PDA

View Full Version : Replacement Refs: Yay or Nay?


gtexan02
09-06-2012, 02:42 PM
I posted this in another thread, but I think it deserves its own thread.

After watching game 1, how do you feel about the replacement refs? Personally I thought they did a fine job.

Here is Goodell's stance:
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said he was pleased with Wednesday night's season opener, the first time the league has used replacement referees in a regular-season game since the first week of the 2001 season.

"I think our officials did a more than adequate job last night and I think that we've proven that we can train them and get them up to NFL standards," said Goodell, at the Bloomberg Sports Business Summit, an event which took place in Manhattan on Thursday afternoon.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8344894/nfl-commissioner-roger-goodell-happy-replacement-officials

Of course he had to say that though.

Heres the most interesting thing to me:
Goodell said that the current divide between the league and the referees is about $50 million to $70 million on a five- to seven-year deal. The offer the league has on the table would bump the average official's salary from $150,000 to $200,000.

Holy crap. $150k for a part time job? I don't get it. What do the cheerleaders get paid again?

The Pencil Neck
09-06-2012, 03:43 PM
Holy crap. $150k for a part time job? I don't get it. What do the cheerleaders get paid again?

The last thing you want is an official who's living paycheck to paycheck and struggling to make rent. You want them to be well-paid to reduce the possibility of tampering.

An official making $200,000 for working is not a problem in my book. Especially when the game itself is worth billions.

Rey
09-06-2012, 03:52 PM
The money aspect is really not an issue for me. I don't care.

What I care about is the product on the field, and last night I don't think the refs took away from the game. And I think as they get more reps they'll get better.

The regular refs are going to have to give some ground because the league obviously is moving forward without them. Don't want to wait too long and these guys actually show they are decent.

Dutchrudder
09-06-2012, 03:56 PM
I would love to be an NFL ref, where do you apply? I have 20-20 vision, I'm in good shape, I could do it!

ChampionTexan
09-06-2012, 04:03 PM
While I would absolutely choose to have the regular refs back if it was solely up to me, I'm one of the few who doesn't view a week or two (or a few more) of the replacement refs as the end of the world.

They made mistakes in preseason, but so do real refs (how many times in previous preseasons have you heard the comment "Preseason's not just for the players" right after a bad call?). I do think improvement had been shown and will continue to be shown.

It's a level playing field - it's not like some teams are getting NFL refs and some are getting replacement refs, and there's always replay for some of the things they may get wrong.

I honestly believe the uproar in the preseason was a product of group-think as much as anything. A few folks, some objective, some with a hidden agenda, predict NFL armageddon, and analysts, commentators, journalists and ex-players who are in a position to spout off about it jump on the bandwagon (not to mention all those tweeters). I also believe that there's a significant faction out there that due to the handling of bounty-gate, the changing/enforcement of the rules in the name of player safety, or the discipline imposed on certain players (mostly for on field actions) believe the NFL/Roger Goodell is satan, and want very much for the replacement officials to fail miserably. While I have both agreements and disagreements with those folks, even if I concede they're 100% correct, there's not really a cause and effect relationship between the NFL being satan and the replacement refs sucking.

I'm not really taking sides on the dispute It will eventually be resolved, and I don't care who wins - I'm just happy to have real NFL football back regardless of who's officiating games.

disaacks3
09-06-2012, 04:09 PM
The replacement refs, for the most part, let them play. It was painful to watch receivers getting mugged all night though. The more aggressively a team tries to take things, the better off they will be with replacement refs. Finesse teams will get clobbered until the "real" refs come back.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

gtexan02
09-06-2012, 04:11 PM
The last thing you want is an official who's living paycheck to paycheck and struggling to make rent. You want them to be well-paid to reduce the possibility of tampering.

An official making $200,000 for working is not a problem in my book. Especially when the game itself is worth billions.

In America, unfortunately, salary seems to have nothing to do with living paycheck to paycheck. That said, you can easily live on $100k a year. Very comfortably. You can easily live on $75k a year. I can't believe they could make $200k for a part time job.

The Pencil Neck
09-06-2012, 04:16 PM
In America, unfortunately, salary seems to have nothing to do with living paycheck to paycheck. That said, you can easily live on $100k a year. Very comfortably. You can easily live on $75k a year. I can't believe they could make $200k for a part time job.

It's an important job. Whether it's part-time or not is irrelevant. $200k's not THAT much.

Rey
09-06-2012, 04:21 PM
It's an important job. Whether it's part-time or not is irrelevant. $200k's not THAT much.

1 million isn't that much either.

gtexan02
09-06-2012, 04:42 PM
It's an important job. Whether it's part-time or not is irrelevant. $200k's not THAT much.

To whom? The median household income in the US is somewhere around $45,000 a year. $200k alone would put you in the 97% percentile for all earners in the US. If you assume they have a second job that puts them into the top 1% of all earners.

I agree that athletes deserve the high salaries they get--because they are unique. And because they sacrifice physically. But what does a ref do that's so unique?
They don't spend anywhere near the amount of time or risk their bodies the way the players do.

A ref theoretically works 17-19 games a year correct? For something that basically anyone could be trained to do? It doesn't require any truly unique ability or intelligence.

Why does a cheerleader earn $100 a game or something of that nature? They at least have unique physical attributes that lowers the amount of people who could qualify.

Im not trying to make this into a class warfare issue-- because NFL players are so unique they deserve a huge share of the revenue they create. But the refs? eh

Really it doesn't matter. Just guess I'm surprised that they are risking losing their jobs over a $50k pay bump when they are already getting paid pretty handsomely...

The Pencil Neck
09-06-2012, 05:13 PM
1 million isn't that much either.

Yeah, but a million here and a million there and pretty soon, you're talking about real money. (To paraphrase Senator Dirksen.)

The Pencil Neck
09-06-2012, 05:21 PM
To whom? The median household income in the US is somewhere around $45,000 a year. $200k alone would put you in the 97% percentile for all earners in the US. If you assume they have a second job that puts them into the top 1% of all earners.

I agree that athletes deserve the high salaries they get--because they are unique. And because they sacrifice physically. But what does a ref do that's so unique?
They don't spend anywhere near the amount of time or risk their bodies the way the players do.

A ref theoretically works 17-19 games a year correct? For something that basically anyone could be trained to do? It doesn't require any truly unique ability or intelligence.

Why does a cheerleader earn $100 a game or something of that nature? They at least have unique physical attributes that lowers the amount of people who could qualify.

Im not trying to make this into a class warfare issue-- because NFL players are so unique they deserve a huge share of the revenue they create. But the refs? eh

Really it doesn't matter. Just guess I'm surprised that they are risking losing their jobs over a $50k pay bump when they are already getting paid pretty handsomely...

Are you seriously comparing the importance of a referee to the importance of a cheerleader? Not even all teams HAVE cheerleaders. They're not important to the game at all.

But the refs are PLAYERS in the game. They are a part of the game. Without them, the game turns into the WWF or WWE or whatever it's called. Not everyone can do what they do. It's a hard job. And it's not just what happens on the field.

Those refs are supposed to be the best of the best.

As part of the game, they deserve to benefit from the popularity of the sport and they deserve to get paid relative to that popularity. Personally, I'd prefer if they were full-time officials and I'd prefer that they get paid double. I'd expect them to make at least what a minimum-wage vet makes.

gtexan02
09-06-2012, 05:29 PM
Are you seriously comparing the importance of a referee to the importance of a cheerleader? Not even all teams HAVE cheerleaders. They're not important to the game at all.

But the refs are PLAYERS in the game. They are a part of the game. Without them, the game turns into the WWF or WWE or whatever it's called. Not everyone can do what they do. It's a hard job. And it's not just what happens on the field.

I'm not comparing them by saying that they should have the same salary-- I'm just using the cheerleader example to illustrate the fact that not everything associated with the team needs to make an elite salary.
The players and the owners deserve the money they earn. They are the ones that risk themselves financially and physically.

I'd put refs a very distant 3rd in terms of importance. As we saw last night, all you need is a semi-competent replacement and your fine. The head ref has been a ref for arena league 2 and small colleges and he stepped in admirably. Give him a full 16 game season and he'd be good to go.


As part of the game, they deserve to benefit from the popularity of the sport and they deserve to get paid relative to that popularity. Personally, I'd prefer if they were full-time officials and I'd prefer that they get paid double. I'd expect them to make at least what a minimum-wage vet makes.
I just don't agree. They are too easily replaceable. a minimum wage vet is worth a lot more to the game because of his unique ability than a ref. You take all the currently employed NFL players out of the league and put in replacements and you have a totally different experience. You take all the currently employed refs out and replace them and the result is almost the same as it was before. In a few weeks it could be exactly the same

I just don't see anything unique about our current referees except experience. I put them just a notch above the guys who take care of the fields and the equipment. They are instrumental to the game but really almost anyone could do the job if they were given the proper training and experience. You can't say that about a vet earning the minimum

Serious question: IF the NFL never reaches a deal with the current refs do you think next year would be quantifiably (is that a word?) different than 2011? When the replacements would have had a full year of experience

Rey
09-06-2012, 05:40 PM
I just don't see anything unique about our current referees except experience. I put them just a notch above the guys who take care of the fields and the equipment. They are instrumental to the game but really almost anyone could do the job if they were given the proper training and experience. You can't say that about a vet earning the minimum

Serious question: IF the NFL never reaches a deal with the current refs do you think next year would be quantifiably (is that a word?) different than 2011? When the replacements would have had a full year of experience

I like the way cak put it in another thread when he said "normal".

Replace all the players and it's going to take a lot longer for the game to feel normal again.

Replace the refs and not many people outside of die hard football fans even notice.

My grandmother watches all the texans games and if Andre or Arian weren't out there shed ask me what happened to them. If Ed hockley isn't out there she's not going to notice or care.

Refs are overplaying their hand trying to hold out like the players did. I'm not going to comment on what I think they should earn as I just don't know and really don't care, but they need to realize that out of all the elements that have to do with the actual game they are the most replaceable.

The Pencil Neck
09-06-2012, 05:48 PM
Serious question: IF the NFL never reaches a deal with the current refs do you think next year would be quantifiably (is that a word?) different than 2011? When the replacements would have had a full year of experience

Yes, 'quantifiably' is a word.

I believe we're going to have problems THIS YEAR with these refs. We are going to have more poorly officiated games. I believe several games will be decided by screw-ups by the refs.

I believe that if we continue to use these refs, they will improve. In time, they'll be just as good as the old guys.

BUT... they're also going to be getting paid that same amount that you don't agree with. These guys are not going to be paid $20,000 a year for a part-time job of officiating, their salary is going to increase up to that $100,000-$200,000/year range and maybe more.

The Pencil Neck
09-06-2012, 05:52 PM
I like the way cak put it in another thread when he said "normal".

Replace all the players and it's going to take a lot longer for the game to feel normal again.

Replace the refs and not many people outside of die hard football fans even notice.

My grandmother watches all the texans games and if Andre or Arian weren't out there shed ask me what happened to them. If Ed hockley isn't out there she's not going to notice or care.

Refs are overplaying their hand trying to hold out like the players did. I'm not going to comment on what I think they should earn as I just don't know and really don't care, but they need to realize that out of all the elements that have to do with the actual game they are the most replaceable.

And I agree with all of this.

The refs are not in a position of strength and they're overplaying their hand. They make less money than an undrafted free agent rookie. In the grand scheme of things, they're not that important and they are replaceable.

They're hoping for some real stinker mistakes and some fan outrage.

EllisUnit
09-06-2012, 06:26 PM
Dont cheerleaders only make like 50 bucks per game. I think NFL cheerleaders use the NFL as a gateway to bigger and better things anyways. But the contribute more that refs anyways ;)

b0ng
09-06-2012, 06:51 PM
There was like hugely blatant holding by both offensive lines all night Wednesday, and that was the "best" crew they have. Sunday afternoon games are going to be wretched in terms of officiating performance and that is not hyperbole.

eriadoc
09-06-2012, 11:08 PM
As long as their mistakes are comparable to the regular refs' mistakes, I don't care. Subjectivity leads to lots of calls that people complain about. That's one thing. When you make basic rules and procedures mistakes, it's pretty clear you just don't know your job.

Couldn't care less about the money. If you can get it, good for you. I find it hypocritical to ***** about the money the refs are making while ignoring what the people who pay the refs are making.

HOU-TEX
09-07-2012, 10:14 AM
I thought the refs sucked the other night. It was like a sumo match in the trenches. All the grabbing and even tackling to the ground type holding. A "clipping" (are we in little league) on the kickoff that was just a block in the back after watching the replay.

That said, they were not a factor in the outcome of the game. Which is fine by me

gtexan02
09-07-2012, 10:30 AM
I find it hypocritical to ***** about the money the refs are making while ignoring what the people who pay the refs are making.

Not ignoring it-- encouraging it. I'm fine with owners making the big bucks. Like I said earlier, I see them as putting up the financial risks involved with owning an NFL franchise. They should reap the reward

eriadoc
09-07-2012, 11:23 AM
Not ignoring it-- encouraging it. I'm fine with owners making the big bucks. Like I said earlier, I see them as putting up the financial risks involved with owning an NFL franchise. They should reap the reward

Risk? Where? This isn't real business. It's a select group of ultra-rich guys pooling their money to create a monopoly. There's no risk. They get taxpayer funded palaces in which to play, they keep all the proceeds from doing so, and they have their bills all contractually managed. Once you come up with the ante and get approved, you just rake money the rest of your life. The small market teams that have been around since the beginning might lose a little any given year, but profit sharing ensures they still at least break even. And if they lose money too many years, the owners will help them hijack some new city to kickstart the bank roll again. Risk? GTFO of here. Players have risk each and every play. The owners risk spilling wine when they get excited over a play.

Now, all that said, I have no issue with the owners making as much money as they can either. I just find it silly to take sides in a money contest between the upper class and the upper crust.

Rey
09-09-2012, 04:31 PM
So far so good for the replacements. Not so good for the regular refs.

If the games go about like what these games have gone like the NFL might just say screw negotiations and take a take it or leave it stance....

gtexan02
09-09-2012, 06:33 PM
I honestly forgot we had replacement refs today. I think that speaks for itself

StarStruck
09-09-2012, 06:41 PM
I didn't see a difference today and mentioned it to the fan seated next to me. He said this could pose a problem for the regulars. They seem to be doing ok officiating the Niners game so far.

TheDrifter
09-09-2012, 06:46 PM
I thought our game was well called.

We have Sunday Ticket, so we did alittle flipping around (especially in our 4th quarter) and I didnt see any mistakes in those other games.

GlassHalfFull
09-10-2012, 09:51 AM
I think the no calls are worse than the calls. The replacement refs are too timid and the players are taking advantage.

This was a fun read from Deadspin by my new favorite punter, Chris Kluwe

It seems as if, after every call, all 35 refs come sprinting in to discuss the merits of Kafka's Metamorphosis as it relates to the economy of Bangladesh, and just when you think they've finally figured it out, they reconvene for Round 2. Then Round 3. I saw a baby born in the stadium reach full walking status during one ref conference, and at the end of it, when they finally announced something, no one had any idea whether it was even the right decision or not. We didn't care at that point; we just wanted to move on to the next play so we could finish the game before the Mayan apocalypse....


link (http://deadspin.com/5940689/an-nfl-players-view-of-the-replacement-refs-theyre-as-bad-as-you-think?tag=chris-kluwe) worth the click to read the full article

Corrosion
09-10-2012, 10:10 AM
I posted this in another thread, but I think it deserves its own thread.

After watching game 1, how do you feel about the replacement refs? Personally I thought they did a fine job.



I thought they did a pretty solid job .... tho I believe they missed overturning the review on the Jaq's challenge. Dude clearly had possession and both feet down ....

They got the review right on Jean's long ball , the ball came out as he hit the ground.

Didnt see much to complain about as far as penalties go ... maybe a couple missed holds but you could probably call holding on every play if you really wanted to.

They didnt call a bunch of crap calls babysitting QB's .... which was nice to see for once. Then again , that was a rookie QB not named Luck or RG3 , he'll really have to earn his ....

The Pencil Neck
09-10-2012, 10:51 AM
In other games yesterday, they gave the Seahawks an extra time out but the Seahawks still lost. They also picked up the flag in the GB/SF game when there was an obvious block in the back (2, actually) on the punt return for a TD that got GB back in the game; that was a bad call but eventually, SF won anyway.

If either of those games had gone the other way, there would be some screaming to high-heaven that the refs cost a team a game.

But they didn't. So they got off with being kinda OK.

Except that my wife was bitching about them all day and blaming everything on them that didn't go the way she wanted.

gtexan02
09-10-2012, 01:16 PM
After watching the other games yesterday, I have to say that I actually kind of like the replacement refs. For example, they called a lot of illegal formation penalties on Peyton. He used to get away with all that movement garbage in Indy because the Refs just assumed he was allowed to do it. I saw at least 2-3 calls against him for setting up people wrong last night (although I think they were all declined)


Its funny because the complaints I've heard are that they aren't calling enough penalties and guys are getting away with stuff

From ESPN:
There have been 45 holding calls so far in Week 1 and 25 defensive pass interference penalties, equalling the total number of defensive pass interference penalties called during Week 1 in 2010 and 2011 combined.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/page/lastcall1201/john-clayton-last-call


Seems to me people are looking for reasons to complain. All in all I think they did a goodjob

paycheck71
09-10-2012, 01:38 PM
I think partially due to the replacements, it seemed like almost every game lasted around 3 and half hours. Even with the delayed late afternoon game kickoffs, the games overlapped.

eriadoc
09-10-2012, 03:34 PM
I think they're probably not calling a lot of things that should be called. Some of that will be good and some of that will be bad. Antonio Smith potentially getting injured by Incognito would have been bad, no?

All that aside, I'm still sticking with my original point. The subjective stuff is open for debate, but you have to recognize that it's a debate. It's when they screw up on basic black-and-white rules that I have to blast them. You know, things like recognizing that teams only get 3 timeouts per half. That's probably a good rule to familiarize yourself with if you plan to be a referee, no? It's one thing to have to make a bang-bang call on whether a WR was out of bounds, or whether that OL was holding or not. It's entirely something else to be able to count to, and keep track of, THREE.

Dutchrudder
09-10-2012, 03:48 PM
The block in the back call against Green Bay yesterday was pretty blatant, but the refs picked up the flag for whatever reason. I didn't mind that much since I needed the fantasy points, but still you can't miss stuff like that.

Also the 12 men on the field no-calls against the Steelers last night was pretty sad. Peyton was running a hurry-up offense for a reason, but the refs didn't bother to throw a flag on the guy dashing towards the sideline. Stuff like that, I don't think the normal refs would miss.

eriadoc
09-10-2012, 03:51 PM
Also the 12 men on the field no-calls against the Steelers last night was pretty sad. Peyton was running a hurry-up offense for a reason, but the refs didn't bother to throw a flag on the guy dashing towards the sideline. Stuff like that, I don't think the normal refs would miss.

Against the Steelers? Sure they would. ;)

/bitter

gtexan02
09-10-2012, 03:51 PM
The block in the back call against Green Bay yesterday was pretty blatant, but the refs picked up the flag for whatever reason. I didn't mind that much since I needed the fantasy points, but still you can't miss stuff like that.

Also the 12 men on the field no-calls against the Steelers last night was pretty sad. Peyton was running a hurry-up offense for a reason, but the refs didn't bother to throw a flag on the guy dashing towards the sideline. Stuff like that, I don't think the normal refs would miss.

I know its against the rules, but I hate cheap plays like this. The 12 men rule is to prevent an unfair advantage. A guy sprinting off to the side is not giving any advantage

Dutchrudder
09-10-2012, 04:02 PM
I know its against the rules, but I hate cheap plays like this. The 12 men rule is to prevent an unfair advantage. A guy sprinting off to the side is not giving any advantage

Some interesting things on that play though, I'm pretty sure it occurred in the first quarter, but I may be wrong on that. From NFL.com's rules:



Each team is permitted 11 men on the field at the snap.

Unlimited substitution is permitted. However, players may enter the field only when the ball is dead. Players who have been substituted for are not permitted to linger on the field. Such lingering will be interpreted as unsportsmanlike conduct.

Players leaving the game must be out of bounds on their own side, clearing the field between the end lines, before a snap or free kick. If player crosses end line leaving field, it is delay of game (five-yard penalty).

Offensive substitutes who remain in the game must move onto the field as far as the inside of the field numerals before moving to a wide position.

With the exception of the last two minutes of either half, the offensive team, while in the process of substitution or simulated substitution, is prohibited from rushing quickly to the line and snapping the ball with the obvious attempt to cause a defensive foul; i.e., too many men on the field.


http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/playersubs

Here's an interesting site that criticizes the ref's bad/missed calls each week: http://www.footballzebras.com/
They say this about that play:
Manning had the ball snapped without giving the umpire time to move into position after spotting the ball. That should have been ruled an illegal snap penalty, something that happened to Manning with great frequency in the 2010 preseason when they moved the umpire position to the offensive backfield.

There were 12 men on the field at the time of the snap, which was not called, either.

Side judge Guy Trawick, aware that the snap was imminent, ran to his position by turning his back to the play.

gtexan02
09-10-2012, 04:17 PM
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8362901/fourth-timeout-granted-twice-nfl-game
NEW YORK -- The replacement officials' error that awarded an extra timeout to Seattle in the final minute of its loss at Arizona was the third such mistake in an NFL game in the last nine years.
In 2009, the Cleveland Browns were mistakenly awarded four timeouts in the second half of a 16-0 home loss to Baltimore. And in 2003, the Baltimore Ravens got four in a 44-41 overtime win against Seattle.

SheTexan
09-10-2012, 07:45 PM
It's an important job. Whether it's part-time or not is irrelevant. $200k's not THAT much.

Why is it such an important job? Reffing and FOOTBALL is something the adverage American can live without, if they had to. I'm a registered nurse, and I didn't make half of what the refs make now. I can guarantee you, hospitals would close down without the skills of a nurse.

They want 200,000 bucks for a PT job!!? I hope we keep the replacement refs. That's just nuts!! JMO!

axman40
09-10-2012, 07:53 PM
Seahawks were given 4 timeouts yesterday.EPIC FAIL!
The Seahawks (http://www.nfl.com/teams/seattleseahawks/profile?team=SEA) called a timeout with 30 seconds left when they were on the Cardinals (http://www.nfl.com/teams/arizonacardinals/profile?team=ARI)' 4-yard line and trailing four points. The only problem: The officials had announced just three plays earlier that the Seahawks (http://www.nfl.com/teams/seattleseahawks/profile?team=SEA) were out of timeouts.
After they met for several minutes, the officials determined the Seahawks (http://www.nfl.com/teams/seattleseahawks/profile?team=SEA) weren't charged with a timeout after the previous stoppage because it came after there was an injury and an incomplete pass. That was an incorrect interpretation of the rules. The Seahawks (http://www.nfl.com/teams/seattleseahawks/profile?team=SEA) should have never been given the apparent extra timeout.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000060267/article/refs-timeout-was-wrong-in-seahawkscardinals-game


:toropalm:

The Pencil Neck
09-11-2012, 11:52 AM
Why is it such an important job? Reffing and FOOTBALL is something the adverage American can live without, if they had to. I'm a registered nurse, and I didn't make half of what the refs make now. I can guarantee you, hospitals would close down without the skills of a nurse.

They want 200,000 bucks for a PT job!!? I hope we keep the replacement refs. That's just nuts!! JMO!

If we keep the replacement refs, they'll be making $200,000 for part-time jobs.

The refs are going to get paid that much. That's the salary you get for being a ref. If you want to make that much salary, then become a ref.

Sadly, healthcare is not valued by society. And that's not just the US, doctors and nurses in other societies are frequently not the most highly valued positions in terms of salary, just as they're not here. In lots of places, doctors and nurses get paid less than teachers and teachers don't get paid much at all.

Entertainment, on the other hand, is extremely highly valued and positions related to that get paid big time. And that includes refs.

In a perfect world, the important jobs would be highly valued and highly paid. People like fire fighters, policemen, nurses, and teachers would make a lot of money. But this isn't a perfect world and in this world businessmen, lawyers, actors, and athletes get the cash. Since pro football is a huge moneymaking venture, referees get paid a lot of money because they insure the integrity of the game. And without that integrity, the value of the NFL would plummet.

ChampionTexan
09-11-2012, 12:07 PM
Sadly, healthcare is not valued by society. And that's not just the US, doctors and nurses in other societies are frequently not the most highly valued positions in terms of salary, just as they're not here. In lots of places, doctors and nurses get paid less than teachers and teachers don't get paid much at all.



Well, since the thread is pretty much off-track to begin with, I'll kind of agree with the comment as it specifically relates to nurses, but to say healthcare is not valued in the U.S. is just wrong.
The BLS survey reflects May 2011 salary and employment data gathered from nearly 1.2 million businesses. Nine of the nation’s 10 highest-paying occupations are in the medical field, including surgeon, general practitioner, orthodontist, and obstetrician and gynecologist.
LINK (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2012/05/15/the-best-and-worst-paying-jobs-in-america/)

The Pencil Neck
09-11-2012, 12:45 PM
Well, since the thread is pretty much off-track to begin with, I'll kind of agree with the comment as it specifically relates to nurses, but to say healthcare is not valued in the U.S. is just wrong.

LINK (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2012/05/15/the-best-and-worst-paying-jobs-in-america/)

How much do the highest paid physicians make compared to the highest paid actors or athletes?

ChampionTexan
09-11-2012, 01:39 PM
How much do the highest paid physicians make compared to the highest paid actors or athletes?

To compare the top paid individuals in a field isn't the best way to determine how the field in general is valued in U.S. society. How much does the average actor make compared to the average physician? My guess is that the physician average would blow the actor average out of the water. The highest paid actors/athlete positions are too insignificant in numbers to really effect the ranking of the industry in general. I didn't see NFL QB, NBA small forward, or Leading Man on the list of top ten paying professions, even though Peyton, LeBron, and Tom Cruise all have annual incomes that are probably hundreds of times what the average physician makes.

But if you're going to compare the top of the industry earners, take a look at the Fortune 500 firms in the health industry, look at the total compensation for the top executives in those firms, and tell me it doesn't compare to athletes and actors. CEO's at largest pharmaceutical firms routinely make in excess of 10 millon annually. I've heard that Dr. James Andrews has annual revenues in excess of $60 Million, and I believe that's going to compare favorably to any athlete and most actors that you're going to find. I'm sure I could find more specific examples, but as I said, I don't believe citing a small number of individuals really provides insight into analyzing the industries as a whole.

The Pencil Neck
09-11-2012, 03:58 PM
To compare the top paid individuals in a field isn't the best way to determine how the field in general is valued in U.S. society. How much does the average actor make compared to the average physician? My guess is that the physician average would blow the actor average out of the water. The highest paid actors/athlete positions are too insignificant in numbers to really effect the ranking of the industry in general. I didn't see NFL QB, NBA small forward, or Leading Man on the list of top ten paying professions, even though Peyton, LeBron, and Tom Cruise all have annual incomes that are probably hundreds of times what the average physician makes.

But if you're going to compare the top of the industry earners, take a look at the Fortune 500 firms in the health industry, look at the total compensation for the top executives in those firms, and tell me it doesn't compare to athletes and actors. CEO's at largest pharmaceutical firms routinely make in excess of 10 millon annually. I've heard that Dr. James Andrews has annual revenues in excess of $60 Million, and I believe that's going to compare favorably to any athlete and most actors that you're going to find. I'm sure I could find more specific examples, but as I said, I don't believe citing a small number of individuals really provides insight into analyzing the industries as a whole.

I think we're getting a bit far afield of the original discussion. Because now you're doing exactly what I was doing by comparing healthcare CEOs against athletes instead of against other CEOs.

Let me clarify my original point.

A lot of jobs that are important to society (nurses, teachers, police, firefighters) don't make a lot of money and some jobs that don't seem like they should be important to society (actors, athletes, referees) do make a lot of money.

And it's not just in our American society that this happens. In some parts of the world, doctors don't make a lot of money, either. In most parts of the world, nurses make about half what doctors do while here in the US, it's somewhere between a third and a quarter.

Entertainment is highly valued. And the NFL is entertainment. Referees are an important part of the NFL and make a lot of money. If we ditch the old referees and get some new referees, that's not going to change how much referees make.

ChampionTexan
09-11-2012, 04:04 PM
I think we're getting a bit far afield of the original discussion. Because now you're doing exactly what I was doing by comparing healthcare CEOs against athletes instead of against other CEOs.

Let me clarify my original point.

A lot of jobs that are important to society (nurses, teachers, police, firefighters) don't make a lot of money and some jobs that don't seem like they should be important to society (actors, athletes, referees) do make a lot of money.

And it's not just in our American society that this happens. In some parts of the world, doctors don't make a lot of money, either. In most parts of the world, nurses make about half what doctors do while here in the US, it's somewhere between a third and a quarter.

Entertainment is highly valued. And the NFL is entertainment. Referees are an important part of the NFL and make a lot of money. If we ditch the old referees and get some new referees, that's not going to change how much referees make.

I'll make one more comment, and then let the thread get back to refereeing.

The fact that you made the comment "Healthcare is not valued by society" and then referenced the salary level of doctors in this country as support for that position is simply absurd on it's face. It's an inaccurate statement, and nothing you say regarding the sports or entertainment industry is relevant.

The Pencil Neck
09-11-2012, 04:11 PM
I'll make one more comment, and then let the thread get back to refereeing.

The fact that you made the comment "Healthcare is not valued by society" and then referenced the salary level of doctors in this country as support for that position is simply absurd on it's face. It's an inaccurate statement, and nothing you say regarding the sports or entertainment industry is relevant.

Let's take this over to the No Spin Zone where it belongs.

axman40
09-18-2012, 09:12 AM
After further review replacement refs suck!,IMHO
:tiphat:

HJam72
09-18-2012, 09:34 AM
After further review replacement refs suck!,IMHO
:tiphat:

Yes, they do....and it's very entertaining. :)

StarStruck
09-18-2012, 10:14 AM
It's 9:14 a.m. and I am exhausted.

axman40
09-18-2012, 07:28 PM
Yes, they do....and it's very entertaining. :)
I found the 1st half to be unwatchable and started to watch anything else.
:kitten:

Pantherstang84
09-18-2012, 09:20 PM
IMO

The players and coaches are making it worse than it really is. They know the substitute teacher is watching the class and they are taking advantage. Had I been reffing that game last night, I would have tossed Jon Fox's keester right out of the game. Yeah, they initially made the wrong call on the tipped ball but they reversed themselves and got it right. However, he started whining about every flag after that. He did some of his most intense griping on the 12 men on the field penalty. Guess what? They actually had 12 men on the field. Go figure.

I haven't seen any more blown calls or non calls than when Hochuli and company were running things. The current refs are allowing themselves to be intimidated by the coaches and players. A few 15 yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalties in the first 2 quarters everytime an HC or the players start whining will stop that doo doo real quick .

Then again, I have been called a hard ass on more than one occasion.

Just my :twocents:

gtexan02
09-18-2012, 09:44 PM
IMO

The players and coaches are making it worse than it really is. They know the substitute teacher is watching the class and they are taking advantage. Had I been reffing that game last night, I would have tossed Jon Fox's keester right out of the game. Yeah, they initially made the wrong call on the tipped ball but they reversed themselves and got it right. However, he started whining about every flag after that. He did some of his most intense griping on the 12 men on the field penalty. Guess what? They actually had 12 men on the field. Go figure.

I haven't seen any more blown calls or non calls than when Hochuli and company were running things. The current refs are allowing themselves to be intimidated by the coaches and players. A few 15 yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalties in the first 2 quarters everytime an HC or the players start whining will stop that doo doo real quick .

Then again, I have been called a hard ass on more than one occasion.

Just my :twocents:

You nailed it