JimH5

This is a topic that could go off the rails any moment, but I think if we keep it engaged in a respectful way, there's nothing wrong with not agreeing. Superfly, you make fine points. In my own mind, I see the pictures of the preschooler and read the accounts of what happened, and I think that Peterson went beyond discipline and went into a rage. Obviously I don't know if that's true, but he did accidentally strike the boy in his genitals. And he raised welts across a number of areas on his body. But whether it is child abuse or not isn't for me to decide-- or Ziggy Wilf, or Roger Goodell. It's up to the courts. The decision facing Goodell and Wilf is how to best proceed. How do they "protect the shield" and the franchise, and still appeal to the public? Even if Peterson isn't a convicted child abuser, do they want an accused, or suspected child abuser wearing the shield? They fine players if they wear their socks too high, but they don't have a problem with Peterson appearing inside their jersey? Aren't the Vikings saying they would rather win games with a suspected child abuser than have him sit out while the matter is addressed by the courts?

So what of the disparity between what football has done with Rice and Peterson? Rice is out of the league, and Peterson is suiting up this weekend. Isn't that disparity on Goodell? That the Vikings are letting Peterson wear their uniform and appear on their team is absurd. Are they really that shortsighted? Do people really not care about the pictures of what Peterson did to his son? Do they just shrug it off and keep cheering for their guy? How could they sit in a room with their own sons and watch the Vikings play, cheering for a guy who admitted to leaving whip marks and drawing blood from his own?

You make a fair point. None of us like to think of ourselves as uncaring Neanderthals. Daniel Snyder has said that he was a Redskins fan growing up and he loves the tradition and thinks of the team name as one of honor. I believe that he is telling the truth in that. I don't think he dislikes Native Americans. I just think he's too invested in the Redskins name to see that others might find it offensive. And while most of us are fine with changing our minds from time to time on various subjects, none of us likes to be nagged into doing so, either by the media, or our self-righteous BF-net buds. But this has united people as disparate as Keith Olbermann and Charles Krauthammer, who both see the name as offensive. When do you see them agree on anything? People don't get to own other people's heritage, to use their image, to wrap all that in a package and sell it for their own gain. As much as Snyder loves and respects the past and present tribes of native people, he shouldn't be able to profit from them. And it is not lost on me that I have used a picture of Judge Landis as my avatar for the past 10+ years. Nobody else on this board has snagged a historic racist as their own semi-official logo. It may be wise for me to change that.

Keith Olbermann has aired evidence of an old news interview where the owner of the team specifically said that the team was not named in tribute to any Native American coach or player. And as for the name being offensive or not..it most certainly is offensive to those who are offended.

Ha! Adrian Peterson!! When it rains, it pours! Next, TMZ will find a link between Peyton Manning and ISIS.

I suspect that Goodell will survive the Ray Rice case. The only thing that will bring him down is if people stop watching games/buying merchandise, etc. There's no indication of that, so for now, it's mostly just unpleasant noise for Goodell and the league. I really wonder if there is anything anymore that would ever cause viewership to go down. Maybe if we found out that games were fixed, or if a prominent player died on the field, or if games became punt-fests. It dominates television like nothing else. It's a good game for gambling & for fantasy. There's tradition and great athletics. It's a very compelling product, and people seem not to care about the dirty laundry.

I don't get the outrage directed at the NFL, I like the fact that domestic abuse is once again being talked about, but I agree the discussion has veered off of a productive course and turned into a witch hunt. Where's the outrage for someone like K-Rod who allegedly not only beat up his wife but his father in law as well? I really don't think us men, well at least the good men who would never do something like this, have a very good handle on the whole as to why battered women stay with these people and attempt to cover it up. I would hope that people would take the time to become more educated on all of these issues so the conversation can veer away from, "well he was never convicted", as if domestic abuse is that simple. It's the oversize nature of the NFL that makes it such an attractive target. It's their unwillingness to allow a business to say "Super Bowl" without being licensed. It's their charging personal seat licenses to allow people the right to buy seats to their games. It's the gaudy outlandish Super Bowl rings. It's the buffoonery of Jerry Jones and Bill Bellichek and Chris Berman. It's the $40+ million salary that Roger Goodell makes. It's their unwillingness to admit wrongdoing, ever. There's lots of distasteful things about the NFL that have been simmering for awhile, and this is an incident that allowed the cauldron to boil over. You make an excellent point about K-Rod and his domestic violence history, conveniently forgotten by lots of us. If we're calling for Goodell's head, we should call for Doug Melvin's. And regarding concussions, there is a school of thought that suggests CTE and the tau proteins that lead to it are created not only by concussive collisions, but by the multiple subconcussive collisions that occur as a regular part of play. That players are too big and fast and strong to play the game without risking brain damage to themselves and their opponents.

There's a lot more than just this incident to the Fire Goodell stuff. The concussion crisis and the NFL's callous handling of retired players. . .The Washington Redskins racist name. . .The lack of effort on reigning in PEDs among players. . . This is the most recent incident, and it seems that Goodell tried to sweep it under the rug. Anything to keep the money rolling in. People don't like that.

Sending a PM

I promise to keep my hands to myself. But I've got a little over a month to see if I can figure out a way to bite into a Polish sausage just at the right moment to squirt a little grease into Matt Holliday's eye. Then when he goes all Moises Alou on me, he'll still have blurred vision, so I can blame the guy behind me. Evil plan is coming together. . .

I'm not a Starbucks person, but in that case, I might suggest they pass along the "free" coffee to the person behind me in line while I just paid the normal price for what I ordered.

I am interested in County Stadium era Brewers GU items. I don't have anything to trade or sell, but am a buyer when the item and price are right for me.

I think I was complaining for nothing. I walked down to see my postseason seats earlier today and I'm pretty sure they are the Bartman seats. That would be fantastic!

Well, it's good to know that they take care of their most loyal customers. I mailed in my CC info yesterday to take the seats they offered to me down in section 130. I've been a fan since Tommy Harper and Marty Pattin and have never been to a postseason game, so I'll take what I can get. I'm going on Sunday and hope to get down to see my postseason seats. I don't think they're that bad since there's such little foul ground in that corner. Khris Davis will have to be my new favorite Brewer for awhile.

I dislike the "raise awareness" aspect of many charities. Hashtag campaigns, products sold where a tiny portion of the proceeds go to charity, celebrity causes du jour. . . Awareness by itself isn't worth anything. The only thing that's essential is that they raise money--and every charity can always use way more than they currently get. This seems like a very creative, very unique way of raising a lot of money to combat ALS. There doesn't seem to be a special interest profiting from the campaign. It just seems to have grown organically. I get it, the preening for the camera is often self centered, and there's a lot of doing it just to be seen. And we all have a finite number of dollars to spend on a variety of things, and money spent on ALS maybe doesn't go to the American Red Cross, or Easter Seals, etc. But we need to find a cure for ALS, so what's wrong if the result is that they get more money to find the cure?

Wow--You've been a full season ticket holder for 13 years and you don't get to keep your seat for post season?! That's amazing. I understand their need to make money. I'm just not sure which is the best way to go for me. I might be more interested in seeing just one game of each series in a premium seat than buying all the seats of all the series down in the OF corner seats. To me, the best seat is on the Loge level on the infield..and I might be more apt to pay more for a single game there than what is being offered to me as a SSH. I guess we have a couple of weeks to figure it all out.

I'm a first year 20-packer, with my original seats being on the Field level behind the screen. Those weren't so good for us, so I have exchanged most of the season back to get seats in the Loge Family section (217). My postseason package has me wayyyy down the LF corner in 130, 12 rows from the field. Not sure if I'm too happy with that, though I have asked a lot of my ticket rep this year, with multiple exchanges, and I'm a first year person at the 20 game level, so maybe that's just what I get. I'm probably going to buy them, though tickets are certainly not cheap, and they are not in a preferred location.

Agreed. And it doesn't get easier maybe until much later. My daughter is 10, and this is our 3rd year (with her) of season ticket packages. Up until this year, there were lots of times when she would want to be outside on the playground, in the kids area, searching for some food that she'll eat. . .lots of stuff at the baseball game that isn't actually sitting and watching the baseball game. We have a 20-game package this year and the only game I've attended to the end was when she was away at camp. We talked about not renewing our tickets next year, since she doesn't really seem to enjoy being there. We've bought Hank stuff, we've been on the Bernie slide tour, she's been on the Jumbotron, we've been in the cheapest seats and the most expensive, and she's still complaining that she wants to leave. She said that 20 is just too many games, or too many games without a break in between. . .so maybe we'll go back to a 10-game package next year--or just buy single games. It's frustrating, because I'm torn between wanting to attend games, wanting to be a good father, not wanting to give in to every little complaint...it's a tough balance.

For me it depends on the pace of the game. I know I have complained about that in the recent past, but the experience of being at the game is so much better if the game is moving along. There really is nothing like being at a live event during a huge moment. But the slow plodding moments are when I start to get cranky. Watching a manager question a play or call for a challenge. Seeing a pitching coach walk out slowly to the mound for a conference. Watching a pitcher walk around the mound before climbing back up to look in for the sign. It's not a myth that they pick up the pace on getaway day. If they would only play all their games with the same urgency. I'm good for 2 hours and 30 minutes. But more than that, and they're pushing my angry button. As for the prices. . .it's an expensive day. For a family, I would see bringing in Cousins Subs, bottled drinks & boxed theater candy or snacks. And they do make certain dates more affordable. But it's still mostly in the Terrace section, so I agree that it's not always fun being up there. Regarding the up-and-down stuff. . .I'm always on the aisle, so I get up all the time for people. As long as they're polite about it, I don't really mind. There aren't that many crucial times during a baseball game when you have to watch every pitch. And I used to be bothered by the "know it alls" who don't know much. Now I just see them as part of the ambience. Loudmouths and drunks are still a bother, but they're not as common as in previous years.

Me too. Baseball is a tough watch, and for me, it's all about the pace of play. Growing up in the 1970s, it was uncommon for a game to take 3 hours. They started at 7:30, and were still often done before 10:00. Now it's just so plodding. They could shave off 20 minutes a game (enforce a pitch clock, speedier trips to the mound, one less commercial between innings) and not really impact the game. Not sure the broadcasters would be too happy about that, though, as they benefit by having a longer tv show on their cable channels.

http://www.peterlewis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/0d21f75f-46e3-4040-bb38-96b33756d45e_lg1-150x150.jpeg This suit doesn't even look that heavy. Maybe the judge wasn't hugged enough as a baby.

I was not aware of his background. . .youngest son of a prominent baseball coach, 4-time state champion. . .then a few years later to have seemingly come off the rails, get suspended and have it reported in your hometown paper. This is a pretty low point in his life. Hope he is able to get well and put this behind him.

Sorry, I just wasn't feeling like myself that day. Next time I'll wear a heavy wool suit to the game and scowl more.

I like the discussion, and I don't really mind the conflict. Nobody has to agree with me--it's just opinion. Though I consider it a challenge to try to influence people toward my side of thinking, and I would hope that I'm open minded enough to change my mind when others make a compelling argument.

What cards do you have? Are they graded? You might do an eBay search for some recent sales, as graded cards are pretty comparable to others with the same grade. I would guess that it would be better financially to break up a collection into smaller buying units vs. keeping everything together.