2 comments Tim Keown Thinks 10 Seconds of Waiting Is a Huge Inconvenience; Would Rather Be Stabbed By the Drunk Guy in Section 513

Many of you have probably heard the NFL beefed up security at NFL games recently. Now, instead of a 3-5 second pat-down to enter a stadium you have to endure, wait for it, a 5-10 second pat-down before entering the stadium. Tim Keown thinks this is a huge inconvenience and doesn't make it worth it to attend an NFL game. This is probably one of the few times I've heard a person complain that he/she is being made safer while at a sporting event. The fact Keown wrote an entire column about how NFL security makes the games not worth attending leads me to believe one of two things:

1. He has spent too much time in press boxes and not enough time with fans. Alcohol plus annoying fan behavior can lead to incidents at a sporting event. We all remember the Bryan Stow incident and the basic lesson we learned is fans at sporting events can be unruly, which is something many people already knew. Keown's call for less security ignores the obvious escalating issue of fan behavior at games. No one goes to a game expecting to be injured for wearing a certain uniform or shirt, but why not go through a 10 second pat-down just to be sure? I don't see the issue. Keown's writing this column tells me he has spent too much time in press boxes and not enough time in the stands with fans.

2. Tim Keown has lost his mind and is actively attempting to get stabbed at an NFL game and is against any security measures that may prevent this from occurring.

Those are really the only immediate conclusions I can come to.

The USA Today story last week about the NFL's decision to increase security measures for fans entering every stadium -- to make it quick, just be prepared to check your dignity at the gate –

I went to an NFL game two weekends ago. The security person took maybe 10 seconds to pat me down and check for weapons. I didn’t lose my dignity and immediately forgot about it upon entering the gate. He did not grab my crotch or got near any indecent parts of my body. It took a short period of time in order for the trade-off of feeling a little bit more secure at the game I was attending. Let’s allow Tim Keown to blow the security measures all out of proportion though, if it makes him feel better.

"The NFL suffered damage to its family-friendly image when a South Carolina man was arrested for using an illegal stun gun on other fans at a New York Jets-Dallas Cowboys game."

The shocking part of the sentence wasn't the dude zapping fans with his stun gun. It was the "family-friendly" part. I enjoy the NFL and can spend an inordinate amount of time watching it over the course of Sunday and Monday, but I've never considered the in-stadium experience to be particularly "family-friendly."

Obviously the use of the word family-friendly can take up a lot of meanings depending on where you are attending a game. Maybe what family-friendly meant was “an environment where a person isn’t afraid they may be stabbed or tased by another fan.” So Keown has already started the column off by going off on a tangent in arguing semantics. Maybe some NFL games aren’t family-friendly, but the NFL doesn’t want fans being afraid the person sitting beside them has an illegal stun gun.

In my experience, the NFL on-site experience is a crapshoot. The social contract regarding fan conduct is different in Minnesota or Kansas City than it is in Oakland or Philadelphia.

In everyone’s experience this is true. Fan behavior isn’t the same at every sporting event in every single city. The amount of fervor from the home crowd changes depending on the opponent, what ramifications a win or a loss has on the game, and the general mood among the crowd.

A Philadelphia Phillies regular season game in Philadelphia will have a different feel than a Game 7 of the World Series that takes place in Philadelphia. This goes without saying really. So what does this have to do with security and why should there be shorter pat-downs at NFL games?

When two fans were shot outside Candlestick Park after a Raiders-49ers preseason game, and another was found unconscious in a restroom, the only people truly "shocked" -- as in I can't believe this could possibly happen -- were those who had never been to an NFL game.

So naturally the conclusion reached from this incident is for fans to stay home because the increased security pat downs are such a menace.

I know where Tim Keown is trying to come from in that fans can be crazy, but I think he is coming from the wrong angle. He is attempting to say NFL games aren’t worth attending anymore because of the fan violence, the pat downs, and all the other events that may occur at a game. The problem I find is the solution, which the NFL believes to be more pat downs and increased security, are solutions he seems to indicate are more of a reason to stay away from the stadium as opposed to being a reason to come to the stadium to see a game. If a person wants to go to a game, I don’t see the problem with “losing your dignity” and getting patted down. I guarantee airports have more security and more intrusion on a person’s space and body, even if it doesn’t feel like this is true because not every passenger gets patted down, and few people have stopped flying because of the increased security.

It was reported in San Francisco that despite increased security measures, the season opener against the Seahawks included the bonus spectacle of a man urinating on an entire group of men waiting to go to the bathroom the old-fashioned way.

Well unfortunately, no amount of security measures can do anything about an irate man with a full bladder and the ability to use his penis in the pursuit of evil. I would agree that castration upon entering the stadium would make it prohibitive to go to an NFL game, so this may be a problem that has to be to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

But it took Taser Guy to bring out the latest installment of Feel-Good Security Theater, presented by every nut-job who has done something stupid enough to let fears of a far worse incident run wild.

There is a thin line between letting your worst fears run wild and seeing a small event by a nut-job at a game later turn into a warning not heeded until a larger event by a nut-job at a game occurs. I’m not sure anyone is hitting the panic button, but what Tim Keown sees as an overreaction due to the Taser Guy could also have been warning that stadiums need to beef up security. We don’t know this except in retrospect, of course. The two kids from Columbine were just outcast teenagers who took out their aggressions out improperly until they started shooting people in the school, at which point there were a ton of “signs” heretofore ignored. Again, it is a thin line. There’s no sense in letting worse fears run wild, but what today may seem like an overreaction can tomorrow seem like a necessary precaution.

I’m not saying the NFL should freak out, but a five second longer pat down isn’t a huge price to pay for 10% increased security at a game.

(Typical "Culture of Fear" progression: If he had a Taser, he could have had a gun, and if he had a gun, he could have had a bomb -- and what if that bomb happens to be a nuclear suitcase?)

I understand we can’t be hostage to our fears. In 2000, what if airlines had the type of security measures that were implemented post-9/11? I am guessing people would have freaked out and stated there was no reason for the overprotective security measures.

"Why do I have to take my shoes off? Do you think I have a bomb in the sole of the shoe? Isn't the smell of my feet without my shoes on a threat in itself?"

"It’s a box cutter, not a machete. What I am going to do with a box cutter on a plane, open UPS packages?"

Now, post-9/11 these security measures seem to make more sense. So I am not buying the culture of fear, but I am buying a longer pat down isn’t a big deal to attend an NFL game if it is a simple precaution that isn't prohibitive on the fan experience.

Starting this past weekend, the fan experience at an NFL game includes a pat-down by a yellow-jacketed security guard of your same gender. He/she will start at your ankles and finish at your shoulders.

I went through it at the last NFL game I attended with absolutely no issue. It took marginally longer to enter the stadium and no one I spoke with mentioned this as an inconvenience. This is just my experience though.

At some point, the question has to be asked: Is the experience of going to an NFL game more trouble than it's worth?

This is a different issue completely from security at the game. The experience of an NFL game in terms of security measures taken, as related to the inconvenience of these security measures are definitely not more trouble than they are worth.

The hassle of simply attending a game doesn't even touch on the cost, which is prohibitive for most people who are too busy paying rent and food bills and the required taxes that go toward building America's sporting Taj Mahals.

This is a discussion about the cost of going to an NFL game, which is different from a discussion about security measures being taken at games. I thought this was a column about security measures, tasers, and things like that. I guess Tim Keown will just lump the cost of a ticket in with the discussion of security. Not sure why.

More than a week before their home opener, the Bengals announced they wouldn't sell out. The Dolphins bought up the remaining unsold seats for their opener to avoid a local television blackout.

Again, this is a financial and economic issue, which is related to fans not wanting to pay to see the Dolphins or Bengals product on the field. The title of this article is “Security measures at NFL stadiums more trouble than they’re worth.” It is a completely different discussion when it comes to the financial aspect of attending a game.

(At some point, if the hassle/cost/indignity/danger of attending a game supersedes the experience, the pressure to overthrow the arrogant and counterproductive blackout rule figures to increase.)

I understand the financial reasons behind the blackout rule but I think it needs to go away at some point as well. Tim Keown and I can agree on this.

The NFL, as it should, is attempting to curtail the rogue behavior by patrolling parking lots before games and making sure that everyone in the parking lot has a ticket and isn't planning on spending the afternoon on the tailgate with a bottle of peppermint schnapps, a transistor and -- if his team loses -- a tire iron.

This isn’t my experience. Where I tailgate, there were two guys who just sat in the parking lot the entire game without a ticket, drank and listened to the game. Again, this is just my experience and this was not in a parking lot very near to the stadium, but these aren’t the people the NFL should worry about really. They should worry more about the spectators actually in the stadium and parked closer to the stadium. You can’t control drunk assholes everywhere.

But all this increased security and the attendant hassle can't help but erode the fans' willingness to subject themselves to the cattle herd.

The increased hassle and security takes up a maximum of 10 seconds in a person’s time upon entering the stadium. No one who braves the crowds of an NFL game is going to suddenly stop going to games because an extra 10 seconds of their time is being taken up. If there are people who won’t go to games because they get frisked more heavily then they are probably looking for a reason to stay at home and watch the game anyway.

You see more at home, anyway, and a trip to the bathroom -- presumably -- is less crowded and more predictable.

Yet again, Tim Keown is getting off the subject I believe this article was supposed to be about. I thought it was about how additional security is making it difficult to enjoy an NFL game? The argument a fan should stay at home instead of attending a game live could have been made over the last two decades. It’s not a new argument.

And now, game attendance comes with the added burden of proving your innocence. No firearm, no bottle of Albertson's scotch, no Taser -- you're good to go.

This is ridiculous. It is not hard to “prove” your innocence. Don’t carry a weapon into a game and you should be good to go. Keown makes it sound like you face an inquisition upon entering the stadium, which isn’t true, and only the help of an attorney can expedite the process. Don’t carry alcohol or a firearm and you should go right into the stadium.

In addition to factoring in the time needed to park and walk into the stadium, you need to guess how long it's going to take for security guards to pat down 50,000 or so people before they hit the turnstiles.

Again, it takes 5-10 seconds to pat down people. That’s 5 seconds per individual and the line doesn’t go progressively slower than it did prior to the increased security measures. In fact, you are probably going to have to wait to use the bathroom a hell of a lot longer than you would wait to get into the stadium.

This, of course, is in addition to the backpack/purse checks that need to be done. All in the name of making everyone feel safe.

Perhaps Tim should attend a game soon and not sit in the press box. This isn’t prohibitive because many women choose not to carry a purse into the game and if the price to make me feel safe is an extra 5 seconds of waiting I am willing to pay this price.

You can be comforted, however, by the knowledge that there is no person on Earth who wields a minimal amount of power with such animalistic ferocity as an NFL game-day security guard.

People who are charged with nothing more important than keeping areas clear for the passage of maintenance carts operate with more officiousness and petty bullying than those charged with guarding nuclear codes.

I chalk this up to lack of experience. Clearly Tim has never served as a security guard nor has he been responsible for crowd control at a concert or event. If he had, he would know you have to be aggressive at times, particularly when it comes to people who have consumed alcohol and your job is to ensure no one carries a weapon into the stadium. I’ve never had a bad experience with a security guard at an NFL game.

So good luck with those pat-downs. Don't do anything rash.

For some reason I don’t hear about all those security guard beat-downs being handed out to innocent spectators at an NFL game.

Once you get in the stadium, the "family-friendly" experience just might include a stadium-wide cheer when a pivotal player on the opposing team is injured, as happened in Atlanta when Vick went down with a concussion.

This one event is representative of behavior in every stadium? Considering Vick’s history in Atlanta, you know he flipped off the crowd one time, maybe this “stadium-wide” cheer could not be considered acceptable but somewhat understood as a different situation from a normal player on an opposing team getting injured. An outlying situation like this shouldn’t be considered the norm.

Or it might include a stadium-wide jeer when one of the hometown 11 -- say, Atlanta's Robinson -- gets penalized for intentionally attempting to injure someone.

This is the mob mentality at work, which is also why it is a good idea for increased security at NFL games.

Despite all that, it looks like it's going to be one nutty dude with a stun gun -- and, unfortunately, the willingness to use it -- who could tip the balance.

I’m not going to blame the NFL for being proactive in this situation and I am not sure how anyone could. Really, the increased security didn’t seem to be a problem and isn’t excessive.

He's either the catalyst for a new and improved fan experience, or one more reason to stay home.

So Tim Keown would rather go to an NFL game with less emphasis on security because it doesn’t inconvenience him, rather than go to a game where 5 extra seconds of his day is taken up with security measures that aren’t very invasive? Does it really ruin his fan experience?

Some nutty dude may bring a stun gun no matter what, do you want security to have a better chance of catching him or not? I understand a person may want to stay at home rather than go to an NFL game and have to deal with the crowds there. Crowds seem to be getting increasingly crazy and passionate at games. Wouldn’t you rather take 5 additional seconds going through security knowing this though? I would and I’m not sure why Tim Keown thinks this is a terrible idea.