NBA Ref's wife makes some good points.....

[Mediocre Man]

I see a ton of sexism (how dare a woman speak?), resentment (but don't they make more money than I do) and misunderstanding (the ref chose his job; his family lives with it). And a lot of nastiness.

And once again, the "good guys" are the employers? I mean, why don't we all just settle for minimum wage and no benefits so they can get richer? Isn't that what "values" is all about?

I see no sexist comments in this thread at all? I even had my wife read through it to see if I was just missing it. She didn't find anything either. Most attacked "her" because what she said was stupid. If it had been a son, or a father, they would have been attacked, not because they are male, but because of what they said.

The ref's don't make as much as I do, so I guess that doesn't apply to me. I am all for Capitalism, and people should make as much as they are worth. If Stern doesn't think the ref's are worth what they are making then that's on them.


And finally, there is no misunderstanding about the ref's choosing their job. These ladies and gentlemen work their way up from youth league most of the time. In most cases it is their dream to ref in the NBA, like any player's dream is to play in the league. They and their families understand the sacrifices they all make to do what they love to do. If they decide that it's not for them, then they should go out and find a nice 9-5 job somewhere. Sacrificing money for family instead of the other way around.

 

[Boob-No-More]

And finally, there is no misunderstanding about the ref's choosing their job. These ladies and gentlemen work their way up from youth league most of the time. In most cases it is their dream to ref in the NBA, like any player's dream is to play in the league. They and their families understand the sacrifices they all make to do what they love to do. If they decide that it's not for them, then they should go out and find a nice 9-5 job somewhere. Sacrificing money for family instead of the other way around.

I agree 100%. This is a free country. The refs, like anyone else, are free to leave and seek employment elsewhere if they are no longer happy with their compensation and job demands.

But, do we really want the best refs quitting because the pay and benefits are no longer adequate to compensate them for the sacrifices they make to be NBA referees? Do we want to force them, to make that choice? They were willing to accept those sacrifices under the old pay and benefit package. Will they be willing to continue to do so for less pay and worse benefits? They already agreed to accept the pay cut. They seem less willing (collectively) to also accept the reduction in benefits. Even if they eventually settle collectively, individually, some could decide it's simply no longer worth it and we could lose some of the best referees in the world. Do we want that? Do we care, or is good enough good enough?

BNM

 

[RR7]

I agree 100%. This is a free country. The refs, like anyone else, are free to leave and seek employment elsewhere if they are no longer happy with their compensation and job demands.

But, do we really want the best refs quitting because the pay and benefits are no longer adequate to compensate them for the sacrifices they make to be NBA referees? Do we want to force them, to make that choice? They were willing to accept those sacrifices under the old pay and benefit package. Will they be willing to continue to do so for less pay and worse benefits? They already agreed to accept the pay cut. They seem less willing (collectively) to also accept the reduction in benefits. Even if they eventually settle collectively, individually, some could decide it's simply no longer worth it and we could lose some of the best referees in the world. Do we want that? Do we care, or is good enough good enough?

BNM

Some may leave, sure. Let them go. Should we raise the MLE so that mid level players can get paid more, and will stay in the US instead of going to play in Europe? Sure, collectively, the players might agree to a new collectivew bargaining agreement, where the MLE stays the same, but do we really want some of the top professionals at their craft, a job nobody else could train to do, unlike referees, leaving? Do we care, or is good enough good enough?

 

[Mediocre Man]

I agree 100%. This is a free country. The refs, like anyone else, are free to leave and seek employment elsewhere if they are no longer happy with their compensation and job demands.

But, do we really want the best refs quitting because the pay and benefits are no longer adequate to compensate them for the sacrifices they make to be NBA referees? Do we want to force them, to make that choice? They were willing to accept those sacrifices under the old pay and benefit package. Will they be willing to continue to do so for less pay and worse benefits? They already agreed to accept the pay cut. They seem less willing (collectively) to also accept the reduction in benefits. Even if they eventually settle collectively, individually, some could decide it's simply no longer worth it and we could lose some of the best referees in the world. Do we want that? Do we care, or is good enough good enough?

BNM

Are they really the best refs? It's like teachers....sorta. Once they have tenure, they are there to stay. It doesn't really matter how good or bad they might be. Once in the union, they only have to do what is required of them really. Who's to say there aren't officials that are equally if not more qualified in the WNBA, NCAA, or other leagues?

 

[Boob-No-More]

Are they really the best refs? It's like teachers....sorta. Once they have tenure, they are there to stay. It doesn't really matter how good or bad they might be. Once in the union, they only have to do what is required of them really. Who's to say there aren't officials that are equally if not more qualified in the WNBA, NCAA, or other leagues?

The problem is, the ones most likely to leave are also most likely the best - individuals who can make a good living working elsewhere. Guys who are just getting by based on tenure, not merit, are likely to stay as long as they can continue to ride the gravy train.

In this sense, I totally agree with your teacher analogy. Bad teachers are protected by the union and their tenured status. It's the really good teachers that end up leaving for higher paying positions in the private sector. I saw this happen several times when I was in high school and college. The best, most highly motivated teachers/professors constantly left their low paying teaching positions for jobs paying >2x (often >>2x) in the private sector.

I also spent one summer during college as a member of the UAW, and I learned at an early age the problem with unions is they provide maximum protection to the workers who deserve it the least.

BNM

 

[Masbee]

Are they really the best refs? It's like teachers....sorta. Once they have tenure, they are there to stay. It doesn't really matter how good or bad they might be. Once in the union, they only have to do what is required of them really. Who's to say there aren't officials that are equally if not more qualified in the WNBA, NCAA, or other leagues?

I agree. I find it extremely unlikely that the NBA refs are "the best in the world". The union protects refs once they are "in". There is not nearly enough turnover in the ranks of refs to keep it stocked with a regular infusion of the best up and comers.

And more to the point, attrition should not rely only on retirement, death, illness and quits. There should be a process for drumming out the "worst" refs (some percentage of the lowest rated each year). Use the same system they do to assign playoff games. Have the union involved to protect the interests of the refs collectively.

I wonder if we had such a process Donahy would have lasted? Other refs suspected or knew he was dirty. But what could they do without hard proof? There could have been a whisper campaign among the refs to get rid of Donahy, and after a year or two, he would have been voted off the island and out of the NBA.

Unfortunately, instead of pushing for this, I think Stern LIKES the old and known refs. I think the NBA uses the old, vet refs to do their bidding - more or less. Even if not explicit, old refs have exceedingly well known tendencies for how they call games and at what locations. Call it consistent bias.

Which, by the way, was a big element in what "inside" info Donahy was passing on to the gamblers.

If Stern didn't want so badly to keep ace in his pocket, why oh why, in all his tenure has he not tried to make this or similar sensible modification to the tenure system to make sure the NBA refs actually are the "best in the world"?

And, now that the contract is up, and the refs in this terrible economy are willing to talk, and now that the Donahy scandal might put the refs in the mood to talk reform of some union rules, what does he do with this opportunity? Crickets.

 

[Boob-No-More]

I wonder if we had such a process Donahy would have lasted?

I doubt it. At the same press conference where Stern called Donaghy, among other things, a "rogue criminal", he aslo stated:

"Donaghy was an NBA referee for 13 years, and Stern said he was rated in the top tier of officials."

Apparantly, Donaghy could call a good game when he wanted to, Unfortunately, he was also willing to shave points for a fee and bet on games he was officiating.

BNM

 

[MARIS61]

If someone is willing to be away from their family most of the time, AS LONG AS HE IS PAID WELL ENOUGH, I'd say he doesn't give a shit about them anyway.