In partnership with CBSSports.com
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
1. Simply how I interpreted your first post...$50MM request against $60Billion = they should just pay it*
2. Agree with your premise, but unions work differently. I imagine they control membership in their club independent of their employer, creating a nice little monopoly for themselves, and no one negotiates on their own. This dynamic doesn't allow for the market to set efficient prices (salaries), like in your example.
5. You're probably correct. Though I imagine the owners consider this, however far separated from reality it may be. In their mind, everyone is trying to extract more. Players' strike last year, ref strike this year...
6. Actually, I think it's more about corporate ownership than individual rich guys. How many individual owners are left? This may be part of the impasse.
*again, I just want to watch good football too, get it done.
The reality of the situation is the refs have no impact on that $60 billion the NFL will make. The prime-time game ratings are UP this year from last year, the best year the league has had since 1989. On top of that, the NFL's partners are making more money than ever off of football, as ad sales are through the roof (http://www.adweek.com/news/television/nfl-game-inventory-close-selling-out-142968).
Unless the refs can show they affect the bottom line of the NFL, they cannot argue that they are deserving of a bigger slice of the pie. It's irrelevant how much money the NFL as a whole makes if these guys don't have an impact, one way or the other, on that number.
I think one of the major points of contention (beyond the dollars, which is also tied to the NFL trying to cut the contributions to the ref pension plan similar to the way they cut the contributions to the assistant coaches pension plan a few years ago) is that the NFL wants to add 3 additional crews to be available as backups/replacements for retiring/poor performing refs. Obviously the current refs don't want to have this because guys could get bumped out in season and it would be much easier to throw older refs out if there's a bench they can go to.
Upon learning that interceptions will now count as touchdowns, Brett Favre has announced that he will be coming out of retirement.
The irrational, jilted fan in me thinks the current roulette wheel might produce a better outcome than what we've seen in the past.
nope. tirico and the old retired ref were wrong on that according to something from the rule book PFT just posted
NJ State Senator (majority leader) hints at law banning replacement officials.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by njterp02 22 months ago
I'm in the severe minority here, but I don't think the decision not to overturn is nearly as bad as people are making it out to be. Missing the pass interference and not initially calling it an INT is the worst part of the call.
Personally I'm loving the nut punches by the NFL to its fans. Just wait until they start charging to watch end of games. "Get NFL 4th Quarter from your cable or satellite provider and catch the game-winning drives you used to be able to see!"
As for me, I've always taken the NFL's replay rule at its exact word -- there must be 100 percent indisputable evidence that a play should be overturned for the referee to overturn it. I thought Jennings caught the ball. But I've watched the play 25 times, minimum, and is it 100 percent certain that he caught it and maintained possession all the way to the ground? That's a hard call to make.
Grand Larceny: Packers Get Robbed of Win in Seattle.'' -- Headline in this morning's Oshkosh (Wis.) Northwestern
Not calling it a very clear INT, which is what was, is the major mistake. The PI is something that happens and the real refs never call, and not overturning it is what happens in that situation because the NFL is so specific about the review rules.
Screwing up the INT call was the huge failure.
The third point in that article is the most important part IMO.
We understand the game is fast, you don't always have the best angle and sometimes it's hard to make the right call after seeing it once in real time. But there were two refs who were right there and had two good vantages of what happened. Why not take 15 seconds to discuss what each of you saw?
"I saw Tate with the ball, simultaneous possession, touchdown."
"No, he only had one arm on the ball after Jennings caught it clean and pulled it to his chest. INT, game over"
"Phew, good thing you saw that or it would have been a real embarrassment for the league and myself!"
As far as the refs negotiation, I can side with the NFL on certain parts of it. For instance, the NFL wants to add to the pool of the current refs and have backup ref crews. Then they want to be able to "bench" under-performing refs and go with the good ones. Sounds pretty good to me.
They also want to cut out Refs pension, which to me is not so irrational. NFL refs have a part time job status but they still want a full pension plan? What pisses me off is the refs gave up pension plans for incoming refs already during the negotiations but want to keep the existing ones. To me that's reasonable. But the NFL seems to be refusing to budge on the matter.
But they may have an impact on the bottom line of individual teams that make the playoffs or don't make the playoffs. In a 16 game season, one win/loss can be make or break. The isn't MLB with 162 games and the calls even out over the course of the season.
What is one of the most valuable things that Green Bay has? Home field advantage, outdoors in bad weather in January. I know they haven't won every playoff game at home, but it's a nice advantage I believe. That game last night may have cost them home field adavantage, additional playoff revenue, etc. It was a conference loss too, and those come in no lower than 4 on the tiebreaker scale I think.
At the macro level maybe almost no impact, at the micro level, check back after the last game is played and the playoff matchups are out. If I'm the GB owner(s) this morning, I'm not thinking too highly of the leadership of the Commissioner.
If you believe Peter King and others, the NFL headquarters staff has been switched to a defined contribution (401(K)) retirement plan from a defined benefit (pension) retirement plan, and Gooddell doesn't want to give part timers something the full timers don't have. Sounds great on the face of it and hard to argue with, but we've now found out the refs are more important to the league reputation than payroll clerks, lawyers, admin staff, and accountants.
Jeff Darlington @JeffDarlington
NFL clarifies that the play -- including who had possession -- was reviewable: "In endzone, ruling of a simultaneous catch is reviewable."
They also clarify that they made the right call.
The NFL announced it is standing behind the referees win over the Green Bay Packers.
Now you know: NFL does think we are stupid. Maybe, but not that stupid.
Buzz going around the water cooler about #nflhalftimewalkout . Is this a legit twitter uprising?
Yeah, I'm not doing that. I'd rather stay in my seat and watch the second half.
Twitter muscles. No one who drops all the coin you have to pay to watch an NFL game is leaving at halftime.
LOL @ ESPN continuing to quote Jermichael Finley's tweet
"Come on @NFL this [bleep] is getting out of Control. Caused us a DAMN game. Horrible!"
I've been trying to get "caused" going as a thing, but my friends aren't biting. Tough lost for me.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports