Post Mortem: Hawks v 9 Volts

Donn Beach
Posts: 21219
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 1:06 am

Re: Post Mortem: Hawks v 9 Volts

Post by Donn Beach » Tue Oct 06, 2026 5:39 pm

Michael K. wrote: ↑
Tue Oct 06, 2026 5:04 pm
Donn Beach wrote: ↑
Tue Oct 06, 2026 3:58 pm
The actual solution would be to make them full time employees, have them concentrate on football. Hard to believe that wouldn't improve performance. Its nuts really that they just show up to referee games. That must harken back to the NFL origin story. But again, the issue is the union. Not that the union is a bad thing but it take negotiating with the union. That is the hangup
Long time debate, and one that will probably never happen. Why? They don't have to, for the same reason we have been discussing. It will not hurt them financially to continue things the way they are.
Yeah, exactly...what's that going to be worth in a contract negotiation. There's no particular reason to improve the product
The part-time model is a leftover from the early days of professional football when players, coaches, and officials all held regular jobs during the week and treated football as a seasonal pursuit

User avatar
D-train
Posts: 83510
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:33 am
Location: Quincy, MA

Re: Post Mortem: Hawks v 9 Volts

Post by D-train » Tue Oct 06, 2026 5:45 pm

Donn Beach wrote: ↑
Tue Oct 06, 2026 3:58 pm
The actual solution would be to make them full time employees, have them concentrate on football. Hard to believe that wouldn't improve performance. Its nuts really that they just show up to referee games. That must harken back to the NFL origin story. But again, the issue is the union. Not that the union is a bad thing but it take negotiating with the union. That is the hangup
Football season is so short though. They are only going to work 20 days x 3.5 = 75 hours a year and then spend 200+ days a year studying the rule book and practicing not making bad calls??? Will never happen.
dt

Donn Beach
Posts: 21219
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 1:06 am

Re: Post Mortem: Hawks v 9 Volts

Post by Donn Beach » Tue Oct 06, 2026 7:06 pm

D-train wrote: ↑
Tue Oct 06, 2026 5:45 pm
Donn Beach wrote: ↑
Tue Oct 06, 2026 3:58 pm
The actual solution would be to make them full time employees, have them concentrate on football. Hard to believe that wouldn't improve performance. Its nuts really that they just show up to referee games. That must harken back to the NFL origin story. But again, the issue is the union. Not that the union is a bad thing but it take negotiating with the union. That is the hangup
Football season is so short though. They are only going to work 20 days x 3.5 = 75 hours a year and then spend 200+ days a year studying the rule book and practicing not making bad calls??? Will never happen.
I'm reading about it now, AI. It's pretty complicated. The league actually has been pushing for it to do more training. The union is resistive. Like that for example. What they possibly could do is just the crew chiefs. Make them full-time, the rest leave part time

The dead period is the off season
The NFL has actively pushed to shorten this dead period to get more training access, but the NFL Referees Association (NFLRA) fiercely protects it. For a seasonal-only full-time model, the league wouldn't gain the offseason training and rule-development time it actually wants

Michael K.
Posts: 14771
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 5:27 am

Re: Post Mortem: Hawks v 9 Volts

Post by Michael K. » Tue Oct 06, 2026 7:30 pm

The refs are no different than the players. They want more money and less actual work. It is what it is. The NFL has the $ to fix it....they just know that they don't need to.

That said, both the players union and the referees union are ridiculous. Each and every negotiation revolved around an increase in pay and a decrease in the amount of things they do to earn the pay. This isn't me feeling sorry for Fat Cat owners. But the amount of greed involved and finger pointing that ensues is funny.

User avatar
D-train
Posts: 83510
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:33 am
Location: Quincy, MA

Re: Post Mortem: Hawks v 9 Volts

Post by D-train » Tue Oct 06, 2026 7:35 pm

Michael K. wrote: ↑
Tue Oct 06, 2026 7:30 pm
The refs are no different than the players. They want more money and less actual work. It is what it is. The NFL has the $ to fix it....they just know that they don't need to.

That said, both the players union and the referees union are ridiculous. Each and every negotiation revolved around an increase in pay and a decrease in the amount of things they do to earn the pay. This isn't me feeling sorry for Fat Cat owners. But the amount of greed involved and finger pointing that ensues is funny.
I am fine with wanting more money but simultaneously wanting less practice time and making more and more of those practices restricted and lame is weak AF.
dt

Michael K.
Posts: 14771
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 5:27 am

Re: Post Mortem: Hawks v 9 Volts

Post by Michael K. » Tue Oct 06, 2026 8:27 pm

D-train wrote: ↑
Tue Oct 06, 2026 7:35 pm

I am fine with wanting more money but simultaneously wanting less practice time and making more and more of those practices restricted and lame is weak AF.
Sounds like the officials are doing the same, right?
NFL officials have historically approached full-time status with caution through their union, primarily due to compensation structures, the loss of outside primary careers, and disagreements over how a full-time program would be managed or structured by the league.

Key Factors in the Full-Time Officiating Debate

• Part-Time Status: Most NFL officials maintain high-paying regular careers during the week (such as financial advisors, engineers, or executives) because officiating alone has traditionally operated as a part-time employment model with seasonal pay.

• Past Experiments: The NFL ran a full-time officiating pilot program during the 2017 and 2018 seasons, but the league declined to reinstate it afterward, citing cost-to-benefit hurdles and disagreements during Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) negotiations with the NFL Referees Association.

• Union vs. League Priorities: Recent labor discussions and negotiations (such as those leading up to the current CBA cycle) have centered heavily around financial raises, marketing fees, and performance accountability rather than an outright universal shift to full-time employment.

• Analyst Perspectives: Former vice president of officiating Mike Pereira has publicly advocated for making at least the primary crew chiefs (the 17 white-hat referees) full-time year-round employees at a central officiating institute to drive consistency, though full adoption across all crew members remains a point of contention
The new American way. Expect more money but work less, work from home, work not at all....

User avatar
D-train
Posts: 83510
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:33 am
Location: Quincy, MA

Re: Post Mortem: Hawks v 9 Volts

Post by D-train » Tue Oct 06, 2026 9:45 pm

Michael K. wrote: ↑
Tue Oct 06, 2026 8:27 pm
D-train wrote: ↑
Tue Oct 06, 2026 7:35 pm

I am fine with wanting more money but simultaneously wanting less practice time and making more and more of those practices restricted and lame is weak AF.
Sounds like the officials are doing the same, right?
NFL officials have historically approached full-time status with caution through their union, primarily due to compensation structures, the loss of outside primary careers, and disagreements over how a full-time program would be managed or structured by the league.

Key Factors in the Full-Time Officiating Debate

• Part-Time Status: Most NFL officials maintain high-paying regular careers during the week (such as financial advisors, engineers, or executives) because officiating alone has traditionally operated as a part-time employment model with seasonal pay.

• Past Experiments: The NFL ran a full-time officiating pilot program during the 2017 and 2018 seasons, but the league declined to reinstate it afterward, citing cost-to-benefit hurdles and disagreements during Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) negotiations with the NFL Referees Association.

• Union vs. League Priorities: Recent labor discussions and negotiations (such as those leading up to the current CBA cycle) have centered heavily around financial raises, marketing fees, and performance accountability rather than an outright universal shift to full-time employment.

• Analyst Perspectives: Former vice president of officiating Mike Pereira has publicly advocated for making at least the primary crew chiefs (the 17 white-hat referees) full-time year-round employees at a central officiating institute to drive consistency, though full adoption across all crew members remains a point of contention
The new American way. Expect more money but work less, work from home, work not at all....
No idea about your corporate world but I worked from home basically from 2008 on. One of the best things that every happened to me.

Btw employees don't just decide to work from home, they are offered that as an option.

I was working for Bayer in DT Seattle and they decided to close the Seattle office and offered me the same position at their New Fucking Jersey office paying for relo OR I could resign and they would pay me 14 MONTHS severance. After about 7 seconds of deliberation it took the severence package. One of my Consultants that I built a good relationship with over the years said I could come work for them. I knew the HQ was in St. Louis and said I am not moving away from all my friends and family.

He said no worries, you can work from home. So after a two month vacation, for the first year both Bayer and Kantar were paying me. Have to love double salary. I ended up working there over 10 years with my 1st boss in Phoenix and my 2nd boss in Philly.

In my industry there is literally zero reason to go into an office unless you want to waste time and gas commuting because you are an idiot. lol

I was MASSIVELY more efficient and productive working from home than the office. Didn't even have to waste time getting dressed, showering and shaving. lol

Then worked from home in Boston because of Covid. Moved wife, 4 dogs two vehicles and 3500 ft house full of furniture 3k miles across country to work in the office in Cambridge 40+ hours a week and ended up doing that for 12 days before Covid shut down. That lasted 2 YEARS. Then when they realized we could all easily work from home they only required us to come in once a week. So in 4 years I probably was in the office those initial 12 days + MAYBE 50 days in the last two years I was there.

All worked out in the end. Retired comfortable at age 57 without any contributions to the general fund from my wife. 8-)

btw who are the people that aren't working at all that are asking for more money? Who do they ask, the government? ha
dt

Michael K.
Posts: 14771
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 5:27 am

Re: Post Mortem: Hawks v 9 Volts

Post by Michael K. » Wed Oct 07, 2026 3:48 pm

You have people that SHOULD be working at location filing all kinds of BS claims for why they can't be in person. Are there some industries where it makes sense? Of course, I was in a few of them from COVID until about two years ago. I could see my new role being a Hybrid at some point, but we need to be in office more than not.

Key Aspects of the RTO Resistance

• The Standoff: Major employers—including Amazon (5-day RTO), Starbucks, JPMorgan Chase, and regional entities like Multnomah County—have tightened in-office requirements. In response, many remote-accustomed workers are pushing back, citing zero commute times, better work-life balance, and caregiving duties.
• The "Empowered Non-Compliers": High-value or specialized workers (often in tech and professional services) sometimes ignore attendance rules due to perceived leverage, though companies are increasingly cracking down with tracked badge swipes or monitoring.
• Consequences of Refusal: Refusing a direct return-to-office order is generally viewed as insubordination. Workers who hold out often face "quiet firing" (reduced assignments or exclusion from meetings), formal termination for cause, loss of severance, or disqualification from unemployment benefits.
• Shifting Market Leverage: Fully remote job postings have declined sharply (dropping to low single digits on major platforms like LinkedIn and Indeed), making it harder for refusing employees to find comparable remote roles.
• Exemptions and Accommodations: Legal exceptions are narrow; employers are generally only required to offer continued remote work if it qualifies as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or matches binding provisions in specific employment contracts.
You siting not needing to shower or dress, never leave the house....that's all well and good. But trust me....my personal life, my mood, my energy level, many things all changed once I started going to work. Is it different here? Sure. I have a ten minute or less commute to get to work! No doubt about that. But I also chose to live here and not in a metropolitan area. The push back once employers required their employees to report to the job site was crazy to me. It's your job. You do what the job requires. Think back to a time when we weren't all allergic to everything or suffering from crippling depression and the like? We didn't live behind a screen and we had actual human interaction.
Research shows a clear link between working from home (WFH) and higher rates of social isolation, anxiety, and depression.

Key Findings on Remote Work and Mental Health

• Higher Rates of Distress: Studies from the Integrated Benefits Institute and data published in Science show that fully remote workers experience anxiety and depression symptoms at higher rates (around 40%) compared to hybrid workers (38%) and in-person workers (35%).
• Loss of Casual Connection: Working from home removes spontaneous office interactions, leading to a rise in hours spent alone during and after the workday.
• Failure to Compensate Socially: Data published by the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences notes that remote workers generally do not make up for lost workplace contact by socializing more after hours.

Why This Link Exists

• Social Isolation: Missing daily face-to-face contact deprives the brain of routine social cues and community support.
• Blurry Work-Life Boundaries: Remote workers often struggle to "turn off," leading to longer hours, digital exhaustion, and higher burnout rates.
• Vulnerable Groups: Negative mental health impacts are significantly higher for people who live alone, young college graduates, and those in full-time remote setups rather than hybrid roles
I have coached young female athletes for fifteen years now. The amount of them that require kid gloves and have zero toughness is incredible now. The amount that suffer from some sort of social anxiety or are clinically depressed is incredible. No, they don't work from home, but I have many that have zero social skills, who basically went from at home learning to online learning in another form, or attending college classes were they sleep most of the day and get to school at 10. They know no one at college, so have zero social interaction until they get to practice at 3, and basically then don't interact. You can see the kids that are in class in person with their friends and the ones who aren't.

I'm a firm believer that humans need to be around other humans. We weren't built to wake up in the morning, walk upstairs, work from our home office for eight hours, then hang out at home and do it all again the next day. Just my opinion.

auroraave
Posts: 2593
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 9:35 pm
Location: Beverly Hills, Ca.

Re: Post Mortem: Hawks v 9 Volts

Post by auroraave » Wed Oct 07, 2026 3:56 pm

I'm a firm believer that humans need to be around other humans. We weren't built to wake up in the morning, walk upstairs, work from our home office for eight hours, then hang out at home and do it all again the next day. Just my opinion.
This. Plus, and I think I speak for everyone, I am a firm believer the world is a better and more palatable place when DT has showered. :D

User avatar
D-train
Posts: 83510
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:33 am
Location: Quincy, MA

Re: Post Mortem: Hawks v 9 Volts

Post by D-train » Wed Oct 07, 2026 6:57 pm

Michael K. wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 07, 2026 3:48 pm
You have people that SHOULD be working at location filing all kinds of BS claims for why they can't be in person. Are there some industries where it makes sense? Of course, I was in a few of them from COVID until about two years ago. I could see my new role being a Hybrid at some point, but we need to be in office more than not.

Key Aspects of the RTO Resistance

• The Standoff: Major employers—including Amazon (5-day RTO), Starbucks, JPMorgan Chase, and regional entities like Multnomah County—have tightened in-office requirements. In response, many remote-accustomed workers are pushing back, citing zero commute times, better work-life balance, and caregiving duties.
• The "Empowered Non-Compliers": High-value or specialized workers (often in tech and professional services) sometimes ignore attendance rules due to perceived leverage, though companies are increasingly cracking down with tracked badge swipes or monitoring.
• Consequences of Refusal: Refusing a direct return-to-office order is generally viewed as insubordination. Workers who hold out often face "quiet firing" (reduced assignments or exclusion from meetings), formal termination for cause, loss of severance, or disqualification from unemployment benefits.
• Shifting Market Leverage: Fully remote job postings have declined sharply (dropping to low single digits on major platforms like LinkedIn and Indeed), making it harder for refusing employees to find comparable remote roles.
• Exemptions and Accommodations: Legal exceptions are narrow; employers are generally only required to offer continued remote work if it qualifies as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or matches binding provisions in specific employment contracts.
You siting not needing to shower or dress, never leave the house....that's all well and good. But trust me....my personal life, my mood, my energy level, many things all changed once I started going to work. Is it different here? Sure. I have a ten minute or less commute to get to work! No doubt about that. But I also chose to live here and not in a metropolitan area. The push back once employers required their employees to report to the job site was crazy to me. It's your job. You do what the job requires. Think back to a time when we weren't all allergic to everything or suffering from crippling depression and the like? We didn't live behind a screen and we had actual human interaction.
Research shows a clear link between working from home (WFH) and higher rates of social isolation, anxiety, and depression.

Key Findings on Remote Work and Mental Health

• Higher Rates of Distress: Studies from the Integrated Benefits Institute and data published in Science show that fully remote workers experience anxiety and depression symptoms at higher rates (around 40%) compared to hybrid workers (38%) and in-person workers (35%).
• Loss of Casual Connection: Working from home removes spontaneous office interactions, leading to a rise in hours spent alone during and after the workday.
• Failure to Compensate Socially: Data published by the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences notes that remote workers generally do not make up for lost workplace contact by socializing more after hours.

Why This Link Exists

• Social Isolation: Missing daily face-to-face contact deprives the brain of routine social cues and community support.
• Blurry Work-Life Boundaries: Remote workers often struggle to "turn off," leading to longer hours, digital exhaustion, and higher burnout rates.
• Vulnerable Groups: Negative mental health impacts are significantly higher for people who live alone, young college graduates, and those in full-time remote setups rather than hybrid roles
I have coached young female athletes for fifteen years now. The amount of them that require kid gloves and have zero toughness is incredible now. The amount that suffer from some sort of social anxiety or are clinically depressed is incredible. No, they don't work from home, but I have many that have zero social skills, who basically went from at home learning to online learning in another form, or attending college classes were they sleep most of the day and get to school at 10. They know no one at college, so have zero social interaction until they get to practice at 3, and basically then don't interact. You can see the kids that are in class in person with their friends and the ones who aren't.

I'm a firm believer that humans need to be around other humans. We weren't built to wake up in the morning, walk upstairs, work from our home office for eight hours, then hang out at home and do it all again the next day. Just my opinion.
Yeah I drive by the school on Miller at 10 am on Mondays and could not believe that is what time school started. It was 7:30 am 5 days a week for us.

And when the have to interview for jobs are they going to pull out their phones and ask the interviewer to do the same so they can text from across the hiring manager's desk??

We had two prospective dog sitters come over and both of them were complete social invalids. Lynda being the social butterfly that she is did about 97% of the talking and they chimed in with an occasional nod and a periodic "ok"

Didn't hire either of them....

This generation is fucked.

Yeah when it came to returning to work I had no problem with it even though it took 45 minutes to go 12 miles at 10am and an hour to commute home at 3 pm. lol
dt

Post Reply