistency of how the games are called, which is hurting the game. Is it going to prevent or "cure" all bad calls? Of course not. But they should be striving towards perfection. Tom Coughlin isnt saying "Well, even though we went 9-7, since we won the Super Bowl, we don't need to improve anything for next year". How about "On the internet people will get their panties in a bunch over absolutely anything" Ha! Very, very true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
please stop the pain Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Where do I sign up for the part time job that pays $50,000 a year?????? With expenses???? Summers off??? Poor bastards. My part time job only pays $10.50 an hour.. Poorer me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
widerightradio Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Have you ever noticed in the beginning of the football season, it takes your "fan eyes and brain" a little while to get used to the speed of the game again? By the end of the season, you're catching things in real time that you might not have seen at the opener. Now apply that to the refs. If you are spending 8 months a year doing something completely different (lawyer, accountant, etc) and then have to come back, it takes a while to get back into the swing of things. Just like it does for the players when they come back to camp. Same reason they start early with these OTAs and what not. Keeping your body and mind immersed in the game. If you give the refs an opportunity to see more action, discuss the rules more, etc., then there is a better chance their ability to react to what they are seeing in the game improves. Right now, it's not only the blown calls, but the inconsistency of how the games are called, which is hurting the game. You're assuming that calls at the beginning of the year are worse than calls at the end of the year. That the refereeing in the NFL is worse than the referring in other professional sports. And that there are no costs to mandating that all referees be employed full-time by the NFL. This may be true, but there's no evidence that calls improve over the course of the year or that NFL referees are worse than other professional sports. I think the idea that referees must only do refereeing in order to be the best is also flawed. Smart, talented people often do many things. I think there's an open question as to whether you would see a drop in talent if you made NFL referees full-time as they might chose their other job over being an NFL referee. You might say "good riddance," but those might be your best referees. Perhaps the NFL should implement a pilot program with one team of referees employed full-time then see if they were statistically more accurate during the year. Improvements in referring will mostly come from technology. You could probably set up cameras trained on 10-15 areas of the field with referees watching both on a video screen and on the field. Integrate sensors into football players' gear so that sideline toe-tap calls and ball advancement were mostly computerized. I think most fans like the human element of referring. We like having someone to blame. We like the appearance of fairness tinged with randomness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
please stop the pain Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 2 things: First if it is a union, than no way in hell will they agree to performance-based evaluations. Second; I am really excited about the coming year and have high hopes for the Bills this year. I would really appreciate it if all problems are resolved in the off season. third of two: I wonder if replacement refs could be bribed. Could they use refs from the lingerie football league. (only if they were scantily-clad buxom women!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 It's the same line of thought behind the NFL's requirement that refs have a certain amount of prior experience. The more you do something, the more your brain is used to seeing it, analyzing it, and reacting to it... the better you will be. Same reason why players practice. Have you ever noticed in the beginning of the football season, it takes your "fan eyes and brain" a little while to get used to the speed of the game again? By the end of the season, you're catching things in real time that you might not have seen at the opener. Now apply that to the refs. If you are spending 8 months a year doing something completely different (lawyer, accountant, etc) and then have to come back, it takes a while to get back into the swing of things. Just like it does for the players when they come back to camp. Same reason they start early with these OTAs and what not. Keeping your body and mind immersed in the game. 8 months off? How do you explain refs attending training camps, officiating scrimmages & preseason games? Again, most of the "bad calls" are made on plays that take a split second to decide. No amount of video watching in the spring will prepare you to judge whether a toe straddled the endzone line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OhiosGJ Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Why not just pay them full time and be done with it? NFL makes billions... give me a break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 The NFL's product seems to be doing quite fine (Took two asprine and my head feels much better) Is "fine" a standard that can't be improved on? Accepting that officiating is as good as it can be "because full-timers won't be any better" seems to fly in the face of virtually all historic evidence surrounding the pursuit of excellence, whether it be athletic, scientific, legal, medical, management, etc. Now if the argument is "officiating is good enough," that's another thing. However, we'll never know if that's true because we'll avoid change and everything should continue to work out fine (sounds like the official motto of the City of Buffalo, doesn't it?). Finally, I'd amicably point out that the posters who seem to have their panties most wadded up are those defending the status quo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (Took two asprine and my head feels much better) Is "fine" a standard that can't be improved on? Accepting that officiating is as good as it can be "because full-timers won't be any better" seems to fly in the face of virtually all historic evidence surrounding the pursuit of excellence, whether it be athletic, scientific, legal, medical, management, etc. Now if the argument is "officiating is good enough," that's another thing. However, we'll never know if that's true because we'll avoid change and everything should continue to work out fine (sounds like the official motto of the City of Buffalo, doesn't it?). Finally, I'd amicably point out that the posters who seem to have their panties most wadded up are those defending the status quo... Of course you can improve on any job. But the discussion is will making refs full time employees improve their performance? All empirical data says, NO. The requirements and training for their jobs in the fall would not be improved by perfunctory work in the spring. The examples you gave are not valid, because you need to be a constant practitioner in those fields to perfect them. If NFL played a year-round schedule, then yes refs should be full-time. Not all jobs and skills need to be perfected on a year round basis if the skill doesn't require it. Some of the greatest works of art, music, performances were done by people who hold regular day jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Of course you can improve on any job. But the discussion is will making refs full time employees improve their performance? All empirical data says, NO. The requirements and training for their jobs in the fall would not be improved by perfunctory work in the spring. The examples you gave are not valid, because you need to be a constant practitioner in those fields to perfect them. If NFL played a year-round schedule, then yes refs should be full-time. Not all jobs and skills need to be perfected on a year round basis if the skill doesn't require it. Some of the greatest works of art, music, performances were done by people who hold regular day jobs. Link to said empirical data, please. I was unaware that someone already ran an experiment with dedicated year-round refs VS the current part-timers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattsox Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Could not get any worse than the refs have been over the last couple of years. The NFL needs to make these guys full-time employees, and have them working year round, and even in training camps with teams. They need a better method than the challenge method in place right now. Slows down the game waaaay too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 They need a better method than the challenge method in place right now. Slows down the game waaaay too much. Suck it up and live with an occassional bad call worked for 70 years. Funny how the worst call in Bills history took place during the replay era, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) Link to said empirical data, please. I was unaware that someone already ran an experiment with dedicated year-round refs VS the current part-timers. As others said, is the officiating in the NFL better or worse than in the other leagues which employ full time officials? I say, it's at least the same. ps - look up the definition of "empirical" from my observation point. Edited June 7, 2012 by GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 The examples you gave are not valid, because you need to be a constant practitioner in those fields to perfect them. If NFL played a year-round schedule, then yes refs should be full-time. Not all jobs and skills need to be perfected on a year round basis if the skill doesn't require it. Here's one quick example I can think of right off the top of my head--have the refs be as athletic and in as good a phyiscal shape as the players. It would help them get to the right spots on the field faster and make critical calls from a better vantage point. Better athletes typically have better reaction times, eyesight and coordination, giving them a helping hand on bang-bang plays. And as the players have shown, being in NFL shape is a 12-month a year job today, not like the old days of players coming to training camp to get into shape. Would that mean the 40- and 50-something refs would be at risk? Yep, and I'm cool with that. There are plenty of ex-college players who'd love doing anything football-related full-time for $160K, given what their alternatives are. I suppose the phyical conditioning could be done by guys with full-time day jobs, as I'm sure you'll point out, but how come we see so many marginally athletic refs on Sundays? Here's another quick hit. If full-time refs were conducting 'training camps' for college or high school officials 3-4 months a year, their heads would be totally in the game. And as any good teacher knows, the more you teach, the more you learn. That's a lot more valuable training than working on legal briefs and balance sheets, IMO. We can belabor this point 'til Kingdom Come and both sides will undoubtedly hold fast to their positions. It's likely the "No Fun League" will stick with part-timers forever, but moreso due to saving a buck than anything else... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) As others said, is the officiating in the NFL better or worse than in the other leagues which employ full time officials? I say, it's at least the same. ps - look up the definition of "empirical" from my observation point. Other leagues don't matter. Different sports, different demands, completely different situations. Should the Bills not sign a Free Agent because a veteran the Texas Rangers signed didnt work out? And yet you call Lurker's analogies invalid Im well aware of what "empirical data" means. I dont think you are since this is just your theory that it wouldnt work. But this is proving to be pretty par for the course with you. It's also obvious that you do not know the difference between opinion and fact. So those of us stuck talking with you are again left banging our heads against the wall. But alas... Lurker is correct. We can keep going back and forth, but what it comes down to is: I think making the refs full-time employees can help improve their performance, and you don't. Neither of us knows for sure. And we'll probably never know anyways. How much longer until camp begins?... Edited June 7, 2012 by DrDareustein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 For a pair of guys claiming to be out of a brainstorming session you certainly twist the definition of "I'm out " Again show evidence where NFL officiating is deficient on either an absolute or relative level? Doubt that you'll find it. So why are you looking to add costs to a business to fix a non existent problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 For a pair of guys claiming to be out of a brainstorming session you certainly twist the definition of "I'm out " Again show evidence where NFL officiating is deficient on either an absolute or relative level? Doubt that you'll find it. So why are you looking to add costs to a business to fix a non existent problem? OAO... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brenty Posted June 8, 2012 Author Share Posted June 8, 2012 How about "On the internet people will get their panties in a bunch over absolutely anything" might actually put that lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts