As Stern, union take shots, replacement refs negotiating head-fake

You see it and hear it in every NBA arena, every night of the season. Coaches, players, fans, ushers -- everyone except maybe the woman on the unicycle balancing soup bowls on a stick -- complaining that NBA referees suck.

Well, isn't this interesting? Isn't it funny how NBA referees don't suck so much when there's a realistic threat that they could be replaced by referees who are much, much worse?

Will the league and the refs find a compromise before it's too late? (Getty Images)

With negotiations between the NBA and its referees' union having collapsed less than three weeks before the start of preseason games, there's a real possibility that the league could have replacement refs for the first time since 1995.

If this happens, then you, NBA courtside heckler, will be yearning for Dick Bavetta's bogus traveling calls and Joe Crawford's unnecessary ejections. (I sense a real opportunity for one of those Real Men of Genius commercials focusing on you, Mr. NBA Courtside Referee Heckler Guy.)

Luckily for you, I'm here to spread a little sense where it is currently lacking. In addition to calling each other names, David Stern and Lamell McMorris, lead negotiators for the respective sides, are $700,000 apart on concessions the league is seeking as a result of the recession. As Comrade Ratto -- I've always wanted to call someone comrade -- so adroitly pointed out, that amounts to a season's worth of Luc Mbah a Moute.

•  NBA refs bracing for possible lockout

Based on the acrimony of the talks thus far, it wouldn't be the least bit surprising if the league had replacement refs for preseason games. This would be no big deal, and it might actually be a good thing in the long run. The NBA needs to expand the training, experience level, and depth of its officiating talent pool, and putting some of the best D-League refs on the spot for preseason games wouldn't be a bad way to evaluate who's ready for the big time and who isn't.

But repeating the replacement ref fiasco of '95 would be disastrous, and it isn't in either side's best interests. That's why I choose to believe that all this mudslinging is much ado about nothing -- or at least much ado about standard negotiating procedure. The motivation of each side is clear. The refs, still emerging from the debilitating hit to their collective reputations inflicted by convicted felon Tim Donaghy, want to prove that they are among the most essential and underappreciated employees in sports. Stern, having embarked on crucial collective bargaining talks with the players' union, wants to send a message that he hasn't lost an inch off his negotiating fastball.

Once both sides achieve their goals -- that is, once everyone sees how bad the replacement refs are in preseason, and once Stern gets the concessions he wants, because, well, he is the all-powerful David Stern –- cooler heads will prevail. I don't fault either side for taking the hard line, because that's what you're supposed to do in a negotiation. You have to be willing to walk away.

But before the regular season begins on Oct. 27, I expect the posturing to dissipate. If it doesn't, then we will have learned two important lessons: 1. NBA referees, for all their flaws, are far more qualified and valuable than most of us are willing to admit; and 2. Stern's effusive praise and support of his refs during the Donaghy scandal was for naught. At that point, you could call him for lip service or you could call out the refs for not appreciating the daggers he absorbed for them during the scandal. Take your pick.

In the end, it won't matter who's right and who's wrong. If Stern meant it when he told the New York Times this week that his "obligation is to the game," then he won't let $700,000 in salary and benefits stand in the way. That is what McMorris was betting, anyway, when he told the Times that the distance between the two sides is "not big enough ... to justify a lockout."

The wounds from the Donaghy scandal are still sufficiently open and oozing as to render a replacement ref plan for the regular season implausible. Both sides have to know this. What's more, two factors make using replacement refs for any length of time in real NBA games a real danger. First, the league's screening and evaluation process, ramped up in response to Donaghy's undetected gambling activity, would be stressed by the need to screen so many new refs on the fly. And second, the NBA's rapid and incremental expansion of instant replay would place too great a burden on inexperienced refs to follow the intricate review procedures and get those calls right. It's one thing to integrate two or three inexperienced refs into the pressure cooker, and quite another to get 60 of them up to speed.

But for now, relax. Don't let the lawyerly bickering between Stern and his referees' union interrupt your preparation for NFL Fantasy drafts. The time to panic will be Oct. 27, when the NBA must have the best qualified and most experienced refs officiating the games that matter.

If not, then the can of worms that Donaghy pried open with his crimes against basketball will once again be ajar. And maybe then you'll realize that the refs you love to hate really aren't so bad.