[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Jim Mills
The consumers of baseball umpiring services, the ones with the vested interest, simply do not provide benefits of any sort sufficient to alleviate their shortages. Tim C told of the early start times that eliminate existing umpires from consideration. The schools stay wedded to the concept of doubleheaders only. That requires a 4 p.m. start, and four-and-a-half hours, minimum, "on the clock." Will the schools change to single games with a 5:30 start to attract more umpires who a) can't get off early, and/or b) don't want to commit six hours? That partial solution has fallen on deaf ears for years now.

Bfair said earlier in this thread that it should not be expected to be compensated for travel to and from (games), as other jobs don't provide it. He is wrong; others build it into their rates. Also, if someone spends 90 minutes of vacation time to leave early, and his pay rate is $20 per hour, it is entirely proper to count $30 as a "cost" of umpiring, as any competent cost accountant will tell you. These are costs typically not borne by other officials.

Ok, Jim, I understand what you're saying and I agree. But these issues aren't really about officiating for profit. They are about fair compensation for costs incurred. Isn't that so? Even if 100% of costs are covered, people still need a motivation other than money to face the bureaucracy, politics and abuse that confronts officials on a daily basis. These other issues are certainly real, but they are often only an excuse for the real problems and when resolved will only make way for other excuses until the real problems are resolved. I am willing to wager that, despite your protestations to the contrary, even YOU do NOT officiate purely for profit. You do it for a host of other reasons that might include power or prestige. It's just that money is the chief aggravation at the moment. I often tell my officials who believe there is profit in officiating that they'd better sit down and do the math, because they're on their way to going broke if they think there is any real profit in officiating amateur sports.

I have never interpreted HHH's disagreements with you and others, nor his sometimes out-in-left-field approach to umpiring, to be indicative of a lack of commitment. If the work he has done as an author and assigner signifies a lack of commitment, I am an outright detriment, for I have done far less than he. His methods are legitimate topics of debate; I don't think his commitment is.

I never said HHH showed a lack of commitment. I said his attitude showed a lack of commitment to BASEBALL. They are very different assertions. Peter is committed beyond any question to his philosophy, to the commercial success of his association and to better pay for his officials. None of these are inherently wrong! It is only Peter's apparent lack of commitment to BASEBALL that I find insidious. BASEBALL is the "constant" that needs our fidelity to continue to survive. BASEBALL is the goose that keeps even Peter in golden eggs.

Aluminum and composite bats; player re-entry; designated hitter; courtesy runners; "juiced" balls. Baseball as an institution has a record of doing whatever it thinks will "improve" the game, history and tradition be damned. Umpires should be the sole guardians of history and tradition for $35 a game? A2D.

I have NEVER suggested that umpires should be "the sole guardians of history and tradition". NEVER. I have suggested that we have a responsibility, granted us under the rules, to play our very important part in protecting that history and tradition. If $35.00 a game is not enough for that, how about $5.00 per game? If you and people like you don't start caring about the game EVEN FOR THE MONEY IT PROVIDES, then it will die and you will get NOTHING from it! THAT is the moral of the story about the goose and the golden eggs.

The whole point of my argument is that what keeps the game alive is its fans. What keeps them fans is very much the history and traditions of the game; its laudible ideals for providing balance and rewarding effort. When people start believing that money is all its about, the game will be dead. You can see that now in the disenchantment of so many fans with the big money players who are so obviously committed only to themselves and their own well-being. That disenchantment echos through the whole structure of the game in your country AND mine. That is why kids are leaving in droves to play soccer, among other sports. The game is off the rails and it is the lust for money, without a care for history and tradition, that put it there!

I don't umpire selfishly for money. This is a straight contractual arrangement--value given, value received. I simply hold the opinion that the leagues are getting better than they're giving--and the market, apparently, agrees. Shouldering the lion's share of the responsibility, when the participants themselves shirk it at every turn, is futile. I recruited a dozen or so umpires in the past--guys to whom I literally sold the concept. Not a single one made it into his fourth year.

I have watched the "financial carrot" solution work in both football and basketball. It attracted many more officials who went on to be competent or better. In basketball, it attracted so many new referees that leagues were able to expand to three-man crews.

I want profits. If umpiring does not provide them, I will find something else that does.

Jim, only you could reconcile "I don't umpire selfishly for money" with "I want profits. If umpiring does not provide them, I will find something else that does." To quote Carl "Lah me!"

Look, I find nothing wrong with using money as a "carrot" to recruit and retain officials. It is only when money becomes the official's SOLE reason for participating that I believe it is harmful. It promotes an attitude that sacrifices what is good and valuable about the game to the politics of self interest. Near enough is good enough. It is bad enough that this is what drives the pro's. Do we have to tolerate it among the amateurs as well? Shouldn't the pure love of the game at least play a part?

In amateur leagues where players are not paid, coaches are not paid and scorekeepers are not paid it is wrong that officials who are usually paid, at least in reimbursement of their expenses, don't look to help preserve the game for those helping them to continue enjoying its benefits. No wonder they abuse us at every turn! And all of this began as a discussion of recruiting new officials and why you, in particular, refuse to participate in that effort.

I'm sorry, Jim. I may be naive but your raw cynicism on this issue simply leaves me cold. Don't take that personally, though. It's just the way things are. A2D.

Cheers,