Around the NFL

[Ann]

Why The NFL's approach to Field Surfaces Is Uneven

 

For more than a decade, players have been speaking out about their strong preference to work on natural grass over synthetic playing surfaces. Players have shared stories about how their bodies feel after playing on turf compared to grass, and the injury data for nearly a decade supports those anecdotes.

 

However, in early November of last year, there was a large media offensive by the NFL to pushback against the historical data and players’ experiences. The following slide was distributed to the media, and NFL staff and owners were aggressive in their claims that the fight over which is safer, grass or turf, was no longer an issue.

 

</snip>

 

We as a union believe that knowledge is power, and I wanted to take the time to share additional injury data that can help give a broader view of the often-discussed issue.

 

Here’s what the injury data has looked like over the past decade, using a zoomed-out version of the graph that was shared with ESPN last year

 

</snip>

[Ann]

Matt Patricia to the Eagles
 

 

[Spartacus]

 

8 hours ago, Ann said:

For more than a decade, players have been speaking out about their strong preference to work on natural grass over synthetic playing surfaces. Players have shared stories about how their bodies feel after playing on turf compared to grass, and the injury data for nearly a decade supports those anecdotes.

 

However, in early November of last year, there was a large media offensive by the NFL to pushback against the historical data and players’ experiences. The following slide was distributed to the media, and NFL staff and owners were aggressive in their claims that the fight over which is safer, grass or turf, was no longer an issue.

 

</snip>

 

We as a union believe that knowledge is power, and I wanted to take the time to share additional injury data that can help give a broader view of the often-discussed issue.

 

Here’s what the injury data has looked like over the past decade, using a zoomed-out version of the graph that was shared with ESPN last year

 

</snip>

if the players and NFLPA cared so much about the turf conditions, they should have refused to play the Carolina game, until the field tested safe.

 

 

 

https://nflpa.com/posts/nfl-approach-field-surface-uneven

 

We currently have a single test for all field surfaces called the “Clegg” test, which simply measures a field’s hardness.

However, even this simple measure was too much for the NFL to adhere to when push came to shove in Carolina.

 

Last year on Christmas Eve, Carolina’s field failed the Clegg test. For a surface to pass this test, it must measure below 100g (units of gravities), and the meter for this test goes up to a maximum of 150g. When the field in Carolina was tested during the pregame check, it came back as -- you guessed it -- 150g.

 

Players reached out and told us the field was way too hard, describing it as concrete. Players reported that they couldn’t even wear cleats because they wouldn’t sink into the turf. When we reached out to the league, they told us they were aware of these concerns and were working to remedy them.

 

However, instead of delaying the game or finding another way to fix the issue, the league gave the green light to kick off the game as scheduled.

[Nanker]

15 hours ago, Ann said:

Very interesting:

 

[Nanker]

4 hours ago, Spartacus said:

 

if the players and NFLPA cared so much about the turf conditions, they should have refused to play the Carolina game, until the field tested safe.

 

 

 

https://nflpa.com/posts/nfl-approach-field-surface-uneven

 

We currently have a single test for all field surfaces called the “Clegg” test, which simply measures a field’s hardness.

However, even this simple measure was too much for the NFL to adhere to when push came to shove in Carolina.

 

Last year on Christmas Eve, Carolina’s field failed the Clegg test. For a surface to pass this test, it must measure below 100g (units of gravities), and the meter for this test goes up to a maximum of 150g. When the field in Carolina was tested during the pregame check, it came back as -- you guessed it -- 150g.

 

Players reached out and told us the field was way too hard, describing it as concrete. Players reported that they couldn’t even wear cleats because they wouldn’t sink into the turf. When we reached out to the league, they told us they were aware of these concerns and were working to remedy them.

 

However, instead of delaying the game or finding another way to fix the issue, the league gave the green light to kick off the game as scheduled.

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

Seems the same to me.

 

 

 

[Alaska Darin]

21 hours ago, Ann said:

Why The NFL's approach to Field Surfaces Is Uneven

 

For more than a decade, players have been speaking out about their strong preference to work on natural grass over synthetic playing surfaces. Players have shared stories about how their bodies feel after playing on turf compared to grass, and the injury data for nearly a decade supports those anecdotes.

 

However, in early November of last year, there was a large media offensive by the NFL to pushback against the historical data and players’ experiences. The following slide was distributed to the media, and NFL staff and owners were aggressive in their claims that the fight over which is safer, grass or turf, was no longer an issue.

 

</snip>

 

We as a union believe that knowledge is power, and I wanted to take the time to share additional injury data that can help give a broader view of the often-discussed issue.

 

Here’s what the injury data has looked like over the past decade, using a zoomed-out version of the graph that was shared with ESPN last year

 

</snip>

My guess is artificial fields are much cheaper to maintain and the player "cost" doesn't offset it enough for owners to care.

 

The MLB union woulda put this to bed 2 decades ago if they had the same issue. 

[devnull]

19 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

Seems the same to me.

 

 

 

 

Those alternate uniforms have enough black and red to qualify as a Slayer album cover

[Ann]

What did the NFL expect to happen when partnering with sportsbooks?
 

 

[Ann]

 

[Jabba The Hutt]

17 minutes ago, Ann said:

 

So the whole Lions WR room is gone Lucky that Jameson didn't bet on NFL! The other bone heads probably bet against the Lions to boot

[IDBillzFan]

22 hours ago, Ann said:

What did the NFL expect to happen when partnering with sportsbooks?
 

 

 

You know what's funny about all the gambling that's allowed? 

 

Their radio commercials. A 45-second spot is 5 seconds of  "Come gamble with us," and 40 seconds of a guy listing all the numbers to call if you have a gambling problem like he's Dan Akroyd portraying Crazy Eddie.

 

 

[Alaska Darin]

1 hour ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

You know what's funny about all the gambling that's allowed? 

 

Their radio commercials. A 45-second spot is 5 seconds of  "Come gamble with us," and 40 seconds of a guy listing all the numbers to call if you have a gambling problem like he's Dan Akroyd portraying Crazy Eddie.

 

 

 

[Alaska Darin]

No one with credibility is reporting this yet.

 

 

[Foxx]

7 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:

No one with credibility is reporting this yet.

 

 

Pick #10 or pick #30?

[Alaska Darin]

3 minutes ago, Foxx said:

Pick #10 or pick #30?

It's hard to forecast without context.  If it's real, how much of his contract are the Thumbtacks eating?

 

I can't imagine giving up a first rounder for him but I'm not an NFL GM.

[Jabba The Hutt]

1 hour ago, Foxx said:

Pick #10 or pick #30?

 

1 hour ago, Alaska Darin said:

It's hard to forecast without context.  If it's real, how much of his contract are the Thumbtacks eating?

 

I can't imagine giving up a first rounder for him but I'm not an NFL GM.

McCaffrey >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Henry

[Ann]

1. That ain't paying it off.
2. If it moves, it is taxed in Chicago.
3. Are they trying to get the Bears to leave Illinois completely!?

 

Latest Bears stadium legislation would add $3 to ticket prices at Arlington Heights site to help pay off Soldier Field debt

 

Tickets to games and other events at the Chicago Bears’ proposed Arlington Heights development would come with a $3-per-person tax under legislation filed in the Illinois House on Thursday that seeks to jump-start stalled talks over state assistance for the team’s anticipated decampment to the northwest suburbs.

 

Proceeds from the $3 admission tax would go to help pay off debt incurred to fund renovations of Soldier Field two decades ago.

 

</snip>

 

“This is a living document. If there’s issues that we think pertain to the bill, we will file an amendment to change it. But right now we have a bill. It’s viable. I got a lot of support, and people are excited about it,” Moylan said Thursday. “I’ve got to get 60 votes and that’s how we do it. You’ve got to build a consensus. And I’m working it. I’m working this bill hard to make it a good bill.”

 

The measure incorporates elements the Bears have sought to aid their move to the suburbs, including a freeze on the property tax assessment for the 326-acre former Arlington International Racecourse site, which the team bought earlier this year for $197 million. In addition to an enclosed stadium, the team’s plans call for a massive entertainment and residential development.

 

A measure that would implement the assessment freeze, with the team making negotiated payments to the village of Arlington Heights and other local taxing bodies, was introduced in the Illinois Senate earlier this year but failed to gain any momentum, with even the bill’s sponsor expressing reservations.

 

Moylan’s proposal includes a similar setup but would create a local oversight board made up of representatives of local taxing bodies and state legislators from the area that would have to approve any incentive agreements or zoning decisions within the project site.

 

The plan also would pool revenue generated on the site from state sales tax, hotel tax and liquor taxes and a new 3% surcharge on sports betting revenue into a fund to help Arlington Heights and surrounding communities pay for infrastructure improvements.

 

Arlington Heights would get 35% of the revenue, with Cook County, Palatine and Rolling Meadows each getting 10%, and 7% each going to Buffalo Grove, Elk Grove Village, Mount Prospect, Prospect Heights and Wheeling.

 

</snip>

[Nanker]

1 hour ago, Ann said:

 In addition to an enclosed stadium, the team’s plans call for a massive entertainment and residential development.

 

A measure that would implement the assessment freeze, with the team making negotiated payments to the village of Arlington Heights and other local taxing bodies, was introduced in the Illinois Senate earlier this year but failed to gain any momentum, with even the bill’s sponsor expressing reservations.

 

Moylan’s proposal includes a similar setup but would create a local oversight board made up of representatives of local taxing bodies and state legislators from the area that would have to approve any incentive agreements or zoning decisions within the project site.

 

The plan also would pool revenue generated on the site from state sales tax, hotel tax and liquor taxes and a new 3% surcharge on sports betting revenue into a fund to help Arlington Heights and surrounding communities pay for infrastructure improvements.

 

Arlington Heights would get 35% of the revenue, with Cook County, Palatine and Rolling Meadows each gettin 10%, and 7% each going to Buffalo Grove, Elk Grove Village, Mount Prospect, Prospect Heights and Wheeling.

 

</snip>

Like Kraft did in Foxboro. 

Edited April 23, 2023 by Nanker

[Alaska Darin]

2 hours ago, Ann said:

1. That ain't paying it off.
2. If it moves, it is taxed in Chicago.
3. Are they trying to get the Bears to leave Illinois completely!?

 

Latest Bears stadium legislation would add $3 to ticket prices at Arlington Heights site to help pay off Soldier Field debt

 

Tickets to games and other events at the Chicago Bears’ proposed Arlington Heights development would come with a $3-per-person tax under legislation filed in the Illinois House on Thursday that seeks to jump-start stalled talks over state assistance for the team’s anticipated decampment to the northwest suburbs.

 

Proceeds from the $3 admission tax would go to help pay off debt incurred to fund renovations of Soldier Field two decades ago.

 

</snip>

 

“This is a living document. If there’s issues that we think pertain to the bill, we will file an amendment to change it. But right now we have a bill. It’s viable. I got a lot of support, and people are excited about it,” Moylan said Thursday. “I’ve got to get 60 votes and that’s how we do it. You’ve got to build a consensus. And I’m working it. I’m working this bill hard to make it a good bill.”

 

The measure incorporates elements the Bears have sought to aid their move to the suburbs, including a freeze on the property tax assessment for the 326-acre former Arlington International Racecourse site, which the team bought earlier this year for $197 million. In addition to an enclosed stadium, the team’s plans call for a massive entertainment and residential development.

 

A measure that would implement the assessment freeze, with the team making negotiated payments to the village of Arlington Heights and other local taxing bodies, was introduced in the Illinois Senate earlier this year but failed to gain any momentum, with even the bill’s sponsor expressing reservations.

 

Moylan’s proposal includes a similar setup but would create a local oversight board made up of representatives of local taxing bodies and state legislators from the area that would have to approve any incentive agreements or zoning decisions within the project site.

 

The plan also would pool revenue generated on the site from state sales tax, hotel tax and liquor taxes and a new 3% surcharge on sports betting revenue into a fund to help Arlington Heights and surrounding communities pay for infrastructure improvements.

 

Arlington Heights would get 35% of the revenue, with Cook County, Palatine and Rolling Meadows each getting 10%, and 7% each going to Buffalo Grove, Elk Grove Village, Mount Prospect, Prospect Heights and Wheeling.

 

</snip>

"Illinois has the third-highest debt in the U.S., with total liabilities equaling $248.67. With total assets of $53.05 billion, Illinois has $187.7 billion in unfunded liability. This creates a debt ratio of 468.7%, the largest in the U.S. To pay that off, every person in Illinois's 12.7 million population would need to pay $14,780. Like New Jersey, the biggest problem in Illinois contributing to the debt is billions of dollars for retired government workers' pensions and health insurance benefits."

 

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/debt-by-state

 

I all but guarantee those numbers are lower than the actuals and they're already &#%$ing staggering.