Players have a special talent that can't be replaced. The relative supply of quality officials is also much higher than the supply of players.Van said:
At least the refs and the linesmen have some dignity
- Thread starter edmontonoilers89
- Start date
- Status
DaveyCrockett said:
:lol
I'm sorry, but I can't help but laugh.
There are only roughly 70 NHL officiating jobs, compared to roughly 700 playing jobs.
The ratio of prospective officials compared to prospective players is about the same. If you don't believe it, then I'll leave it up to you to dig up numbers of registered officials compared to players in any country.
And again...it isn't just about players having talent that people pay to see. Read what I said about the lifestyle that NHL officials live.
Van said:
The players are making more because there is competition for their services. What leverage do the officials have? The players have arbitration and unrestricted free agency. The officials can either work in the NHL or work in the minors.
If the officials decided to strike and were replaced by vastly inferior officials, it would make little financial difference to the NHL. Who is going to say, "I was going to go to the game tonight but there's a minor league guy doing the lines, I'm not going now!"?
If the players want to play overseas, that is their perogative. Are they stealing jobs? It depends on how you want to spin doctor your answer.
Bottom line: Out of sight, out of mind.
Bottom line: Out of sight, out of mind.
SwisshockeyAcademy said:
When the NHl went full time to the two ref system, they called up a bucnh of AHL levle refs. THey got their jobs not bacuse they earned them, but becuase they were the best available at the time.
Van said:
Becuae at least half of them would not be in the league if not for the two ref system.
hockeytown9321 said:
This is a moot point, and it doesn't give you the necessary experience, education and qualification to decide what calibre a referee is. The 2-referee system is what the NHL employs for its officiating. If the league needs 35 referees, they need 35 referees, and the 35 referees they use are the 35 best referees there are. That makes the current officials all of NHL calibre.
You don't make such judgments with "what ifs". You make such judgments with "what is".
I can say likewise that if there were still 21 teams in the NHL, there would only be roughly 500 players, and thus not all of today's NHL players are of NHL calibre.
In today's NHL, all players with jobs are of NHL calibre. The same goes for the officials.
BlackRedGold said:
You're not seeing the biggest issue...
I will repeat...
NHL referees pay issues isn't just about on-ice performance either. They live the same lifestyle as the players. In fact, they see more hotels because out of each official's 70 regular season games, I would be surprised if 20 are in the closest NHL city to their home. They are lucky to see their families 3 days a week. That alone makes them deserve half the money players make...and there's only roughly 70 of them compared to 700 players.
Van said:
Lifestyle has nothing to do with it. Does that mean that anyone who is away from their family for 160 days of the year is entitled to a salary nearing one million dollars?
How do NHL referee salaries compare to military personnel who go overseas for months at a time? Do you think an NHL referee should make more then a guy serving in Iraq or Afghanistan because they've got such a tough lifestyle?
BlackRedGold said:
This has nothing to do with US troops overseas. If you want to argue in favour of players making 10 times what the officials make, and then argue that officials shouldn't make more money than troops overseas, you're not making much effort to respond to my point. Instead, you're twisting it into something that it's not, and completely disregarding the fact that players are making a f'ing hell of a lot more money than US troops overseas as well. If we follow your logic, no professional athlete/official should make more than any single soldier serving time for his country, thus rendering our debate over NHL official and player salaries completely pointless.
Lifestyle has everything to do with it. If you were to ask an NHL player why they make so much money, he would tell you it's because he pushes his body to the physical max day in, day out, and he spends so much time away from his family. Ask an NHL referee why he gets paid on average 10 times less for living essentially the same lifestyle. These guys don't just show up for their games and go home. They have to workout just as hard as the players, during the season and during the off-season.
I would say its time you spread some of this wisdom to other threads as well. Hate to see you waste this genious on just the business side of hockey.hockeytown9321 said:
Oh C'mon..... C'mon!!!!! Comparing the fantasy land of the NHL to military is idiotic. Idiotic!!!! Its a different world and you know it.BlackRedGold said:
Van said:
No it is your logic that would have troops overseas earning more then athletes. I'm just taking it to the next logical step.
My argument is that the players earn significantly more then the officials because they have more importance. Their salaries are based upon their values with individual teams. The officials have no serious potential employer other then the NHL. The players make more because they have more leverage and are far more important for generating revenues.
Your argument is that the officials should make an average salary closer to that of the players. You feel that they should get that because they have a similiar lifestyle to that of the players. You don't think that their overall value to the game should have an impact.
But the officials have an easier lifestyle then that of troops overseas. So why should they make more then the troops?
An NHL player might tell you that but he would be wrong. He makes so much money because his talents generate billions of dollars of revenues.
If the owners bring in replacement players next fall, what do you think will happen to attendance and ticket prices? They'll probably both fall. If a new CBA is signed and the owners end the lockout but suddenly the officials go on strike and are replaced with scabs what would the overall effect on attendance and ticket prices be? Probably not much and that is why the players earn so much more then the officials.
BlackRedGold said:
And I agree. However, players making 10 times what the officials do is ludicrous.
BlackRedGold said:
That's not exactly my argument. I feel the officials' value to the game is invaluable. Simply put, without them, there are no games....well, the NHL can still have games with scabs from junior and college hockey. Do we really want to see that? At least when they started the 2-referee system, all new officials did go through an NHL officiating training camp.
But in the end, the lifestyle point is the most valid.
Of all the respect officials get in this game in any league, they get the most respect from the players and coaches. Out of all the abuse I take from players and coaches, I get just as many compliments from the same people. Just last night I was officiating a mens rec game, and a Jr.A coach was playing. He told me I did a great job in the game last week where I didn't think I was quite up to par on the lines. That's a bigger confidence boost than I would get if I scored perfect on an evaluation from my supervisor.
I'm willing to bet the players would have no problem with officials earning more money than they do now.
SwisshockeyAcademy said:
I was hoping someone would get it.
Seriously though, if there were a 500 referee system, I could probably be one. But that doesn't mean I'm qualified to be an NHL ref. Its like the military draft. Guys didn't go to Vietnam becuase they were the most qualified, they went becuase we needed soldiers. I doubt you'd find many people who felt the US military was the best it'd ever been during the Vietnam War.
Marconius
Registered User
hockeytown9321 said:
And if the NHL only played 1 game a week, there would be only 1 ref who was in the league.
Why are you drawing the performance of refs into question. Let me spell it out for you:
1. Irregardless of the skill of the particular ref, all the NHL refs are out of jobs for the duration of the lockout.
2. There are numerous evidences in this thread describing how NHL refs have the opportunity to keep on working in other leagues
3. The refs are on record as saying they will not seek other work, becasue they do not want to put their breathern out of work.
Marconius
Registered User
BlackRedGold said:
Why drag the amount NHL refs make into the question? It's almost as if you seem to be muddying up the waters on purpose because you have no real point. What the refs make is not really related to anything. The point is that they refuse to take other jobs out of solidarity.
Marconius said:
Regardless of what you say, irregardless is not a word.
Do you honestly think the AHL would be banging down Mike Leggo's door if he delcard himself eligable. Its like that scene in Major League 2 when Corbin Bernson announces he's solved the team's problems. "Good news coach, I've activated myself"
Marconius
Registered User
hockeytown9321 said:
my badI'm not sure who would be banging down who's door, all I know is that the information I've garnered from this thread seems to indicate that they DO have the opportunity to Ref elsewhere, but choose not to. Isn't that what this thread is about?
Marconius said:
I'm not sure who would be banging down who's door, all I know is that the information I've garnered from this thread seems to indicate that they DO have the opportunity to Ref elsewhere, but choose not to. Isn't that what this thread is about?
From what i read in the first post, it said one ref turned down an oppurtunity to ref in a rec league. I don't think thata all that magnanimous. If they're starving becuase of the lockout, $35 from reffing in a rec league isn't going to solve anything.
I don't think the AHL or anybody else is sitting around thinking "you know I bet if we hired Don VanMassenhoven, we''d double attendance". Whatever attendance boost they got(which would be zero) would not be worth the extra money they'd have to pay supposed "NHL" refs.
Marconius
Registered User
hockeytown9321 said:
You seem to be basing you argument on the money refs draw. I still fail to see what that has to do with anything. As pro NHLPA posters have been saying for quite some time now: Everyone wants the best possible employees for their company/team. NHL refs are at a level above other refs, they are the most talented refs in the world (not to sya they're perfect, they're most certainly not). This thread offres several examples of other leagues interested in hiring these refs. These refs choose not to take the jobs.
I don't understand why you keep on insisting that the the refs skill level and drawing potential have anything to do with this thread.
1. The reffing can be improved, no doubt. This past NHL season probably saw a record set in terms of 'The refs sucked tonight' posts.
2. I tend to agree with Van, that the refs are extermely important to the game experience. I know I've seen plenty of games that have been ruined due to reffing. I have also seen plenty of games where the ref reads the flow of the game and his calls/non calls help to make an entertaning game. Thus, the better skilled your referees, the better product you will put on the ice and the more entertained the fans will be.
As far as your assertion that $35/game will not change anything in these refs lives, I put forth that an NHL ref in the AHL will make a higher percentage of his NHL salary, then an NHL'er playing in Europe.
How people can get into an argument about Troops Overseas is ridiculous. The main point of this thread is to show, that even though the Refs don't get paid as much, they aren't going to b*tch about it, they are just going to move on. They have class by not putting people out of jobs (other referees.)
And I agree with Van. Refs should get paid more. But only a little bit more. They travel more than the players do, get less sleep than the players do, and are at work just as much as the players, AND on top of that they don't get to see their families as much. (Don't even bring up the Troops argument, they are a little bit different from refs.)
And I agree with Van. Refs should get paid more. But only a little bit more. They travel more than the players do, get less sleep than the players do, and are at work just as much as the players, AND on top of that they don't get to see their families as much. (Don't even bring up the Troops argument, they are a little bit different from refs.)
hockeytown9321 said:
Does anybody know how to read in this thread?
Not once has it been suggested that hiring NHL officials will boost attendance. Not once.
What it would do by hiring NHL officials, is bring in much more experienced officials who will have an easier time than current minor-pro officials at making the games safe and fair for the players.
However, that would also take away valuable experience for current minor-pro zebras from learning how to better provide that safe and fair environment. Don't forget, officials don't get to practice. They gain their experience in games.
hockeytown9321 said:
What is this supposed to mean? Are you trying to say that the contracts NHL officials have isn't really with the NHL?
hockeytown9321 said:
Actually, irregardless is a word, and carries the same definition as regardless.
roadrunner
Registered User
quat said:
A double negative slang, actually.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irregardless
Gawd, the labor stoppage has come to this. Me arguing over a word I hate.
Maybe cheesy Bettman said to monkey Goodenow..."Irregardless of your protective instincts of the players, we can reach no agreement until I can have my ego validated."
Goodenow to Bettman.."Irregardless of your slander, I stand by slamming my players into a cell of stupid unity, just like you are imprisoning owners into manditory monkey silence."
Blind slog-apes! Do they not see the game is thing above all and not rhinocerous standoffs.
The only thing worse is seeing in my mind's eye stuffed shirt lawyers making oodles of cash over this nonsensical charade.
Be big. Be meaty. Be frank. Settle this thing.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Which franchise has lost the most times to the eventual champion?- Latest: CanadienShark
-
