So it's a done deal then? You have a source on that?Very surprised the players folded this quickly.
So it's a done deal then? You have a source on that?Very surprised the players folded this quickly.
Well, it does seem like the NFLPA leadership has agreed to take a new CBA to the union. What the union thinks about it, and whether they'll vote to approve it, remains TBD.So it's a done deal then? You have a source on that?
The owners are certainly acting like they expect the players to ratify it.So it's a done deal then? You have a source on that?
Does the THC testing change possibly move the needle for a guy like Gronk?Curious to see all of this parsed out. There is a lot of good here, but I still think players should be getting closer to 50% of the revenues.
View: https://twitter.com/DarrenHeitner/status/1230646875558219776?s=19
Odd that Rovell is saying this. The NFLPA fact sheet certainly reads like it’s recommending the deal. (Not saying Rovell is wrong, just that there’s a disconnect.)
I get that this is meant to be easily digestible bullet points, but there's a lot of ambiguity in here. The devil can be in the details, and substantial parts of this are real light on details.Curious to see all of this parsed out. There is a lot of good here, but I still think players should be getting closer to 50% of the revenues.
View: https://twitter.com/DarrenHeitner/status/1230646875558219776?s=19
Is cbd subsumed within the thc provision?Does the THC testing change possibly move the needle for a guy like Gronk?
I have always been under the impression that CBD didn't contain THC.Is cbd subsumed within the thc provision?
I read the strictly positive test part to mean they will be suspended for selling/distributed (Greg Robinson, looking at you) not personal use. Although it does leave the door open for fines.I get that this is meant to be easily digestible bullet points, but there's a lot of ambiguity in here. The devil can be in the details, and substantial parts of this are real light on details.
"Increase in pay for all offseason activities," is a bullet point. "Mandated improvements to visiting team locker rooms," is another. Okay. What kind of timeline are we talking about? Immediately? In 3 years? Over the life of the CBA? Who knows? How much of an increase in pay? What kind of improvements?
It's pretty telling that the guy who posted this tweet responded to one of the first questions he got with: "That's my interpretation of the bullet point." Not a lot of substance with which to hang your hat on there, guy.
Take this statement, which may seem straightforward at first, but is ambiguous when you parse it out: "Reduces the penalties to players who test positive for THC, eliminating any game suspensions strictly for positive tests." The word "strictly" there is throwing me off. Does that apply to players who are in the drug program as well? Or would that supersede the "strictly for positive tests" part? Like, "We're not suspending you strictly because you tested positive; it's because of all of the other stuff you did before, and in addition to, your recent positive test." Maybe this helps the Josh Gordons of the world stay on the field; maybe it doesn't. I have no idea.
Seems like a lot of that in there. Especially in comparison to the bullet points that do actually have hard numbers attached to definitive timelines.
Maybe I just have no idea how these kind of things go (I've never been in a union), but if I was handed a document like this, I'd have a ton of questions. Expecting me to be able to vote one way or another based on this.... uh, I don't think so.
If you’re a player, I assume you’re relying on your agent to advise you on the details, to the extent they affect you — and also to advise you on whether you should vote to ratify the agreement.I get that this is meant to be easily digestible bullet points, but there's a lot of ambiguity in here. The devil can be in the details, and substantial parts of this are real light on details.
"Increase in pay for all offseason activities," is a bullet point. "Mandated improvements to visiting team locker rooms," is another. Okay. What kind of timeline are we talking about? Immediately? In 3 years? Over the life of the CBA? Who knows? How much of an increase in pay? What kind of improvements?
It's pretty telling that the guy who posted this tweet responded to one of the first questions he got with: "That's my interpretation of the bullet point." Not a lot of substance with which to hang your hat on there, guy.
Take this statement, which may seem straightforward at first, but is ambiguous when you parse it out: "Reduces the penalties to players who test positive for THC, eliminating any game suspensions strictly for positive tests." The word "strictly" there is throwing me off. Does that apply to players who are in the drug program as well? Or would that supersede the "strictly for positive tests" part? Like, "We're not suspending you strictly because you tested positive; it's because of all of the other stuff you did before, and in addition to, your recent positive test." Maybe this helps the Josh Gordons of the world stay on the field; maybe it doesn't. I have no idea.
Seems like a lot of that in there. Especially in comparison to the bullet points that do actually have hard numbers attached to definitive timelines.
Maybe I just have no idea how these kind of things go (I've never been in a union), but if I was handed a document like this, I'd have a ton of questions. Expecting me to be able to vote one way or another based on this.... uh, I don't think so.
I read the strictly positive test part to mean they will be suspended for selling/distributed (Greg Robinson, looking at you) not personal use. Although it does leave the door open for fines.
That makes sense, thanks. I'm probably parsing some of the vague bullet points too finely. It's just that this document, combined with the other media leaks we've seen, combine to paint a picture of a deal that leadership on both sides is trying to jam through before players really know what they're signing. Doesn't mean that's necessarily an accurate picture, of course.If you’re a player, I assume you’re relying on your agent to advise you on the details, to the extent they affect you — and also to advise you on whether you should vote to ratify the agreement.
This reads more like a “hey, look what a great deal we’re going to get you” communication from union leadership to the membership, rather than a document that’s intended to elicit a “yes” vote without further information.
CBD and THC are two different compounds commonly found in cannabis. CBD can also be extracted from hemp and even synthetically synthesized, though. It’s also important to note it doesn’t have the psychoactive or euphoric effects of THC, so it doesn’t really make you high. It’s main effectiveness is for anxiety and chronic pain.I have always been under the impression that CBD didn't contain THC.
The owners must've known(?) that would be the reaction. I don't know if they realize that it'll drive away players like Watt much sooner than expected. The extra punishment will not be worth it.Well, JJ Watt tweeted tonight that he's a "hard no," so that's a bad sign...
Hey, maybe there's hope for Damien Harris!More details on the roster changes
View: https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/1230874632678449155
When you look at CBD you often see "Isolate" or "Full Spectrum" on the label. Isolate is THC free, where as Full Spectrum has some THC in the mix, usually .3% or less. There is some evidence that CBD is more effective when combined with other cannabinoids, including THC, what is called the "entourage effect." My personal experience with CBD is that full spectrum is more effective, but not so much that I won't take isolate.CBD and THC are two different compounds commonly found in cannabis. CBD can also be extracted from hemp and even synthetically synthesized, though. It’s also important to note it doesn’t have the psychoactive or euphoric effects of THC, so it doesn’t really make you high. It’s main effectiveness is for anxiety and chronic pain.
Agreed with all your points. I’m a MMJ user in NY. The hemp derived CBD you can buy anywhere is pretty much useless in my experience. The stuff from the dispensaries, since it’s marijuana derived and for therapeutic use, is much better, the highest CBD:THC ratio they sell here is 20:1, because as you said, there’s evidence some THC increases its effectiveness. (Likewise some CBD helps mitigate unpleasant side effects of high concentrations of THC)When you look at CBD you often see "Isolate" or "Full Spectrum" on the label. Isolate is THC free, where as Full Spectrum has some THC in the mix, usually .3% or less. There is some evidence that CBD is more effective when combined with other cannabinoids, including THC, what is called the "entourage effect." My personal experience with CBD is that full spectrum is more effective, but not so much that I won't take isolate.
And for clarification, due to federal laws all CBD products that are sold by non-dispensary retail outlets must be extracted from hemp and not marijuana. There is still some THC in hemp, it's just so low you don't get high. It usually maxes out around .3%. Oppo is right about independent testing. There are a lot of bootleg CBD brands. Players could really get themselves screwed, though most CBD won't contain more than the .3%, since it would be a waste of money for CBD companies to use a marijuana plant over a hemp plant to produce CBD.
To me, it looks like the league trying to appease and make concessions that benefit the lower level and fringe roster guys. Is it a genuine attempt to help the "masses" or pandering to try to get 51% of the players to approve?that's a lot more roster spots. I can see NFL trying to entice the players.
Sounds about right.To me, it looks like the league trying to appease and make concessions that benefit the lower level and fringe roster guys.
I believe the 17th game would be a neutral site game.I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere, so if there is clarity, please let me know; with a 17 game schedule, will some teams get 9 home games and 8 away while others get 8 home games and 9 away? If so, that will impact playoff possibilities, 9 road games vs 8, or will there be 8, 8 and 1 neutral site game.
17 games/7 playoff teams...……………..it's obvious the owners are moving towards 18/8, so just make the move and get it over with already...…………….
Thanks; so London/Mexico City?I believe the 17th game would be a neutral site game.
Don't think there's been much specifics about it. The networks would have to agree to it with the new TV deal I think, and perhaps they would drive the input as to where the games would actually be.Thanks; so London/Mexico City?
Or neutral around the country; depending on the team and their following (think Raiders/Packers/Cowboys/Steelers), a neutral site could turn into a semi home game for them...……………….
I heard that it would alternate, on NFL Live...ESPN. Each team would have 10 home games, with alternate years 8 during regular season 2 pre season, other year 9 home 1 pre season.I believe the 17th game would be a neutral site game.
Absolutely this.17th game is a terrible idea. Adding a second bye is an excellent idea.
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/new-cba-proposal-wont-make-every-team-play-internationally-in-17th-game-per-report/NFL Network's Mike Garafolo has leaked some details of the new CBA, reporting the 17th game wouldn't be an international game for every team, with a cap on total international games. The NFL's initial plan is to have nine home games for some teams and eight home games for the other, reversing the pattern for the following year.
The nfl is going to screw this up?"The NFL's initial plan is to have nine home games for some teams and eight home games for the other, reversing the pattern for the following year."
That's beyond idiotic; how do you decide who gets 9 and who gets 8? Will it be by conference? Division? That will impact the playoff possibilities too; if you're fighting for a playoff spot and one of the teams your fighting with has 9 home games and you only have 8, how is that fair?
What a moronic concept.
Leave it to the NFL to fool with a great system.
The best players already take a bath in playoff games as well.I haven't done the math, but capping out player's additional comp at $250K for the 17th game, (ie getting a huge per game discount on the game's stars making over $4MM/season) seems like a pure money grab by the owners. Why should the best players in the game, and presumably a big reason why people watch, subsidize the owners?
Where would they even play in Springfield or Portland though to even get half of the crowd? Presuming it is meaningless for the Patriots to play a satellite game in the Boston Metro area, the only places in New England with over 30,000 seats are Rentschler and the Yale Bowl. After that we are down to Fitton Field at Holy Cross with 23,500. The lack of big time college football in New England makes that tough. I wouldn't be opposed to a game in Hartford every other year though, I watch on TV anyway.Will Hartford finally get a game?
Giants or Pats? or Both?
Throwing fans outside of an easy commute to the team's home field, with a "neutral" home game might be a possible solution. A Pat's game in Springfield Ma, or Portland Me. wouldn't have the ticket revs of a game in Foxboro or London, but its a give-back to fans who otherwise would never see their favorite team live, and its about TV money anyway.
I imagine most every NFL team has satellite cities outside easy commute, and with some of the additional TV money, the stadiums could be prepped for a NFL game.
Not to date myself, but it would be like the circus coming to town.
I mentioned this earlier...adding a second bye and no 17th game provides the following benefits:The 17th game is, I'm assuming, a concession by the league to the networks.
by the owners’ being able to sleep better at night knowing they addressed a player health issue.