Reply With Quote
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
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
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.
good responce good debater^^^
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.
so you want to know how the nba justifies paying their refs 260k a year?
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
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 , 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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.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.
Last edited by td4mvp3; 07-25-2007 at 08:36 PM.
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.
this is how silly your attempt at face-saving has become. in one post, YOU write
but then in the next
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.
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.
Last edited by td4mvp3; 07-25-2007 at 08:53 PM.
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.
again
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
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
just a quick note, before you start insulting folks
Last edited by td4mvp3; 07-25-2007 at 09:59 PM.
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!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions