Chiefs Fans Can Still Stand at Arrowhead Then?
Filed under: Carl Peterson, Featured, KC Chiefs Football, News, Random, Schedule
If you are reading this then you have probably heard all the buzz about the Kansas City Chiefs’ stadium policy that has been going around the internet, including here on this very site. I really wanted to believe that this no standing policy was just a bunch of hype, I was even fairly certain that this rule had always been there, just never enforced. My concern lies here: If this no standing policy was already there and the Chiefs really wanted to enforce it then they have every right to do so, I mean who’s going to stop them? So for me it is more about the principle.
Since this story blew up, the Chiefs have made an effort to tame it down by rewording the policy, as can be seen in the KC Star:
- That item [Fan Code of Conduct] had stated that the Arrowhead Stadium staff this season will proactively intervene with fans who are “standing and/or obstructing the view of other fans.”Of course, that’s not exactly what the Chiefs meant, and upon further review, the language of the policy was changed last week to read “continuous standing and/or obstructing the view of other fans.”
The Chiefs say they never meant for any of this to be taken so literally.
- “It was never our intent to try and legislate when fans can stand or not,” Chiefs director of public relations Bob Moore said. “We want fans on their feet and cheering. That’s what Arrowhead is all about, and that’s what has given us a home-field advantage.“We just want fans to show some common sense and courtesy. Not everyone, especially some of the elderly or the young children, can stand the entire game. Take into consideration the guy sitting behind you.”
As I stated in my article before I can totally understand if someone is physically unable to stand, you need to take that into consideration, but I do have one questions: When was the last time you saw someone standing the entire game? Is this really a problem? I have been to lots of Chiefs games and I don’t think I have ever seen someone stand the entire game.
Now, before you try to rip me, yes I know continuous standing doesn’t mean you are standing up the whole game. If one takes this statement literally the word “continuous” doesn’t really seem to make that much of difference in this statement. Here is why.
Here is the original statement: continuous standing and/or obstructing the view of other fans
This can be: continuous standing and obstructing the view of other fans
Can also be: continuous standing or obstructing the view of other fans
In the second phrase the person can be obstructing the view of other fans without “continuous standing”. Technically (although this example is fairly drastic) someone can raise their hand for a beer and be obstructing another fans view. Basically all I’m saying is it doesn’t necessarily take one (continuous standing) to have the other (obstructing the view of other fans), it can be either one separately, which to me is why the word “continuous” doesn’t make much of a difference.
This is kind of nitpicking, I’ll give you that, but the point I’m trying to prove is that I don’t think this changing of wording by the Chiefs constitutes the relief that has seem to come along with it. When it comes down to it they will either enforce this or they won’t. Do I think they will? Not sure. However, I do think that even if this policy is enforced at the beginning of the season , it won’t last long. Let’s face it, until the Chiefs start winning on a regular basis they need fans in the stands and one would think (and hope) they would do whatever they could to make this happen.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Chief(s) Signing Issues
I read very good comparative article by Chris at Arrowhead Pride. I had some thoughts on the same subject so I thought I would share.
Here is a little base information:
Chris compared this Bob Gretz article from kcchiefs.com that most agree is in response to this one from Jon at MVN. Jon is trying to prove that the Chiefs have issues signing players (esp. high draft picks). He uses some of the following as indications:
- Ryan Sims’ Dad made a pretty glaring accusation a few months ago that Carl Peterson has a history of low-balling first round picks. He claims that at the NFL Draft, many NFL teams warned him about Peterson’s ways
-
First round hold outs of the Chiefs. Here is a quote from his article
“Quietly, Peterson has racked up a very lousy recent track record of bringing first round picks to camp on time. Dwayne Bowe was a holdout. Tamba Hali made it to camp literally hours before camp started. Derrick Johnson was a holdout (albeit, a short one). Ryan Sims was a holdout. John Tait was a holdout. Sylvester Morris was a holdout. The only recent player to make it to camp in plenty of time was Larry Johnson. “
On the other hand Gretz goes on to say “who could possibly think otherwise that the Chiefs drag their feet and are extra tough in negotiations, especially when it comes to their earliest selections. “ Then he goes on to say that in the most recent five year period (2003-2007) the Chiefs rank in the middle of the pack as far as getting their first round picks signed.
While I can see some points on both sides I would have to say that I tend to agree with Jon from MVN on this subject. One reason is this: Gretz kind of twisted the stats a bit to prove his point in my opinion. If his article really was a response to the MVN article then when he said the Chiefs are in the middle of the pack as far as getting players in on time, what is he trying to prove? I thought the point was that King Carl has a history of getting first round picks signed late (after practices start), not how it compares to other teams. Late is still late, no matter if the majority of teams are late or not.
Another problem I have with the Gretz article is his really small sample size. I took a stats class in college and you really don’t need one to figure out this sample population is jacked and here is why: If the Chiefs had signed one more player on time instead of holding out I’m pretty sure they would be in the top five in those calculations, and if one more would have held out then they would be in the bottom five. Any time one number can have that kind of drastic affect the sample size is way to small.
If you want to be fair you should compare all of the years Carl Peterson has been in control and then compare that to the rest of the NFL. Let me know what you find out, but I think I have a general idea.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
-
KC Chiefs Football on Facebook
-
