Reply With Quote
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.
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 s out for merchandise, tickets, beverages, etc.
beno makes millions because he has something on pop, though.
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.
my contention with you right now is that you slammed me for saying something that you apparently agree with based on this
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.Great it's tougher to be a Soldier, now what the does that ever have to do with NBA referees?
to remind you again why i brought it upAlso 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.
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]
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.
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.
here's hoping, man, my dinner's getting cold. no hard feelings, i hope.
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.
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 cir stances, 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. , 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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions