karen lotz;1279941 wrote:@TCrabtree83: Imagine you make a painting. It isn't perfect by others' standards, but it's your painting. You are proud. Then someone takes a shit on it.

SportsAndLady;1279850 wrote:That wasn't funny...Florida SUCKS

Speedofsand;1279946 wrote:Did I claim it to be funny or not? No. This is NFL Random Chatter, please stay on topic of the thread. If I posted a tweet by a former ND or OSU player and said that team SUCKS, I'd be called a troll and bant. Lucky for you the rules are "flexible" here depending on who the poster is.

karen lotz;1279937 wrote:@CollinsDrew: That call last night swung $150M-$250M of bets. Good grief - http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8422934/seattle-seahawks-vs-green-bay-packers-disputed-mnf-call-shifted-150-250m-bets

Whoa

gorocks99;1279986 wrote:League to address the call today: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000066116/article/nfl-will-address-hail-mary-call-on-tuesday?campaign=Facebook_atl_rosenthal

BR1986FB;1279996 wrote:Also just read where Goodell has the power to overturn this call if he so chooses.

gorocks99;1280003 wrote:This has as good a chance of happening as me shitting out bacon for the rest of my life.

gorocks99;1280003 wrote:This has as good a chance of happening as me shitting out bacon for the rest of my life.

BR1986FB;1279996 wrote:Also just read where Goodell has the power to overturn this call if he so chooses.

DeyDurkie5;1280006 wrote:I'd let you shit in my mouth.

sportchampps;1279860 wrote:I'm sure AOL thought the same thing. We have an All Time high number of users we don't need to make changes. We don't need to listen to our customer base. Just because their getting great ratings doesnt mean the bad PR isnt hurting them.

SportsAndLady;1280026 wrote:Great analogy there, iggy. AOL could be replaced--and it was. The NFL cannot be replaced. There's no substitute.

And besides..the NFL makes changes, yearly. A lot of really, really good changes that listens to coaches, players, even fans. This has nothing to do with "change" rather a bunch of egomaniacs trying to get a 30% increase in salaryfor a part time job where they are already making one hundred and twenty thousand dollars.


Just because there was one bad call that caused one loss on a 16 game season, where they were actually pretty good up until, doesn't mean Goodell should cave to the regular referees who aren't perfect out there.

Agree to disagree or not...you're not going to change my mind.

SportsAndLady;1280026 wrote:30% increase in salaryfor a part time job where they are already making one hundred and twenty thousand dollars.

BR1986FB;1280034 wrote:I don't think it's the salary increase as much as their demand for pensions. They want the NFL to put $38k, yearly, into a pension on top of the salary increase.

Sonofanump;1280043 wrote:What was the pension last contract?

BR1986FB;1280048 wrote:This is all I've got. Why they are even getting a pension in the first place is beyond me...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/post/nfl-referee-lockout-where-do-things-stand/2012/09/25/6a452118-0713-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html

Sonofanump;1280041 wrote:120,000 x 1.0287 (2.87 % raise) x 17 (number of current crews) / 20 (number of crews NFL wants) does not equal an increase of 30%. It equals a decrease in salary of 12.56%.
120,000 x 1.3 =/= 104,927.

SportsAndLady;1280073 wrote:You can't just throw random numbers out, ref, and expect me to understand what the hell they mean. The refs want to be paid 160k a year. They make 120k a year...33% raise, I rounded down to 30%.

Sonofanump;1280080 wrote:My numbers are not random. The offer was 2.87% raise per game but to increase the crews from 17 to 20 therefore reducing the number of games worked by 15% and they get paid per game worked. I thought you were in finance or something similar.

Link for your information?