I thought I heard the ratings were pretty high for the first two weeks. I guess if there is a significant decline in those numbers this week we know why.

bigdaddy2003;1275902 wrote:I thought I heard the ratings were pretty high for the first two weeks. I guess if there is a significant decline in those numbers this week we know why.

It is the NFL rating them, so of course they will say they rated high like no problem exist.

i have no doubt ratings are high...football is king and people have been waiting all summer for it. you could put a blind ref out there and people arent going to stop watching. however satisfaction with the product is another story imo.

For those saying the NFL should pay the refs "because they can", I give you a great example.

The Accountant Example Well-run, profitable businesses like the NFL attract and retain top talent by providing competitive compensation based upon the value of a given job and the expertise of the person doing that job.
As such the NFL should pay referees based on the value of their jobs, not based on the profitability of the league.
To illustrate this point, assume you have an accountant you rely heavily upon to keep your personal finances in order. Your accountant is among the best, but occasionally makes glaring mistakes (just like NFL referees) which are later corrected (or, for referees, "overturned" after review.)
Over the last several years you have worked hard, been promoted, and spent your money wisely. You are now worth substantially more today than you were five years ago.
Your accountant continues to perform the same function with the same performance as before your net worth increased.
If your accountant asked you for a significant raise - simply because you can afford it now - would you give it to him?
No, you would not.
You would pay your accountant competitively, but his value is not correlated to your personal net worth.
The NFL is trying to do the same thing.


Also, for sonofanump...

It most certainly is a part time job, albeit they are the best in the world at what they do. I also know that in season, counting travel, meetings, etc, it is easily 30+ hours a week (not the 3.5 BS some have said on here).

However, in the off season, once meetings, rules committees, referring some practices, etc are averaged out, they spend less than 5 hrs a week in the off season.

they currently make almost $150k, have full pensions, etc for a part time job.

Lets assume they are "average" and don't do any playoff games (they get paid extra for those).

The average referee would work 16 games (they all get 1 week off during bye weeks due to extra crews just like the players). 16 weeks times about 30 hours and then the rest of the year times 5 hours adds up to about 660 hours a year.

Just in salary alone that is about $230/hr, throw in benefits and they are compensated about $300/hr. I believe they are doing quite well. They make a lot more than the FBS/D1 referees so they are definitely competitively compensated.

jmog;1276131 wrote:Your accountant continues to perform the same function with the same performance as before your net worth increased.
If your accountant asked you for a significant raise - simply because you can afford it now - would you give it to him?

The accountant is not improving every year and the cost of living is not increasing?
Significant raise or cut his salary by 10%?

jmog;1276131 wrote:The average referee would work 16 games (they all get 1 week off during bye weeks due to extra crews just like the players). 16 weeks times about 30 hours and then the rest of the year times 5 hours adds up to about 660 hours a year.

Just in salary alone that is about $230/hr, throw in benefits and they are compensated about $300/hr. I believe they are doing quite well. They make a lot more than the FBS/D1 referees so they are definitely competitively compensated.

Great work. In season (21 weeks) I'd bet that they put in nearly 40 hours a week and agree to the average of 5 hours in the off-season. The big problem is that the NFL wants to add 3 crews so everyone gets 2 less games a year, therefore reducing the gross salary.

Sonofanump;1276138 wrote:The accountant is not improving every year and the cost of living is not increasing?
Significant raise or cut his salary by 10%?

Raises based on performance and economic conditions just like every other job.

If you look closely, from what I have read, it is the referees that are asking for more crews, not the NFL.

Sonofanump;1276144 wrote:Great work. In season (21 weeks) I'd bet that they put in nearly 40 hours a week and agree to the average of 5 hours in the off-season. The big problem is that the NFL wants to add 3 crews so everyone gets 2 less games a year, therefore reducing the gross salary.

I made a mistake, completely forgot about preseason, but you are wrong about in season, they all get a week off (so only 16 regular season weeks they work).

Even with the preseason, they are still making about $200/hr pay and well over $200/hr in total compensation.

jmog;1276149 wrote:I made a mistake, completely forgot about preseason, but you are wrong about in season, they all get a week off (so only 16 regular season weeks they work).

Even with the preseason, they are still making about $200/hr pay and well over $200/hr in total compensation.

It is the NFL stating 20 crews not 17, why would the officials want to work less? With 20 crews and 256 games, they would work 12.8 games a year, not 15.0 and lose money with the NFL proposal.

Why do people believe that the wage trend always has to be up?

There's zero evidence that the former officials get better over time. I'm sure some do, some stay about the same, some have a dropoff in performance.

jmog;1276148 wrote:Raises based on performance and economic conditions just like every other job.

1) Economic conditions, increasing: http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Source-AnheuserBusch-to-be-NFL-beer-sponsor-04923807

2) Performance. If you are not improving your losing ground. I know that every year there are officials below me that want my job level. I know that if I improve that I could take someones place above me and win out for a promotion for a vacancy for the next level up. The officiating gets better every year at all the upper levels.

queencitybuckeye;1276174 wrote:There's zero evidence that the former officials get better over time. I'm sure some do, some stay about the same, some have a dropoff in performance.

Film review states otherwise.

Whose review? Yours?

queencitybuckeye;1276183 wrote:Whose review? Yours?

League personnel, assignors, peers. It is constant review in league offices, at clinics and peer meetings.

Sonofanump;1276187 wrote:League personnel, assignors, peers. It is constant review in league offices, at clinics and peer meetings.

Cite, please.

jmog;1276148 wrote:Raises based on performance and economic conditions just like every other job.

Kind of. In my business, performance is making money for the company. Other than the occasional relative, how many ticket sales or TV viewers do the officials bring in? This doesn't mean that "overhead" positions don't get raises, but not at anywhere near the level of the revenue producers.

jmog;1276131 wrote:For those saying the NFL should pay the refs "because they can", I give you a great example.

The Accountant Example Well-run, profitable businesses like the NFL attract and retain top talent by providing competitive compensation based upon the value of a given job and the expertise of the person doing that job.
As such the NFL should pay referees based on the value of their jobs, not based on the profitability of the league.
To illustrate this point, assume you have an accountant you rely heavily upon to keep your personal finances in order. Your accountant is among the best, but occasionally makes glaring mistakes (just like NFL referees) which are later corrected (or, for referees, "overturned" after review.)
Over the last several years you have worked hard, been promoted, and spent your money wisely. You are now worth substantially more today than you were five years ago.
Your accountant continues to perform the same function with the same performance as before your net worth increased.
If your accountant asked you for a significant raise - simply because you can afford it now - would you give it to him?
No, you would not.
You would pay your accountant competitively, but his value is not correlated to your personal net worth.
The NFL is trying to do the same thing.


Also, for sonofanump...

It most certainly is a part time job, albeit they are the best in the world at what they do. I also know that in season, counting travel, meetings, etc, it is easily 30+ hours a week (not the 3.5 BS some have said on here).

However, in the off season, once meetings, rules committees, referring some practices, etc are averaged out, they spend less than 5 hrs a week in the off season.

they currently make almost $150k, have full pensions, etc for a part time job.

Lets assume they are "average" and don't do any playoff games (they get paid extra for those).

The average referee would work 16 games (they all get 1 week off during bye weeks due to extra crews just like the players). 16 weeks times about 30 hours and then the rest of the year times 5 hours adds up to about 660 hours a year.

Just in salary alone that is about $230/hr, throw in benefits and they are compensated about $300/hr. I believe they are doing quite well. They make a lot more than the FBS/D1 referees so they are definitely competitively compensated.

This example sucks because I don't need an accountant. But I do agree with your premise just because a business is making more money doesn't mean whoever is doing work for them should receive a raise.

queencitybuckeye;1276188 wrote:Cite, please.

You want information for a clinic or meeting near you?

Sonofanump;1276193 wrote:You want information for a clinic or meeting near you?

Lol Reps.

Sonofanump;1276193 wrote:You want information for a clinic or meeting near you?

I'll settle for information from the league office, since you mentioned that as well.

You claim that officiating is getting better. Can you make that case quantitatively?

http://www.honigs.com/SpringFootball

Start here after working at least 5 years of high school varsity football in order to understand the complexity of what is going on.

Sonofanump;1276196 wrote:http://www.honigs.com/SpringFootball

Start here after working at least 5 years of high school varsity football in order to understand the complexity of what is going on.

Anyone who can't explain what they do to a 12 year-old is a charlatan. The "if you haven't done it you can't understand it" is the weakest of weak sauce.

queencitybuckeye;1276199 wrote:Anyone who can't explain what they do to a 12 year-old is a charlatan. The "if you haven't done it you can't understand it" is the weakest of weak sauce.

I'll make a mental note that you are merely trolling and have no actual interest in information. You wanted information and I gave it to you. I of course cannot divulge confidential nonpublic league information.

I still prefer them over the regular refs and NBA refs....MLB umps a little ahead.

I've yet to see an outcome decided by them and the regular guys may blow their whistles better and catch more things.....but I have little need to get the regulars back.

Refs often suck.....but these guys have me believing it's not on purpose.

I've watched the better parts of about 11 games.....7 have been pretty good, 2 not that great and 2 awful.......sounds right on cue to me.

SportsAndLady;1275692 wrote:Lol wow

Hey after a few Yuenglings it made sense:thumbup: