ref's make freakin' $260k

[td4mvp3]

u.s. soldiers don't make that, do they?!

[CubanMustGo]

You want to complain, complain about what athletes make.

[TDMVPDPOY]

soldiers or mercenaries make about US$10k per week or month...something along the lines of that and its cash in hand :)

[CubanMustGo]

Soldiers don't make close to $10K a week, not even with hazard/combat pay.

[td4mvp3]

You want to complain, complain about what athletes make.
the athletes provide the refs and an entire industry a means to make money, they should be rewarded. $50-$100K? fine. $250K, for 13 years? i should be so lucky. i'm not sniffing that with 9 years experience in my profession.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

soldiers or mercenaries make about US$10k per week or month...

I've read tons of stupid comments from you, but the non-committal of "week or month" is one of the funniest, and by funniest, I mean fucking stupid.

$10K x 52 weeks = $520,000
$10K x 12 months = $120,000

[td4mvp3]

Soldiers don't make close to $10K a week, not even with hazard/combat pay.
that, and, THEY FREAKIN' GET SHOT AT AND CAR BOMBED!

[Testing]

:lmao Considering the average nba salary for a player is $5 million, I think your logical reasoning is weak.

[td4mvp3]

:lmao Considering the average nba salary for a player is $5 million, I think your logical reasoning is weak.
do you watch the nba to watch the refs? prolly not. so, assuming most fans (i'd go so far as to say all, but mayhap you disagree) follow the nba for the players, and the nba is a multi-million enterprise taking in the tv deal, merchandising, etc., allowing a proper cut of that to those players only seems fair. they make millions because they generate millions. the same can't be said of refs.

[Obstructed_View]

soldiers or mercenaries make about US$10k per week or month...something along the lines of that and its cash in hand :)
Mercenaries? Do they have a union or something?

[BacktoBasics]

You act like you have no clue how our society functions. You should know by now that all the real easy jobs....police officer, teacher, fireman aren't financially rewarding jobs but personally rewarding jobs.

Its the hard jobs that earn the big bucks....raping white chics, killing dogs in unusually freakish ways, dealing drugs, fixing games, pounding roids inbetween homeruns, drinking and driving after pitching a tough game, decapitating former lovers and her friend on a whim. Its fucking hard to do that shit. God damn right they get paid.

[rayweb_on]

I've read tons of stupid comments from you, but the non-committal of "week or month" is one of the funniest, and by funniest, I mean fucking stupid.

$10K x 52 weeks = $520,000
$10K x 12 months = $12,000 <----- ????? :donkey
10 x 12 = 120,000
:lol

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

<----- ????? :donkey
10 x 12 = 120,000
:lol

Whoops. :lol My bad. Typo.

[sandman]

do you watch the nba to watch the refs? prolly not. so, assuming most fans (i'd go so far as to say all, but mayhap you disagree) follow the nba for the players, and the nba is a multi-million enterprise taking in the tv deal, merchandising, etc., allowing a proper cut of that to those players only seems fair. they make millions because they generate millions. the same can't be said of refs.

These same guys saying the refs are not compensated proportionately to the players have no problem having the beer guy schlep up to their nosebleed seats every 15 minutes so they can get bombed at the game. Beer guy makes a hell of a lot less than an NBA ref, and they take him for granted to be at their beckoned call simply because they paid for a ticket.

[smeagol]

What do soldiers have to do with NBA refs?

[spurster]

If you want the best, you need to pay to get the best. Unfortunately, paying to get the best doesn't seem to get the best.

[sandman]

Mercenaries? Do they have a union or something?

Bet those CBA negotiations are a bit tense, eh?

[jaespur21]

so if the refs make 260K. that means they are on the same pay level as our president. ha. i always thought refs made around 100,000 but 250k surprises me. they get paid probably more than some of my favorite wrestlers

[leemajors]

they do have a crappy, demanding job. paying them less would be incredibly stupid.

[jaespur21]

These same guys saying the refs are not compensated proportionately to the players have no problem having the beer guy schlep up to their nosebleed seats every 15 minutes so they can get bombed at the game. Beer guy makes a hell of a lot less than an NBA ref, and they take him for granted to be at their beckoned call simply because they paid for a ticket.
I prefer to get the beer on tap @ the game. if beer guy happens to come by then maybe. but we prefer to go on beer runs @ the game

[td4mvp3]

they do have a crappy, demanding job. paying them less would be incredibly stupid.
crappy, demanding=$50-$100,000

my job is crappy and demanding, i'm not even close to $50,000. my wife's a high school math teacher, she's still making less than $50,000. you saying teaching hormoned youths a boring, demanding subject isn't worth the same as running up and down the court every so often and blowing a whistle? at its worse, a ref has a bad name hurled his/her way for screwing up a call.

[T Park]

I don't understand the connection between what an NBA ref makes, and a soldier.

[Brutalis]

I don't understand the connection between what an NBA ref makes, and a soldier.
Cause nothing connects? One gets paid too much the other gets paid too little. I mean really in a non-entertainment kind of way, you'd think soldiers were recruited and paid millions instead of athletes. Aliens visiting this world would anyways. But we're stupid humans that don't use half our brain.

Lot's of mofos should be getting paid 260K too then for fucking bullspit jobs. I bet a bunch of other posters can name 10 jobs at least..

[ducks]

Whoops. :lol My bad. Typo.
NOT THE GREAT JOHNY-BLAZE_47

[ducks]

u.s. soldiers don't make that, do they?!
that is not a overpay salary in today's marketplace
especially considering they are on the road alot

[leemajors]

crappy, demanding=$50-$100,000

my job is crappy and demanding, i'm not even close to $50,000. my wife's a high school math teacher, she's still making less than $50,000. you saying teaching hormoned youths a boring, demanding subject isn't worth the same as running up and down the court every so often and blowing a whistle? at its worse, a ref has a bad name hurled his/her way for screwing up a call.
you're fairly clueless as to what an NBA ref does, what they put up with, not to even mention the travel involved. maybe you and your wife should find new jobs if you are so underpaid?

[td4mvp3]

you're fairly clueless as to what an NBA ref does, what they put up with, not to even mention the travel involved. maybe you and your wife should find new jobs if you are so underpaid?
you are equally as clueless as to what an nba ref does, but it's hard to fathom it taking much more than any other reffing situation. the rules don't change much from high school, college, pros, particularly with the majority of calls made (traveling, 3 seconds, etc.) and there seems to be little in regards to continuing education that needs to be done. travel costs may be something to consider, but it still seems like a bunch for the job.

[ducks]

crappy, demanding=$50-$100,000

my job is crappy and demanding, i'm not even close to $50,000. my wife's a high school math teacher, she's still making less than $50,000. you saying teaching hormoned youths a boring, demanding subject isn't worth the same as running up and down the court every so often and blowing a whistle? at its worse, a ref has a bad name hurled his/her way for screwing up a call.

your wife works 8-3 (have an hour off for lunch)atleast most teachers do
work about 9 months out of the year
have great benefiets and get paid like they work year around
35 hours a day of work -5 hours off for lunch
your poor wife might work 30 hours in a week for nine months
and you bitch she is just making less then 50k
I would not want to be a teacher but most are not underpaid
unreal

[ShoogarBear]

Um, you think if they got paid less we would have more competent officials?

Or maybe they'd be less likely to be influenced by gambling or bribes if they got paid less?

[leemajors]

you are equally as clueless as to what an nba ref does, but it's hard to fathom it taking much more than any other reffing situation. the rules don't change much from high school, college, pros, particularly with the majority of calls made (traveling, 3 seconds, etc.) and there seems to be little in regards to continuing education that needs to be done. travel costs may be something to consider, but it still seems like a bunch for the job.

running up and down the court every so often and blowing a whistle? at its worse, a ref has a bad name hurled his/her way for screwing up a call.

[td4mvp3]

just explaining what i see them do.

[ducks]

they always run up and down the court

[td4mvp3]

your wife works 8-3 (have an hour off for lunch)atleast most teachers do
work about 9 months out of the year
have great benefiets and get paid like they work year around
35 hours a day of work -5 hours off for lunch
your poor wife might work 30 hours in a week for nine months
and you bitch she is just making less then 50k
I would not want to be a teacher but most are not underpaid
unreal
not saying teachers are underpaid, but refs seem overpaid.

[td4mvp3]

by comparison, from salary.com,

basic army recruits get less than $15,000
E6 - Petty Officer - 1st Class (Navy) in the United States - $28,049.

outside the military

Data Security Analyst, Sr. in the United States - $78,237

a typical Biophysicist in the United States - $53,848.

a typical Cardiology Director in the United States - $103,905

[ShoogarBear]

a typical Cardiology Director in the United States - $103,905I don't know what they mean by "Cardiology Director", but if they mean a physician who is board-certified in cardiology, then the average salary is probably 2.5-3 times that.

[td4mvp3]

I don't know what they mean by "Cardiology Director", but if they mean a physician who is board-certified in cardiology, then the average salary is probably 2.5-3 times that.
i think someone in charge of the cardiology department. not sure. cardiologist are actually just above this ref - $280k.

[td4mvp3]

i wasn't calling this one

a typical Physician - Neurology in the United States - $191,244.

[td4mvp3]

Well ask yourself this question....How many NBA referees are there in the NBA? How hard is it to become a NBA referee? I don't see more than maybe 30-40 total referees.

So they get paid a lot but there isn't that many of them and the job is scarce...

I'm sorry it's a lot easier to become a teacher than A NBA referee! If you wan't to get paid like them..go tryout and see how easy it is to go and become a NBA Referee!
eh, you have a point there. i'm just shocked it was this much. the guy approaches a neurosurgeon in pay, which floored me.

[td4mvp3]

It is a lot of money but when you look at compared to the NBA which is a multi-billion dollar enterprise it's nothing

But to the rest of society it's sure is a damn lot!
it just makes this gambling thing that much more difficult to understand. addiction is rough. wonder how much he was in for with the mob?

[SAGambler]

you're fairly clueless as to what an NBA ref does, what they put up with, not to even mention the travel involved. maybe you and your wife should find new jobs if you are so underpaid?

Name them off. And while you are at it, tell me please.

What ref leaves his family, flies 5000 miles to some distant part of the world and is stuck there for 12 - 18 months?

How many refs have you seen run into a burning building to save someone?

How many refs spend a portion of their life under fire? And I don't mean from the league office, but from real weapons. You know...The kind that can kill you dead.

What exactly do they "put up with" that demands that kind of salary?

Poor fucking babies!!!

So go ahead and clue me in about what a terrible life an NBA ref leads.

[SAGambler]

i think someone in charge of the cardiology department. not sure. cardiologist are actually just above this ref - $280k.

But when was the last time a ref had to pony up a big portion of his income for malpractice insurance?

And let's not forget...One is in the lifesaving business while the other is in the entertainment business.

[td4mvp3]

But when was the last time a ref had to pony up a big portion of his income for malpractice insurance?

And let's not forget...One is in the lifesaving business while the other is in the entertainment business.
no argument there, either.

[YoMamaIsCallin]

You all are making a basic mistake. Salaries are not paid based on some abstract idea of the "worth" of a job. Salaries are paid based on supply and demand of the good being paid for, namely, labor that is skilled in some way. Employers won't pay any more than they have to to attract workers who will do the job at a certain level of competence.

Just because you think a teacher is doing "more important" work than a basketball player, there's no reason a school district should pay a teacher what a basketball player makes, if they don't have to.

Same for neurosurgeons or anyone else in the labor market.

Paying an athlete millions of dollars is simply a statement of very strong demand (to have a winning team to attract fans and make tons of money) chasing very scarce supply (athletes that can perform at championship levels).

[Kori Ellis]

I believe the low-end refs make around $150K and then it goes up from there by experience.

[sandman]

I'm sorry it's a lot easier to become a teacher or Soldier than A NBA referee!



I realize that this is getting a bit off topic, but that is an assinine statement to say it is easier to become a teacher or solder than an NBA referee. The only reason it is difficult to become an NBA referee is because of the limited opportunities, not because they have to have some MENSA level of officiating ability. Those individuals who become teachers and soldiers (bless them one and all) do more work, require more certifications and sacrifice more to obtain/maintain their calling than any NBA referee.

Obviously because the pool of opportunity is smaller, the NBA referees are going to be paid more, because the NBA is going to demand (allegedly) a high caliber official. Wanting the best of the best does not come without a price.

But to say that it is a harder and more demanding job than a teacher or soldier and therefore justifiable in the higher pay based on that condition? I call bullshit. It's not about workload; it's about market demand. If that is what NBA officials can get from the league, then good for them. Supply and demand, free market economy and all that rot. Unfortunately, we live in a society where professional athletes/entertainers are deemed more valuable than teachers and soldiers.

[ShoogarBear]

I realize that this is getting a bit off topic, but that is an assinine statement to say it is easier to become a teacher or solder than an NBA referee. The only reason it is difficult to become an NBA referee is because of the limited opportunities, not because they have to have some MENSA level of officiating ability. Those individuals who become teachers and soldiers (bless them one and all) do more work, require more certifications and sacrifice more to obtain/maintain their calling than any NBA referee.

Obviously because the pool of opportunity is smaller, the NBA referees are going to be paid more, because the NBA is going to demand (allegedly) a high caliber official. Wanting the best of the best does not come without a price.

But to say that it is a harder and more demanding job than a teacher or soldier and therefore justifiable in the higher pay based on that condition? I call bullshit. It's not about workload; it's about market demand. If that is what NBA officials can get from the league, then good for them. Supply and demand, free market economy and all that rot. Unfortunately, we live in a society where professional athletes/entertainers are deemed more valuable than teachers and soldiers.I think I understand what you're saying, but the fact is that because of the selection system it is a lot harder to BECOME an NBA referee than to become a teacher or solider. Not that the job itself is harder, but the process of getting the job is much, much harder.

What perecentage of people who start out with the goal of becoming a pro official achieve that? 5%? Probably more like 1%. and it's like 10 -year process to get there.

I would guess that for soldiers and teachers it's more like 50-75%. Probably higher. And less investment of time.

The other point is that there is a huge difference between the entry-level salary for a referee (essentially zero) and that for a solider or teacher.

For refs, the salary structure is a huge inverted pyramid: you get nothing until you reach the top. For the other professions, the slope is much less steep.

This has nothing to do with what's morally or economically right for society, just the way the systems are set up.

[T Park]

What business is it of ours, what a referee makes?

Do people come to tdmvp's work and say

"You make how much? Good god, teachers make less than that, WHAT AN OUTRAGE!"

[sandman]

So it's easier to become a NBA referee than a Soldier or teacher? I know its supply and demand, that is why I said it's harder to become a NBA referee than teacher or soldier. I never said the job was harder or more demanding than a teachers or a Soldiers?

But if I wanted to become a teacher I can take my teaching credentials and become one...And if I wanted to become a soldier I can go enlist today. There is no way in hell I would ever become a NBA referee!

You posted a more clarifying comment while I was typing this out, so I think we are on the same page. Becoming an NBA official is the inverse of becoming a teacher/soldier: very limited opportunity, but you are golden once you get there. I just wanted to make sure that we were not insulting teachers and soldiers by saying anyone could do their jobs, but only special people could be NBA officials. Supply and Demand. Check.

[sandman]

I think I understand what you're saying, but the fact is that because of the selection system it is a lot harder to BECOME an NBA referee than to become a teacher or solider. Not that the job itself is harder, but the process of getting the job is much, much harder.

What perecentage of people who start out with the goal of becoming a pro official achieve that? 5%? Probably more like 1%. and it's like 10 -year process to get there.

I would guess that for soldiers and teachers it's more like 50-75%. Probably higher. And less investment of time.

The other point is that there is a huge difference between the entry-level salary for a referee (essentially zero) and that for a solider or teacher.

For refs, the salary structure is a huge inverted pyramid: you get nothing until you reach the top. For the other professions, the slope is much less steep.

This has nothing to do with what's morally or economically right for society, just the way the systems are set up.

Grew up a military brat and have an undergrad in Education. Yeah, I was a bit defensive, you think?

[tmtcsc]

soldiers or mercenaries make about US$10k per week or month...something along the lines of that and its cash in hand :)

Han Solo maybe...and that's only cuz his Falcon could run the Degoba System in 2 Parsecs..

U.S. Soldiers would be lucky to make $ 260K in their entire careers. (Front Line, non-comish soldiers)

[JPB]

Cause nothing connects? One gets paid too much the other gets paid too little. I mean really in a non-entertainment kind of way, you'd think soldiers were recruited and paid millions instead of athletes. Aliens visiting this world would anyways. But we're stupid humans that don't use half our brain.

Lot's of mofos should be getting paid 260K too then for fucking bullspit jobs. I bet a bunch of other posters can name 10 jobs at least..

You don't seem to get how it works.
Soldiers are not making much because they're not suppose to what they do for $$. It's supposed to be an commitment. Pay soldiers millions and you'll see all kind of merceneries in your army who would be there only for the cash and doesn't give a shit for all the rest.

For the rest, well, it is what you call capitalism or liberalism. It is the law of the offer and the demand and of the market. I'm not saying I agree with that but as a french man, I'm surprised to read that from US posters. :lol Basketball players are paid that much because NBA makes that much, because you're watch it, you're watch the commercials, because you're buying the jerseys and because all this money is distibuted to a small group of people. It's your money which is paying them.

Teachers or people like that have less money to share and are much more numerous and as for soldiers money is not what is supposed to guide them to their job, calling, vocation are.

[Mixability]

what difference does it make?!?!?

[td4mvp3]

You all are making a basic mistake. Salaries are not paid based on some abstract idea of the "worth" of a job. Salaries are paid based on supply and demand of the good being paid for, namely, labor that is skilled in some way. Employers won't pay any more than they have to to attract workers who will do the job at a certain level of competence.

Just because you think a teacher is doing "more important" work than a basketball player, there's no reason a school district should pay a teacher what a basketball player makes, if they don't have to.

Same for neurosurgeons or anyone else in the labor market.

Paying an athlete millions of dollars is simply a statement of very strong demand (to have a winning team to attract fans and make tons of money) chasing very scarce supply (athletes that can perform at championship levels).
we're talking ref pay, not athletes.

[td4mvp3]

What business is it of ours, what a referee makes?

Do people come to tdmvp's work and say

"You make how much? Good god, teachers make less than that, WHAT AN OUTRAGE!"
why are you so against us even discussing something as sacred as the salary of a ref? they make a lot, much more than i thought they would, and even with the supply/demand stuff, $150,000 should be plenty, in my opinion, and i've enjoyed everyone who has chimed in. but being offended that we even want to talk about it is odd.

[ducks]

why are you so against us even discussing something as sacred as the salary of a ref? they make a lot, much more than i thought they would, and even with the supply/demand stuff, $150,000 should be plenty, in my opinion, and i've enjoyed everyone who has chimed in. but being offended that we even want to talk about it is odd.



it is none of our business what refs make or even players

[Mixability]

what person becomes a teacher for the money?

[CubanMustGo]

we're talking ref pay, not athletes.

NBA refs, like NBA athletes, are (supposedly) the best in the business. You pay an NBA ref a lot more for the same reason that NBA athletes make more than CBA athletes.

[Testing]

I can't believe this is 3 pages long.

You have to look at this in perpective; It may seem like an NBA ref is making a lot of money (compared to other "Regular" people) but compared to what NBA players make, it's chump change. Litterally. Without good/semi decent Refs, who's jobs are just as hard as NBA players in that they have to travel, play 48 minutes, etc. Not to mention all the work it seems they have to do post game in that they are supposed to review every call made etc.

It's like saying a nurse making $60K is a lot.............but not compared to what a Doctor makes and a nurse is just as important to the health of a patient as the doctor is right? Same with refs and nba players....


I dont know where the soldier thing came into play. haha

[leemajors]

Name them off. And while you are at it, tell me please.

What ref leaves his family, flies 5000 miles to some distant part of the world and is stuck there for 12 - 18 months?

How many refs have you seen run into a burning building to save someone?

How many refs spend a portion of their life under fire? And I don't mean from the league office, but from real weapons. You know...The kind that can kill you dead.

What exactly do they "put up with" that demands that kind of salary?

Poor fucking babies!!!

So go ahead and clue me in about what a terrible life an NBA ref leads.
what the hell does being a soldier have to do with how much an NBA ref is paid? nothing.

[angel_luv]

When I heard what they made, I thought for a second, "Hmm career path?"
But I decided no because I don't want the Spurs players and you guys mad at me all the time. :lol

[ShoogarBear]

$260K? Drat, why aren't there any Slovenian refs?

[td4mvp3]

it is none of our business what refs make or even players
stern mentioned that the ref in question makes $260k during his press conference and it surprised me. i'd heard a lot about how the pressure to fix a game wouldn't be felt as much by a player because the player makes so many millions so wouldn't want to risk that. but refs were supposed to be more at risk because they made less, which i had thought would be about $50-$100,000, you know, pretty good but not great. the $260k just floored me.

[td4mvp3]

When I heard what they made, I thought for a second, "Hmm career path?"
But I decided no because I don't want the Spurs players and you guys mad at me all the time. :lol
whatawe, suns fans? :p:

[td4mvp3]

what the hell does being a soldier have to do with how much an NBA ref is paid? nothing.
nothing. but think about it the next time espn does some special on pat tillman and how much of a hero he is or something similar and realize that the hero soldier tillman likely made less than the no-name ref running down a sideline. it's surprising, to me at least.

[td4mvp3]

I can't believe this is 3 pages long.

You have to look at this in perpective; It may seem like an NBA ref is making a lot of money (compared to other "Regular" people) but compared to what NBA players make, it's chump change. Litterally. Without good/semi decent Refs, who's jobs are just as hard as NBA players in that they have to travel, play 48 minutes, etc. Not to mention all the work it seems they have to do post game in that they are supposed to review every call made etc.

It's like saying a nurse making $60K is a lot.............but not compared to what a Doctor makes and a nurse is just as important to the health of a patient as the doctor is right? Same with refs and nba players....


I dont know where the soldier thing came into play. haha
i'm just stunned that you can't get a good/semi decent ref for less money than what a cardiologist makes to fix hearts (and not games ... ba dum dum).

[td4mvp3]

NBA refs, like NBA athletes, are (supposedly) the best in the business. You pay an NBA ref a lot more for the same reason that NBA athletes make more than CBA athletes.
but nba players aren't paid because they are the best athletes, they are paid because folks want to watch them play. people aren't there to watch the refs, thus i'd expect them to make more in lines of what, say, an electrician or dentist makes. i'm not saying they won't make more than their lesser counterparts working their way up, just that the gulf between the two isn't that great but i'm guessing the salaries are. at least i hope some cba ref isn't pulling $200k.

[leemajors]

nothing. but think about it the next time espn does some special on pat tillman and how much of a hero he is or something similar and realize that the hero soldier tillman likely made less than the no-name ref running down a sideline. it's surprising, to me at least.
tillman had an NFL contract, and made much more than $260k a year.

[angel_luv]

whatawe, suns fans? :p:


:lol

[Mixability]

When I heard what they made, I thought for a second, "Hmm career path?"
But I decided no because I don't want the Spurs players and you guys mad at me all the time. :lol

That and Rasho would be league MVP and Beno would be scoring champ.

[leemajors]

and if they did pay soldiers that much, there probably wouldn't be much of a need for conscription. then again, i don't think anyone would want to deal with that tax hike.

[td4mvp3]

tillman had an NFL contract, and made much more than $260k a year.
soldier tillman? not the guy who played football but the guy who was out in afghanistan. or if not him, the folks he served with, the majority of the folks being called hero and reconstructing iraq and in charge of towns that have a major impact on our country's foreign policy ... make less than an nba ref. by a mile. that doesn't surprise you?

[td4mvp3]

and if they did pay soldiers that much, there probably wouldn't be much of a need for conscription. then again, i don't think anyone would want to deal with that tax hike.
does make you wonder how many wars we'd get into though if the soldiers cost that much.

[leemajors]

does make you wonder how many wars we'd get into though if the soldiers cost that much.
more.

[angel_luv]

Shoogar Bear, I just saw your alteration to my post- funny one you are! :)

[td4mvp3]

Do you wonder how many soldiers we could afford if they cost that much?
based on all the allegations against haliburton et. al, we probably can afford to. there are, what, 130,000 troops in iraq now? 260k times 130,000 gives it $33 bil. cost of war now, according to the national priorities project (http://costofwar.com/) is $446 bil so far.

[ducks]

based on all the allegations against haliburton et. al, we probably can afford to. there are, what, 130,000 troops in iraq now? 260k times 130,000 gives it $33 bil. cost of war now, according to the national priorities project (http://costofwar.com/) is $446 bil so far.
dude if a soldier dies over their
your tax dollar pays the window the life insurance policy they have
the ones that die make way more then 260k
the equipment is expensive they use
and they have to have it tested in yuma,az
then get it over there

[td4mvp3]

dude if a soldier dies over their
your tax dollar pays the window the life insurance policy they have
the ones that die make way more then 260k
the equipment is expensive they use
and they have to have it tested in yuma,az
then get it over there
the u.s. gdp is $13.13 trillion, meaning more than 13,000 billion. if push came to shove, the economy could handle it. simply because we are not set up this way does not mean it could not be set up this way.

[td4mvp3]

You don't seem to get how it works.
Soldiers are not making much because they're not suppose to what they do for $$. It's supposed to be an commitment. Pay soldiers millions and you'll see all kind of merceneries in your army who would be there only for the cash and doesn't give a shit for all the rest.

For the rest, well, it is what you call capitalism or liberalism. It is the law of the offer and the demand and of the market. I'm not saying I agree with that but as a french man, I'm surprised to read that from US posters. :lol Basketball players are paid that much because NBA makes that much, because you're watch it, you're watch the commercials, because you're buying the jerseys and because all this money is distibuted to a small group of people. It's your money which is paying them.

Teachers or people like that have less money to share and are much more numerous and as for soldiers money is not what is supposed to guide them to their job, calling, vocation are.
i question some of that. a lot of folks join the military in the hopes of getting their schooling paid for and other such perks once their tour is completed. and now that i think about it, the supply-demand thing makes me think the salary should be lower: how many applicants are out there for these jobs? pretty sizable, i'd imagine, enough that a salary could be lowered.

[CubanMustGo]

Geez, you are wrong so much I wonder if you are just pulling our leg. If there were so many ppl wanting to join the military then the Army would not be having problems meeting its recruiting goals. I guess the "perk" of possibly getting your head blown off doesn't appeal to as many people as you seem to think.

And re your strawman argument saying players in the NBA aren't the best, I have one thing to say:

BULLSHIT.

[td4mvp3]

Geez, you are wrong so much I wonder if you are just pulling our leg. If there were so many ppl wanting to join the military then the Army would not be having problems meeting its recruiting goals. I guess the "perk" of possibly getting your head blown off doesn't appeal to as many people as you seem to think.

And re your strawman argument saying players in the NBA aren't the best, I have one thing to say:

BULLSHIT.
when did i say nba players aren't the best?

and all i said was that patriotism isn't the only reason and sometimes not even the primary reason folks join the military.

[td4mvp3]

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR990/MR990appb.pdf.

STATED INTEREST IN JOINING THE MILITARY
Table B.1 was prepared from tabulations on the 1991 Youth Attitude Tracking Survey
(YATS) with 30-month follow-up matching of enlistee records from Military
Enlistment Processing Center (MEPCOM) data. Weighted YATS data provide a repre-
sentative sample of youth, and the match to MEPCOM records allows the identifica-
tion of sample respondents who subsequently enlisted for active duty in the military
services. While the table weights YATS data to reflect the responses of youth in gen-
eral, the subsequent enlistee data are not weighted. As a result, the enlistee re-
sponses are not necessarily representative of the enlistee population.
We chose the 1991 YATS file because of its relevance to first-term personnel making
stay/leave decisions about the time covered by our perstempo reenlistment analysis
file, i.e., personnel with an expiration of term of service date between July 1995 and
June 1996. The percentages shown in the table are fairly typical of other YATS
surveys before and since 1991, however. For instance, the patterns seen in the table
probably apply to personnel who entered in the late 1980s and who appear in our
perstempo file as early careerists.
The responses shown in the table are answers to YATS question Q526, “If you were to
consider joining the military, what would be the main reason?” After the respondent
answers, the survey administrator asks, “Any other reasons?” but does not give a
menu of reasons to choose from. Thus, the respondent may and often does have
multiple responses, and responses after the first response are prompted, but not by
specific reasons; hence, they can be considered “unaided” mentions.
As the table suggests, reasons such as “away from home,” “travel,” and “duty to
country” may play a role in decisions to enlist. These items are mentioned by both
the youth population and the enlistees as reasons for joining the military. Further,
long or hostile duty, given the travel and duty involved, may represent a fulfillment of
these reasons.
Page 2
78
Does Perstempo Hurt Reenlistment?
Table B.1
Reasons for Joining the Military: Youth Versus Enlistees
(percent with mention)
Reason
Youth
Population
Enlistees
Away from home
2.1
4.3
Retirement benefits
3.3
7.8
Develop discipline
3.9
3.4
Duty to country
15.9
13.8
Pay for education
24.8
27.6
Job training
24.9
43.1
Maturity
0.4
1.7
Would not consider
8.1
2.6
Other
18.2
23.3
Pay
14.9
17.2
Physical challenge
1.5
1.7
Self esteem/pride
3.6
5.2
More structure
1.8
1.7
National defense
2.0
0.9
Teamwork
1.0
1.7
Travel
7.4
13.8

[td4mvp3]

What is the point of this argument? I mean it's getting dragged on and on...So fucking what NBA ref's get paid $260K. I'm not trying to be an ass, but one minute we are talking about how teachers, doctors and Soldiers don't get paid that much...well that is life.

I work in private equity were you can make millions per year, it's the profession I choose and worked my ass off to get into. Do I work as hard as Soldiers no! But I've paid my dues and in a couple of years I should never ever have to worry about money. People pick their professions for different reasons, some money, some fame, some to help others, whatever that makes them happy.

I say If someone can endure all those years moving up the ranks as they did to make it to the NBA then good for them, they should get paid!
i'm not going to explain it again.

[td4mvp3]

stern mentioned that the ref in question makes $260k during his press conference and it surprised me. i'd heard a lot about how the pressure to fix a game wouldn't be felt as much by a player because the player makes so many millions so wouldn't want to risk that. but refs were supposed to be more at risk because they made less, which i had thought would be about $50-$100,000, you know, pretty good but not great. the $260k just floored me.

[dastrey]

What is so hard to get? It is very tough to become an NBA ref. These people have put in thousands of hours, with the possibility of never making it into the NBA. Tens of thousands of applicants with only a handful of positions. The NBA is a billion dollar industry and they pay their workers accordingly. You are acting like an NBA ref works for the government.

[ducks]

Yes your mad that they get paid so much while teachers and soldiers are underpaid...well that is life!
teachers are overpaid really

[td4mvp3]

The NFL referee salary (National Football League) ranges from USD 25000 to USD 70000

[td4mvp3]

old john clayton story

Sixty-seven of the 119 officials have 10 or fewer years of experience. They aren't at maximum dollars and they should be in their officiating prime. How many are at the top level, 20 years or more? Only 16. So it's not like every official is going to be making $130,000 a game.

A current nine-year official will watch his salary grow from $64,215 to $95,000 to $128,000 in 2003. Sounds to me as though the league has to put more money into the front end to balance out the package, and that will probably happen when Tagliabue cuts short his trip to Mexico for Monday's crucial, last-minute negotiating session before the replacement crews come onto the field.

The NHL went to the brink of using replacement officials before settling on their four-year deal Thursday. The NFL officials have that in mind, too. You've seen the charts. A 10-year NHL official made $176,000 under the old deal. Certainly, that number grew, so to put the top of the NFL scale of what would probably be half the NHL pay scale is probably a little out of whack.

[Kori Ellis]

The NFL referee salary (National Football League) ranges from USD 25000 to USD 70000

NFL referees might ref a dozen games while an NBA ref officiates 60. (Guessing the numbers)

[td4mvp3]

don't all those supply-demand rules follow here? even more so considering nfl has fewer games and is a bigger draw?

[ducks]

nfl is a bigger draw?

[ducks]

The NFL referee salary (National Football League) ranges from USD 25000 to USD 70000
basketball is alot more demaning
hell they do not even get in danger of a 400 pound guy landing on them

[td4mvp3]

basketball is alot more demaning
hell they do not even get in danger of a 400 pound guy landing on them
they get run over all the time. esp the ref standing behind the quarterback.

[td4mvp3]

admittedly the number of games argument seems to hold in baseball, where salaries for umps range from 90,000 to 300k. i'm still surprised by it. refs work 2 months (82 days/ 30 days, if my math is right, and it may very well be wrong). a year without the playoffs. i'm wondering if it has more to do with trying to get guys not to gamble as opposed to supply/demand. there are plenty of folks desperate to be a ref just because they like b-ball and would take $100,000 to do it.

[ShoogarBear]

The NFL referee salary (National Football League) ranges from USD 25000 to USD 70000In the NFL, officiating is NOT a full time job. These guys do other things during the week.

In fact, that has been one of the criticisms that comes up from time to time about the NFL, with some people sayingt the officials should be full-time.

[ShoogarBear]

there are plenty of folks desperate to be a ref just because they like b-ball and would take $100,000 to do it.Seems to me that lowest-bidder is not the formula to guarantee quality officiating.

Now it may very well be that the current 10-year apprenticeship chases off a lot of good potential officials. But the one thing about this system that I'm relatively certain: the refs in the NBA are the best of those who go through it. Refereeing at every level below the NBA is worse.

[td4mvp3]

Why does it really matter to you if a ref makes 100,000 or 260,000? The Nba pre-season starts in October and ends in June including playoffs so it ain't just 2 months as you say.

THe reason they get paid that much is because the NBA makes billions of dollars a year!!!! The league come up with that amount for the ref's.

For some apparent reason you want ref's to make X amount...why? You act like you are personally paying their salary?

It's how the league is structured....just get over it.
hell, dude, YOU act like you're paying the salaries. what does it really matter to you that i care? if questioning the worth of a ref offends you so much, move on.

[Shred]

What, is that supposed to be a lot of money?

[itzsoweezee]

You want to complain, complain about what athletes make.

you sir, are an idiot.

[td4mvp3]

It doesn't bother me at all. I'm not the one who started a thread and keeps whining about how much they get paid. I'm not the one that compares them to teachers, doctors, soldiers or Umpires and NFL refs.

I don't care if they made 2 million per year it doesn’t' affect my life at all....

...what annoys me is that care so damn much what they get make.

Why does what they get paid bother you so damn much? I'm not trying to be a dick here, but let it go..

There a lot of people that make a lot of money and there is a lot of people that make jack shit…that is the way society works.

but you are the guy who keeps railing on and on about the thread in the thread that, obviously, others have had some opinion about. what part of message board do you not get? and you still haven't addressed the bolded text, namely, if you could give a rat's tail what the nba pays refs, why are you so incensed that i think they are overpaid? you cannot have it both ways, to feign disinterest in the pay but be oh so annoyed at my questioning it. if you truly do not care about the subject, why are you spending so much time reefuting it? it's akin to the kid yelling to everyone that he doesn't want to be bothered.

to a greater point, your claim of, essentially, this is just how the nba wants to do things is such a cop out. the spurs just traded scola for a box of chocolates and a smile. did you constantly go to the numerous threads about that just to write "the spurs pay the bills, that's what they want to do so they can do it, why are we talking about it?" does any of the discussion here effect any sort of change? no. so your reesponse to this thread applies to every thread. and if it bothers you that much, again, move on from this message board where opinions and thoughts are shared, not just plans to impliment change across the swath of the nba.

finally, to explain, succinctly, all the reasons that i have already given about why this thread exists.

1. biggest scandal in the nba. ref is betting on games. one theory that had been touted was that refs make so little that they could be influenced to fix games. 260k is much more than the median u.s. household income of about 50k (as well as more than many of the examples already given in this thread) and seems like enough money to satiate anyone, so how valid is that theory (you yourself said
It is a lot of money but when you look at compared to the NBA which is a multi-billion dollar enterprise it's nothing

But to the rest of society it's sure is a damn lot!)

2. the amount itself surprised me, thus prompting me to see if it surprised anyone else. i think they overpay the refs, for whatever reason, and wanted to see what others thought

3. the idea of supply and demand doesn't work. as i've thought about it, there is an abundannt supply of willing workers (granted, there is a weeding out process but that only bolsters the point. they MUST weed out applicants, by background checks as well as by requiring folks to work up the ranks, because the supply is so great) or the demand for the job is great. the increase in wages normally happens when there are few folks for many jobs (i.e., math teachers are getting big stipends because there are many math teaching gigs out there but few folks interested in teaching the subject), which isn't the case here. the number of jobs is limited, certainly, but that would only seem to give the employer even more leverage since there are plenty of other people willing to take the place of some crabby employee. i think the scandal shows the real reason the salary is so high, and apparently, even money may not be the way unless we start seeing refs making the athletes' pay. would that be overpaying?

there, in list form, are the reasons, again, for this thread. the first two reasons were explained many times before, the last just hit me last night and this morning.

[td4mvp3]

What, is that supposed to be a lot of money?
only compared to most jobs in the country.

[td4mvp3]

I believe the low-end refs make around $150K and then it goes up from there by experience.
i guess i'm just surprised that it goes up by so much. making 200k for 20-years experience at any job without the title ceo/president is doing pretty good for most folks.

[Deimosfobos]

The 2 guys who created YouTube worked 1 year and got 1.8bill U$S.... they are cleary overpaid. :D

Anyone can become a teacher or a soldier (sorry, but it's true), only a very few can become NBA ref's and almost no one can become billonares for a years work... either you deal with it and try to become a billonare or cry, like most, and get paid crap on a shity work :)


Offtopic: My first post, i had being reading the forum for years, i just decided to finally register. :D

[Testing]

i'm just stunned that you can't get a good/semi decent ref for less money than what a cardiologist makes to fix hearts (and not games ... ba dum dum).


But your not stunned by the fact that entertainers like Lindsay Lohan, Jessica Simpson, etc get paid millions for "singing/acting" and way more than a cardiologist makes for saving a person's life?

That's the way society is built.

[td4mvp3]

I'm bothered because you won't give it a rest, all you do is whine about; I'm sorry that what they make irates you so damn much. Then you bring up different professions that have nothing to do with the NBA. After that you up MLB umpires and NFL referees pay structure. That is fucking annoying. Why don't you bring up actors who get paid millions of dollars for reading lines??????????????
pick a different thread to read, problem solved.

stop responding, man. it really is that simple. i've only continued when someone brings up some new point or when you continue to hammer this one. you have said, ad naseum, that the nba can do what it wants and believe it is because of supply-demand. i disagreed. but you have gone out of your way to disagree with the fact that i disagree. i don't get it.

i don't bring up actors for the same reason i didn't bring up athletes. both make millions because they generate the audience for the advertisers, which is fine. no one is going to the sport to see the ref.





Why is this a cop out? What the Spurs do individually has nothing to do with how the NBA runs the league! Are the Spurs paying the salary of the referees like they had to for Scola? Does that come out of Holt's personal bank account? IT IS HOW THE NBA IS STRUCTURED!!!!!! You act like the referees demanded this to make that kind of money or they would strike!
it was an analogy. your entire tirade is built on 1. the nba set it up this way 2. i shouldn't complain about/question/be surprised by it because i don't pay the bills. the analogy i drew was that the nba is a company dealing with its employees much like the spurs are a company dealing with its employees, but you don't go around saying people shouldn't comment on what the spurs offer their players but insist i not comment on what the nba pays its refs. and i haven't said anything about striking or who demanded what, all i've said is that they're overpaid and wondered why that might be.




So pay them less so we they can be easier for them to influenced? If someone has a gambling addiction it doesn't matter how much money they make, they will still gamble it away. Example John Daly.
that's not worth discussing? i mean, seriously, this threat was meant as a way to get behind the obvious (the nba pays a lot because it can) and get to the meat as to why that is and how that relates to the ref scandal (as previously pointed out). instead of going in that direction, you insist on this same line of reasoning of saying "this is how it is, deal with it."




We give our opinion...your the one that won't let this thread die. You are the one that keeps whining about how much they get paid. You are the one that keeps bring up different professions and comparing it the NBA. You are comparing apples to oranges.

so when you do it, it's giving an opinion. when i respond to that opinion, it's whining? and for all this stuff about how i won't just get over it, it takes two to tango and you've been just as adamant not to concede. either we're both whiners or both justified.



Who are you stay that someone is qualified to ref a NBA game? It is a selective group that makes to the NBA. There might be a ton of applicants but if they were so qualified they would be in the NBA right now! The people that are in the NBA for better or worse are the best at their profession and should be paid accordingly. They are the cream of crop and have worked years to get to where they are. The salary isn't high, it's high for the average worker but their job is unique that is what you don't understand. IT IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO BECOME A NBA REFEREE!!!!! With Thousands of professionals of Referees worldwide and only about 30-50 in the NBA! If someone who is in the NBA for over 20 years and is a good official he should get paid that much. He has paid his dues and worked his ass off over the years. It’s not like he was at the local YMCA and out of the blue and he went to a camp and all of a sudden he is a NBA official!

you miss the point. i grant you every point you just made, but it only bolsters the fact that there are plenty of people willing to be a ref, thus there is plenty of a supply out there, so the idea of supply/demand dictating the salary doesn't hold up. as i said, i think this gambling thing is the real reason behind the big salary. that's all i was saying.



I know why you started the thread..I don't know why you keep harping on it over and over again? Maybe you should start complaining about actors who make millions for reading lines and being adored by fans... or about Ceo's who make 100's of millions of dollars in severance packages while doing nothing to improve stock prices!
because you keep doing the same. and again, in regards to your example, those folks have a direct impact on the audience/customer either by creating something marketable (you go to see ben afleck or someone) or the product (the ceo, usually, who if nothing else directs which direction a company goes in and thus what products are put out).

[td4mvp3]

But your not stunned by the fact that entertainers like Lindsay Lohan, Jessica Simpson, etc get paid millions for "singing/acting" and way more than a cardiologist makes for saving a person's life?

That's the way society is built.
actors/entertainers = pro athletes (hell, their job is to entertain us through the sport)

makeup artist = ref

[td4mvp3]

I'm bothered because you won't give it a rest, all you do is whine about; I'm sorry that what they make irates you so damn much. Then you bring up different professions that have nothing to do with the NBA. After that you up MLB umpires and NFL referees pay structure. That is fucking annoying. Why don't you bring up actors who get paid millions of dollars for reading lines??????????????





Why is this a cop out? What the Spurs do individually has nothing to do with how the NBA runs the league! Are the Spurs paying the salary of the referees like they had to for Scola? Does that come out of Holt's personal bank account? IT IS HOW THE NBA IS STRUCTURED!!!!!! You act like the referees demanded this to make that kind of money or they would strike!



So pay them less so we they can be easier for them to influenced? If someone has a gambling addiction it doesn't matter how much money they make, they will still gamble it away. Example John Daly.



We give our opinion...your the one that won't let this thread die. You are the one that keeps whining about how much they get paid. You are the one that keeps bring up different professions and comparing it the NBA. You are comparing apples to oranges.



Who are you stay that someone is qualified to ref a NBA game? It is a selective group that makes to the NBA. There might be a ton of applicants but if they were so qualified they would be in the NBA right now! The people that are in the NBA for better or worse are the best at their profession and should be paid accordingly. They are the cream of crop and have worked years to get to where they are. The salary isn't high, it's high for the average worker but their job is unique that is what you don't understand. IT IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO BECOME A NBA REFEREE!!!!! With Thousands of professionals of Referees worldwide and only about 30-50 in the NBA! If someone who is in the NBA for over 20 years and is a good official he should get paid that much. He has paid his dues and worked his ass off over the years. It’s not like he was at the local YMCA and out of the blue and he went to a camp and all of a sudden he is a NBA official!

I know why you started the thread..I don't know why you keep harping on it over and over again? Maybe you should start complaining about actors who make millions for reading lines and being adored by fans... or about Ceo's who make 100's of millions of dollars in severance packages while doing nothing to improve stock prices!
and just overall, it's pretty lame to ask why i bring up the subject and then get upset that i actually answered your question. in list form, no less.

[Testing]

actors/entertainers = pro athletes (hell, their job is to entertain us through the sport)

makeup artist = ref


What are doctors then compared to actors/atheletes in your lineage?

[td4mvp3]

Are you kidding me you are comparing a make up artist to a NBA referee? How many make up artists are there? A ref does a little more than a make up artist too! There is probably thousands of of makes up artists in the Entertainment industry.

See which is more difficult to become a make up artist or a NBA referee?
i'm pointing out the reason why i haven't brought up actors and made the analogy to show that athletes and entertainers make a lot of money because they generate the audience while the periphery folks (refs in one, makeup artist in the other since there is no comparable position in the actiing field to a ref) make less because they don't generate that audience. thus, the entertainer deserves a sizable piece of the pie, the periphery don't.

[td4mvp3]

What are doctors then compared to actors/atheletes in your lineage?
they create the product or do the service. but the office staff doesn't, thus get much less. at least you get the analogy, which is a relief. the issue is not that an athlete makes more than a doc, but that a ref makes more than a doc. the doc and athlete shoulder huge responsibilities or generate huge audience, thus deserve a big payback. i just think the ref salary is more than what he shoulders or generates.

[td4mvp3]

Are you kidding me you are comparing a make up artist to a NBA referee? How many make up artists are there? A ref does a little more than a make up artist too! There is probably thousands of of makes up artists in the Entertainment industry.

See which is more difficult to become a make up artist or a NBA referee?
and to this point, i bet becoming a makeup artist to the big hollywood stars is just as difficult as becoming a ref in the nba. there's a sentence i never expected to write.

[sandman]

and to this point, i bet becoming a makeup artist to the big hollywood stars is just as difficult as becoming a ref in the nba. there's a sentence i never expected to write.

I feel three degrees more metro just for reading it...

[td4mvp3]

I feel three degrees more metro just for reading it...
:lol
i'm sending the queer eye guys your way right now.

[sandman]

:lol
i'm sending the queer eye guys your way right now.

Heck, I'm having lunch in Montrose today, so just tell them I'll meet 'em down there!

[rascal]

Being an nba ref is more difficult(difficult in that not as many people can do it) then being a soldier so it demands more pay.

[td4mvp3]

Being an nba ref is more difficult(difficult in that not as many people can do it) then being a soldier so it demands more pay.
:cry :lmao
i didn't know whether to laugh or cry at that statement.

[rascal]

The 2 guys who created YouTube worked 1 year and got 1.8bill U$S.... they are cleary overpaid. :D

Anyone can become a teacher or a soldier (sorry, but it's true), only a very few can become NBA ref's and almost no one can become billonares for a years work... either you deal with it and try to become a billonare or cry, like most, and get paid crap on a shity work :)


Offtopic: My first post, i had being reading the forum for years, i just decided to finally register. :D

Good first post. I agree with you.

And no sense just sitting back and lurking. Join in, its more fun that way.

[td4mvp3]

a little more background about NBA ref's

http://www.probasketballrefs.com/Default.aspx?tabid=68


Q. I know the refs are full-time, but do refs have other jobs? How many hours in a week do you spend officiating? What do you do when you’re not in season?

A. Being an NBA official is certainly a full-time job. We typically have 2 to 3 games a week, so we’re traveling all the time. You could be in Dallas on Tuesday, Atlanta on Thursday and in Los Angeles by Sunday. When we’re not in season, we spend our time at clinics, training camps, watching films of games, and studying the rulebook. Some people have some personal business on the side, but being an NBA official keeps most of us very busy.
outside of the traveling, that sounds like a pretty cushy job. even the travel may not be that bad, i'm sure they can afford first-class. outside of the 2 or so hours on the court, a lot of it is just sitting and reading or watching tv.

[rascal]

:cry :lmao
i didn't know whether to laugh or cry at that statement.

Only a select few can be good enough to be an nba ref. They take only what 30 to 50. The military takes 100s of thousands.

[td4mvp3]

Being an nba ref is more difficult(difficult in that not as many people can do it) then being a soldier so it demands more pay.
then you mean it is more difficult to become a ref, not that it is more difficult being a ref.

[rascal]

then you mean it is more difficult to become a ref, not that it is more difficult being a ref.

Both. A higher % of refs could be in the military as compared to the % of military people who could be nba refs.

[td4mvp3]

Both. A higher % of refs could be in the military as compared to the % of military people who could be nba refs.
based on what, exactly? precisely because so many are in the military gives them a better chance of having more people qualified to be a ref than vice versa. just because they didn't doesn't mean they couldn't. and to be a ref just requires watching games and calling fouls, not being shot at or rebuilding a city. that's just silly.

[td4mvp3]

A ref spend time at clinics, training camps, watching films of games, and studying the rulebook ..it isn't just calling fouls. Really have you ever referred a basketball game in your entire life to say it is so damn easy? If a ref does a good job you never even knew he was there...if he miss a couple of calls then people want his head. His job is vital for the NBA...the 3 referees keep the game under control; they call violations; give out Techincals and stop brawls too. You make it seem like they are just sitting in a press box and just calling fouls. And all of them college degrees.

And I'm not comparing it to a Solider life. because you can't compare a solider to a nba referee...but realize this any 18 year old without a even a high school diploma can go and enlist and become a Solider.
you do realize that you're now berating me because i said being a soldier is harder than being a ref, right? because the guy said this






then you mean it is more difficult to become a ref, not that it is more difficult being a ref.



Both. A higher % of refs could be in the military as compared to the % of military people who could be nba refs.

to which i replied


based on what, exactly? precisely because so many are in the military gives them a better chance of having more people qualified to be a ref than vice versa. just because they didn't doesn't mean they couldn't. and to be a ref just requires watching games and calling fouls, not being shot at or rebuilding a city. that's just silly.

and if you read it, i didn't say how easy it was to be a ref, merely that it's much harder to be a soldier. and if you truly think being a ref is harder than being a soldier, i need you to answer the question as to which place you'd rather be right now: iraq/afghanistan or reffing the bulls/pacers.

seriously, it's like you'ree looking for things to argue with me about and this last bit is reprehensible.

[td4mvp3]

A ref spend time at clinics, training camps, watching films of games, and studying the rulebook ..it isn't just calling fouls. Really have you ever referred a basketball game in your entire life to say it is so damn easy? If a ref does a good job you never even knew he was there...if he miss a couple of calls then people want his head. His job is vital for the NBA...the 3 referees keep the game under control; they call violations; give out Techincals and stop brawls too. You make it seem like they are just sitting in a press box and just calling fouls. And all of them college degrees.

And I'm not comparing it to a Solider life. because you can't compare a solider to a nba referee...but realize this any 18 year old without a even a high school diploma can go and enlist and become a Solider.
and if a soldier does a good job ... you live in a free country. which job is harder? yeesh.

[ducks]

people chose to be a soldier so they can go to colledge for free

[td4mvp3]

A ref spend time at clinics, training camps, watching films of games, and studying the rulebook ..it isn't just calling fouls. Really have you ever referred a basketball game in your entire life to say it is so damn easy? If a ref does a good job you never even knew he was there...if he miss a couple of calls then people want his head. His job is vital for the NBA...the 3 referees keep the game under control; they call violations; give out Techincals and stop brawls too. You make it seem like they are just sitting in a press box and just calling fouls. And all of them college degrees.

And I'm not comparing it to a Solider life. because you can't compare a solider to a nba referee...but realize this any 18 year old without a even a high school diploma can go and enlist and become a Solider.
then what exactly is your point in responding to what i wrote? my post was to say a soldier has a tougher road to ho than a ref and to correct what seemed an obvious misstatement by the other guy. if you're not going to address the point that was being discussed, seriously, why are you saying anything? i try to be civil on this thing but that pissed me off, to go off on some tirade and miss the whole point of the discussion and then not even compare which life is tougher, the ref or the soldier, when that was the point.

[td4mvp3]

people chose to be a soldier so they can go to colledge for free
more power to them.

[ducks]

more power to them.
so why compare them to what the nba refs make
they want to learn for free
so they do not have to get a loan
going in debt for 60k for school or learn for free
hummm

[td4mvp3]

so why compare them to what the nba refs make
they want to learn for free
so they do not have to get a loan
going in debt for 60k for school or learn for free
hummm
you know, i was about to have knee jerk reaction to that but thought about it ... you have a point. the comparison is mostly for, i guess, moral perspective. i got to thinking after this whole thing about why folks hate capitalism so much and there it is: capitalism is about paying folks and measuring their worth in dollars, and the capitalist values the ref more than the soldier. but before the philosophical aside, i use the soldier comarison mostly for shock value to convey how surprised i was. i may return to your point, though, someething isn't sitting right with me about it so i'm going to ponder it.

[ducks]

good responce good debater^^^

[td4mvp3]

so why compare them to what the nba refs make
they want to learn for free
so they do not have to get a loan
going in debt for 60k for school or learn for free
hummm
that's what it is, it's that in all the talk about soldiers and what not, you've gotten the issue mixed up. the issue is not that a soldier chose to go in and thus deserves what he gets. the issue is one of how does the nba justify doing so irregardless of their ability to do so.

[ducks]

so you want to know how the nba justifies paying their refs 260k a year?

[ducks]

they feel they have to pay that in order to get a good ref
that will spend the season study,taking test, staying in shape
be willing to be on the road
going to school constantly
putting up with fans,coaches,players and the media bashing them

[diego]

some people dont understand that there are hundreds of thousands more soldiers than there are refs. basic market principles of supply and demand.

and, not to be a dick, but with all of the discipline problems that have come up in iraq (the prisoner abuse, friendly fire deaths, mistaken targets etc) Im not sure you can justify giving some of those guys raises on the basis of merit- perhaps you could argue that in order to improve the quality of the armed services you need to offer more money to get more qualified people.

I read in the economist about a year ago that the army lowered its acceptance standards in order to meet its deployment quotas, and an army study of the less-qualified recruits showed they were more likely to waste ammo from bad aim and trigger happiness (some of these munitions cost thousands of dollars each), had problems using communications equipment, and other such mishaps. makes you wonder why they decided to do it anyway.

but again, as far as the market analogy, which is more important to society, a camera man or a garbage man?? the garbage man keeps the city clean and prevents the proliferation of disease, but gets paid 1/1000th of what a camera man makes. why? because just about anyone can pick up garbage and put it in a truck, whereas there are few people who can operate a professional camera.

[td4mvp3]

they feel they have to pay that in order to get a good ref
that will spend the season study,taking test, staying in shape
be willing to be on the road
going to school constantly
putting up with fans,coaches,players and the media bashing them
actually, i'd pretty much settled on the idea of it being a deterent to gambling a while back (give 'em enough money, why would they risk it by throwing a game, sort of thinking that seems to have fallen apart). what you say makes sense, but i know you can get those qualities for less than 260k. would they be the best of the best? who knows, but judging by some of the goofiness we've seen (crawford ejecting duncan, this gambling thing, the refs caught selling their first class tickets, etc.), maybe we didn't get those guys anyway?

[td4mvp3]

some people dont understand that there are hundreds of thousands more soldiers than there are refs. basic market principles of supply and demand.

and, not to be a dick, but with all of the discipline problems that have come up in iraq (the prisoner abuse, friendly fire deaths, mistaken targets etc) Im not sure you can justify giving some of those guys raises on the basis of merit- perhaps you could argue that in order to improve the quality of the armed services you need to offer more money to get more qualified people.

I read in the economist about a year ago that the army lowered its acceptance standards in order to meet its deployment quotas, and an army study of the less-qualified recruits showed they were more likely to waste ammo from bad aim and trigger happiness (some of these munitions cost thousands of dollars each), had problems using communications equipment, and other such mishaps. makes you wonder why they decided to do it anyway.

but again, as far as the market analogy, which is more important to society, a camera man or a garbage man?? the garbage man keeps the city clean and prevents the proliferation of disease, but gets paid 1/1000th of what a camera man makes. why? because just about anyone can pick up garbage and put it in a truck, whereas there are few people who can operate a professional camera.
i've been contending that there are enough folks willing to be a ref that supplydemand seems shaky. the fact that so few are chosen isn't a matter of so few being available (like a neurosurgeon) but by the needs of the employer. if you have a job lots of people want to do and you have few of those jobs, it would seem you have the power to reduce the wage. thus, again, i think they get paid so much to get them not to gamble and that strategy may not be sound or the pay may need to approach what coaches get. using your analogy, i bet that if the pool of people willing to be a garbage man went down, the wage would go up, simply to attract a bigger pool to pick from. it has nothing to do with the "worth" of the work as it is to the society but the number of applicants. i think plenty of folks want to be an nba ref, and even if they don't start off as good, they can get better, so the idea of getting the best is less of a worry.

as to the bolded text, i'd just caution to keep things in perspective. you've heard, what, at most 1,000 reports of poor performance or criminal activity by soldiers and there are more than 200,000 soldiers in iraq/afghanistan? maybe 1 percent, probably less, are causing problems so most are likely well worth any sort of merit raise they get.

[diego]

ok, say the ref union decides they are fed up with the media smearing them with the donaghy scandal and whining fans, and they decide to go on strike. who would stern bring in? fiba refs? college refs? why would they abandon their comfort zone for the rigors of the NBA? only reason would be money. certainly not prestige.

and two-three years of having guys "learn -on-the-job" might kill the league. would you watch a game if you knew it would turn into a 5 hour free throw contest? or if you knew the dirtiest team wins? probably not. you'd get fed up and quit (the fact that a lot of people already feel this way doesnt help my argument, but you catch my drift). I mean lets say you went to a restaurant and your waiter totally screws up your order. you complain to the manager and he tells you the guy is learning on the job. what do you care, you still paid to be served! whereas if the manager tells you thats the way theyve been serving for the past 20 years, all you can say is "gee this restaurant sucks!"

i think you underestimate how difficult it is to find a good referee. sure, a lot of people may SAY they want to be one, but that isnt the same as being one, and it sure as hell isnt the same as being a good one, on top of that willing to travel almost non stop 7-8 months a year.

and for the record, there are still way more neurosurgeons than there are refs. In your circle of friends/acquaintances, how many refs (any sport) do you know (on any level)? I dont know any, but i do know plenty of doctors (and Im a baker, not a doctor myself!). Nobody wants to be a ref. its a thankless job and if you really like the sport you'd rather be a coach or a player.

In the end, the refs have a union, they know they arent easily replaced, they know the NBA has a ton of money, and so they use their leverage to become overpaid. The NBA could not risk firing all of them and hiring cheap replacements.

[CubanMustGo]

Thank you! I don't think he understands how difficult it is become a nba Ref!

That's obvious.

Using his argument: "there are millions of guys that would love to play in the NBA such that supply/demand seems shaky." And he keeps making the same erroneous statements over and over and over and over again in the mistaken belief that if you say something often enough, it must be true. :pctoss

[td4mvp3]

That's obvious.

Using his argument: "there are millions of guys that would love to play in the NBA such that supply/demand seems shaky." And he keeps making the same erroneous statements over and over and over and over again in the mistaken belief that if you say something often enough, it must be true. :pctoss
you know, that's a salient point that no one's brought up. up until you said it, i had every reason to say it over and over again because no one had said much to refute it aside from the fact that supply/demand existed.

[td4mvp3]

Another thing their lives might be more difficult but it's easier to become a Soldier than a referee that is what you don't seem to understand.

It's easier to go to Harvard Law School than to become a NBA referee; it's easier to get into medical school than become a NBA referee; it's easier to become an accountant, dentist or any other profession in the World.

Name one other profession in the world that has 60 full time employees? The only other one is maybe other sport professions.

Are their lives more difficult than doctors, lawyers, teachers; soldiers no..but to become one it is near impossible that is why they get paid so damn well.

And why pay them less...for better or worse they are the best at their profession, they have worked their asses to get to this level and they deserve what they can get. And $260 thousand isn't that much considering they work for a multi-billion dollar enterprise and there is only 60 of them total!!!!!!!

ANd like everyone said it is supply and demand...if there was so many competent referees around they would have fired the supposedly incompetent referees and hired the new ones for less pay. It's not like a NBA referee has tenure like a teacher does...they have keep on top of their game year round or they would be replaced.
you are desperately trying to save face by linking these two notions. when you responded to my post about it being tougher to be a soldier than a ref, you completely missed the point. just own up to it and stop trying to muddle the two different issues.

[td4mvp3]

this is how silly your attempt at face-saving has become. in one post, YOU write


Another thing their lives might be more difficult but it's easier to become a Soldier than a referee that is what you don't seem to understand.

but then in the next


It is not tougher to be a solider than a NBA referee, the job is more dangerous period, but it isn't tougher. ANy 18 year old can become a us solider how tough is that?

The job is more dangerous, but is being a police officer and a fireman; but it's tougher to become a Referee when are you going to realize that?

Funny how you keep bring up different professions into this argument and I'm the one talking about different issues?
which is it? and how is a job more dangerous but not tougher to do? any refs lose a leg? have their face blown off? get in a firefight? help build a school?

the issue with the ease of becoming an nba ref was never at issue, i conceded to the guy who wrote the nonsense about being a ref is tougher than being a soldier that he actually meant it is tougher to become a ref. it took someone else to point out the supply/demand issue as it relates to nba players as being a fallacy in my thinking, even though you've been screaming forever that it is supply/demand without addressing the number of applicants.

and really, the only way to determine the accuracy of the supply/demand thing is to know how many folks apply to be an nba ref. looking at the website you provided, it looks like they go out and select them from college and cba ranks, not really an application process.

[td4mvp3]

It is not tougher to be a solider than a NBA referee, the job is more dangerous period, but it isn't tougher. ANy 18 year old can become a us solider how tough is that?

The job is more dangerous, but so is being a police officer and a fireman; but it's tougher to become a Referee when are you going to realize that? There is only 60 NBA referees total! How many soliders are there worldwide millions!!!!!!!!!!

Funny how you keep bring up different professions into this argument and I'm the one talking about different issues?

One last thing you are the only person that believes NBA ref's should get paid less..yeah like that won't make them more inclined to fix games!

this is from the website you provided: http://www.probasketballrefs.com/Default.aspx?tabid=68

Q. What do I have to do to become a NBA referee?
A. In a recent interview with Referee Magazine, Joe Borgia, the NBA official responsible for recruiting and hiring referees for the NBA, the WNBA, and the NBA's Developmental League, described how the NBA goes about hiring professional basketball officials:

"I, along with our management team, watch a lot of officials. We go to camps to identify possible candidates. We go to college tournaments with the logic that the best officials in each conference are working those tournaments. I think last year I attended 30 games in nine days within six states. That was only me, we had many others out there watching on behalf of the NBA. I simply am trying to identify one or two officials who might have future potential within our league. We also have NBA-sponsored camps in which we invite candidates who we have seen work to get a look at them more closely. At that time, we can decide whether that official would be a good fit for our D-League. From this time forward, any official that works in the NBA or WNBA will first work in the D-League."

since they go out and pick potential refs, i'd consider the number of places they go to as the supply of potential workers. considering this guy went to 30 games in nine days and had "many others" doing the same, the pool of applicants seems robust. plenty of folks are taking the steps to become a ref, thus several are out there to possibly be chosen.

this doesn't address the dude's point about lots of folks wanting to be in the nba, which remains the best counterpoint to my argument.

i'm still thinking on it, though.

[td4mvp3]

This isreally becoming pointless...You wondered why refs get paid so much everyone told you why because there is only a selective few of them.

So now Soldiers, fireman, and police officers should get paid more than doctors lawyers; dentists; accountants; sales people; Business people because their job is more dangerous?
Did anyone force these people to become soldiers, fireman; or police officiers? Anyone who chooses a career path knows the pros and cons of their profession.


You are just bitter that they make $260 thousand... I bet you actually believe you could become a NBA referee that is the only reason that you keep talking about Soldiers, doctors and teachers.
again you don't address the issue. when you quoted me, i wasn't talking about refs making more than soldiers, as i've plainly pointed out, i was addressing the ludicrous claim that a ref's job is tougher than a soldier's job (irrespective of pay). you gave a contradictory statement about a soldier's job maybe being tougher and then definitely a ref's job was tougher, and you haven't cleared up which is it.

[td4mvp3]

This is really becoming pointless...You wondered why refs get paid so much everyone told you why because there is only a selective few of them.

So now Soldiers, fireman, and police officers should get paid more than doctors lawyers; dentists; accountants; sales people; Business people because their job is more dangerous?
Did anyone force these people to become soldiers, fireman; or police officiers? Anyone who chooses a career path knows the pros and cons of their profession.


You are just bitter that they make $260 thousand... I bet you actually believe you could become a NBA referee that is the only reason that you keep talking about Soldiers, doctors and teachers.

again






A ref spend time at clinics, training camps, watching films of games, and studying the rulebook ..it isn't just calling fouls. Really have you ever referred a basketball game in your entire life to say it is so damn easy? If a ref does a good job you never even knew he was there...if he miss a couple of calls then people want his head. His job is vital for the NBA...the 3 referees keep the game under control; they call violations; give out Techincals and stop brawls too. You make it seem like they are just sitting in a press box and just calling fouls. And all of them college degrees.

And I'm not comparing it to a Solider life. because you can't compare a solider to a nba referee...but realize this any 18 year old without a even a high school diploma can go and enlist and become a Solider.


you do realize that you're now berating me because i said being a soldier is harder than being a ref, right? because the guy said this










then you mean it is more difficult to become a ref, not that it is more difficult being a ref.





Both. A higher % of refs could be in the military as compared to the % of military people who could be nba refs.



to which i replied




based on what, exactly? precisely because so many are in the military gives them a better chance of having more people qualified to be a ref than vice versa. just because they didn't doesn't mean they couldn't. and to be a ref just requires watching games and calling fouls, not being shot at or rebuilding a city. that's just silly.



and if you read it, i didn't say how easy it was to be a ref, merely that it's much harder to be a soldier. and if you truly think being a ref is harder than being a soldier, i need you to answer the question as to which place you'd rather be right now: iraq/afghanistan or reffing the bulls/pacers.

seriously, it's like you'ree looking for things to argue with me about and this last bit is reprehensible.

[ShoogarBear]

Dude, you are completely missing the point about how tough it is to BE something vs. how tough it is to BECOME something.

It's not that tough to be the Queen of England.

It's really tough to become it.

[td4mvp3]

That's obvious.

Using his argument: "there are millions of guys that would love to play in the NBA such that supply/demand seems shaky." And he keeps making the same erroneous statements over and over and over and over again in the mistaken belief that if you say something often enough, it must be true. :pctoss
what i'm thinking though is that lots of people want to be nba players but their market is dependent on the audience watching them. a guy, even in the nba, isn't going to make millions if folks don't want to see him. but with refs, the market is dependent on the nba mostly and the pool of folks who could take another ref's place is substantial. i'd need hard facts on the turnover rate for a ref but it seems like new ones come in every 2-3 years, which tells me there is a pipeline. so even if every ref went on strike, i'm doubting the die-hard, been a spurs fan since 74 people are gonna leave because a few more travels get called. i still think the deterent to betting is the thing, but that is a good point, man.

[td4mvp3]

Dude, you are completely missing the point about how tough it is to BE something vs. how tough it is to BECOME something.

It's not that tough to be the Queen of England.

It's really tough to become it.
not at all, i completely concede that it's really tough to become an nba ref, but there are lots of folks out there available to be (hence all the places those guys go to look for potential new refs).

my main beef with the adam guy is this stupid notion that it is tougher to be a ref as opposed to being a soldier. i was having a discussion with someone else on that point and he decided to go ballistic on me while utterly missing the point and has since tried to save face by merging the issues. one discussion, even in the same thread, wasn't about the other thing.

[diego]

as to the bolded text, i'd just caution to keep things in perspective. you've heard, what, at most 1,000 reports of poor performance or criminal activity by soldiers and there are more than 200,000 soldiers in iraq/afghanistan? maybe 1 percent, probably less, are causing problems so most are likely well worth any sort of merit raise they get.

couldnt you make the same argument for refs??

[td4mvp3]

couldnt you make the same argument for refs??
of course. but my issue with the pay wasn't that it was merit-based but a way to curtail betting. to be clear, i started the thread as a way of questioning the salary but have since decided the betting angle makes the most sense.

[td4mvp3]

You are a idiot; I've always said it's tougher to become a ref...I never said the job was tougher than a soldiers..
just a quick note, before you start insulting folks


It is not tougher to be a solider than a NBA referee, the job is more dangerous period, but it isn't tougher. ANy 18 year old can become a us solider how tough is that?

[ManuTastic]

To all the posters who seem to think and/or complain about pay scales being unrelated to your concepts of 'worth' or 'work,' guess what? You are right. They are not. You are now old enough to learn that in this country, people are paid according to the laws of supply and demand.

If there were a lot fewer people willing to risk being shot or car-bombed, the army would have to pay more. I personally wouldn't risk it for less than 10 mil a year, but hey, that's just me.
Large supply of labor+easily teachable skills=lower pay.

If you think $250k for being a ref sounds sweet, go ahead and be one. That is a lot of do-re-mi, no doubt. Do you think you can just email a resume to David Stern and get that job? Try it and get back to me. Are you willing to invest the years in ref'ing at lower levels, probably starting out unpaid, in order to compile the kind of experience they are looking for?
Low supply of labor+rare skills and experience=higher pay.

If there were millions of people in China willing to work for peanuts to make the same stuff Americans make a decent wage making, then companies might just lay off their American workers and buy their stuff from China instead. Oops, I think that one might have already happened!

[td4mvp3]

Well explain to me how how Beno makes millions per year? If your good enough to play in the NBA you will make millions of dollars it has nothing to do with folks want to seem you play or not! The coach decides if you play or not the Audience!

Explain this one genius?
it's not audience like american idol, with folks calling in or something. it's that the tv companies and nike and whatnot are offering the nba a big deal based on the idea that lots of folks will watch the games and thus the commercials. granted, the coach decides and the owners pay the players salary, but the way things stay profitable is that owners know people will show up and buy jerseys and the rest of it. beno got his millions because he was expected to be a certain caliber of player and help the team and thereby grab more of an audience. the only reason there are millions of dollars to be paid to any player is because the players attract the crowd. lebron made the cavs $150 million because folks want to follow him and fans shell out for merchandise, tickets, beverages, etc.

beno makes millions because he has something on pop, though. :spin

[td4mvp3]

NO shit it isn't tougher to be a soldier it's more dangerous... Their job is more dangerous period!!!! How tough can it be if any 18 year old can become one?


Please go ahead and find me 18 year old NBA referee?
you just said you didn't say it was tougher to be a ref than a soldier and i just showed you where you had. that was my point there.

[td4mvp3]

I said it's tougher to become a NBA ref I've been saying that the whole time... there are a lot tougher more dangerous jobs than being a nba ref, but it's tougher to become a nba ref; that is all I’ve been saying
my contention with you right now is that you slammed me for saying something that you apparently agree with based on this


Great it's tougher to be a Soldier, now what the hell does that ever have to do with NBA referees?
it has nothing to do with nba ref salaries and everything to do with the fact that i was addressing one poster and you started going off while missing the point.


Also explain why you believe they should make less money???????

Also if they make only $100,000 or $250,000 or even $500,000 how does that affect your life; maybe if you were paying their salary than it would be different but your not!!!!!
David Stern set their salaries and none of the owners have ever complained about.
Also Is the NBA not a Multi-Billion dollar enterprise? If it can afford to pay them that much then more power to the Ref's for making that kind of money.

to remind you again why i brought it up






It doesn't bother me at all. I'm not the one who started a thread and keeps whining about how much they get paid. I'm not the one that compares them to teachers, doctors, soldiers or Umpires and NFL refs.

I don't care if they made 2 million per year it doesn’t' affect my life at all....

...what annoys me is that care so damn much what they get make.

Why does what they get paid bother you so damn much? I'm not trying to be a dick here, but let it go..

There a lot of people that make a lot of money and there is a lot of people that make jack shit…that is the way society works.



but you are the guy who keeps railing on and on about the thread in the thread that, obviously, others have had some opinion about. what part of message board do you not get? and you still haven't addressed the bolded text, namely, if you could give a rat's tail what the nba pays refs, why are you so incensed that i think they are overpaid? you cannot have it both ways, to feign disinterest in the pay but be oh so annoyed at my questioning it. if you truly do not care about the subject, why are you spending so much time reefuting it? it's akin to the kid yelling to everyone that he doesn't want to be bothered.

to a greater point, your claim of, essentially, this is just how the nba wants to do things is such a cop out. the spurs just traded scola for a box of chocolates and a smile. did you constantly go to the numerous threads about that just to write "the spurs pay the bills, that's what they want to do so they can do it, why are we talking about it?" does any of the discussion here effect any sort of change? no. so your reesponse to this thread applies to every thread. and if it bothers you that much, again, move on from this message board where opinions and thoughts are shared, not just plans to impliment change across the swath of the nba.

finally, to explain, succinctly, all the reasons that i have already given about why this thread exists.

1. biggest scandal in the nba. ref is betting on games. one theory that had been touted was that refs make so little that they could be influenced to fix games. 260k is much more than the median u.s. household income of about 50k (as well as more than many of the examples already given in this thread) and seems like enough money to satiate anyone, so how valid is that theory (you yourself said



It is a lot of money but when you look at compared to the NBA which is a multi-billion dollar enterprise it's nothing

But to the rest of society it's sure is a damn lot!

)

2. the amount itself surprised me, thus prompting me to see if it surprised anyone else. i think they overpay the refs, for whatever reason, and wanted to see what others thought

3. the idea of supply and demand doesn't work. as i've thought about it, there is an abundannt supply of willing workers (granted, there is a weeding out process but that only bolsters the point. they MUST weed out applicants, by background checks as well as by requiring folks to work up the ranks, because the supply is so great) or the demand for the job is great. the increase in wages normally happens when there are few folks for many jobs (i.e., math teachers are getting big stipends because there are many math teaching gigs out there but few folks interested in teaching the subject), which isn't the case here. the number of jobs is limited, certainly, but that would only seem to give the employer even more leverage since there are plenty of other people willing to take the place of some crabby employee. i think the scandal shows the real reason the salary is so high, and apparently, even money may not be the way unless we start seeing refs making the athletes' pay. would that be overpaying?

there, in list form, are the reasons, again, for this thread. the first two reasons were explained many times before, the last just hit me last night and this morning.

The job is so exclusive it is near impossible to become one...so good for them. If they make $400,000 then great...I'm not paying their salary and neither are you. And if they get paid more it might make more people want to try to become a NBA referee and they might be able to get better ref's in the long run; ever think of it like that?[/QUOTE]
which has been my issue, it appears you don't get better refs with better pay based on this ref scandal, as alluded to earlier. that's where i'd like the discussion to go but here we are again.

[td4mvp3]

I've spent too much damn time on this thread! I'm done.
here's hoping, man, my dinner's getting cold. no hard feelings, i hope.

[td4mvp3]

NO shit it isn't tougher to be a soldier it's more dangerous... Their job is more dangerous period!!!! How tough can it be if any 18 year old can become one?


Please go ahead and find me 18 year old NBA referee?
then you agree with the point i was making with the other guy, the same point that prompted you to tear into me without provocation. that's what i want you to realize.

[rascal]

I started this.

Its tougher becoming an nba ref and it can also be tougher than a soldier but it all depends on what you define as tough. There are jobs that are physically tough and some that are mentally tough and some that are dangerous tough.

No doubt that the soldiers job is more dangerous.

Back to the original point about comparing the pay.

Not many people can become good nba level refs as compared to how many people can have a job in the military as a soldier. So I would expect the exclusiveness of how difficult it is to become an nba ref would demand that they get more pay than soldiers.

[td4mvp3]

I started this.

Its tougher becoming an nba ref and it can also be tougher than a soldier but it all depends on what you define as tough. There are jobs that are physically tough and some that are mentally tough and some that are dangerous tough.

No doubt that the soldiers job is more dangerous.

Back to the original point about comparing the pay.

Not many people can become good nba level refs as compared to how many people can have a job in the military as a soldier. So I would expect the exclusiveness of how difficult it is to become an nba ref would demand that they get more pay than soldiers.
there is no way, by any perspective, under any circumstances, is a soldier's job less tough, regardless of any definition that makes sense, than a ref's. none. physically - maybe a ref works out, but i've seen plenty of extra baggage on some refs. a soldier is always working out, always has drills, and if we're talking about being in service overseas in iraq/kuwait/any nation-building place, they are lugging stuff around, wear heavy armor and weapons, etc.

mentally, a ref stresses about a missed call, has to remember rules and watches film to improve. a soldier stresses about being killed, period, everyday, even on secured bases like in the green zone. soldiers stress about geneva conventions and being jailed for following orders, they worry about following orders even in a war many or at least some may not agree with. hell, they worry about families left behind and how those families will survive if the soldier is killed or wounded.

dangerous tough just makes no sense at all. refs are in zero danger on the court, even if a fight breaks out, because they are not, to my knowledge, legally bound to get in the middle of anything (that's what security is for) and if two 250-pound players want to brawl, and the refs stand back, i have a hard time seeing anyone blaming them if those players just are intent on doing it. refs do get in between players to prevent such things, but i'm not sure they are legally bound to.

what i am definitely sure of is that a soldier is legally obligated to run into firefights, go into sniper situations, hunt for targets under the threat of car bombings, etc.

i don't know why you're trying to find some way to defend the statement. just own up to it being written in haste or something, but trying to defend it is ridiculous.

as for the pay, i still don't buy the supply/demand thing. the fact that the nba can be so selective in their choosing points to the large pool of folks they have at their disposal. it's the betting deterrence that makes the most sense.