More section 101 coverage
In the Seattle Times/PI Sunday edition sports section, there are two letters on Section 101:
John Ringler (Henderson Nevada!) blisters the Mariners up and down over it: “Someone in your organization has made the decision to destroy the center-field landing, a unique feature of Safeco Field, to insert about 240 more seats.” He talks about the current owners in contrast to the past ones, and even suggests that if the Mariners are going to sell everything in the stadium, we might as well charge them a license to use “Seattle” in their name… man, it’s a nice little piece of work.
Janine Grantski laments the loss of Mike Cameron and the center-field landing, and wonders “just how temporary these bleachers are going to be”. Janine: check out our seating audit for more on how often it’s there (most of the time and every game after the All-Star break).
The question about the bricks has been raised repeatedly, most pointedly by PI columnist John Levesque as a metaphor for the arrogance and greedy nature of local ownership. But as important as that is, and as clear-cut a wrong as it is, it’s only one part of this. If the Mariners move the bricks, for instance, and still have the stands in the center-field landing, they’ll still have taken one of the few unique, cool features of the ballpark we paid for and turned it into some crappy seats. That’s still wrong even if they’re not built on top of people’s bricks, breaking their deal with the most enthusiastic of their supporters.
If you haven’t already, join the dogpile on the Mariners. Express your discontent, and you may particularly want to point out that the Seattle Times has yet to print a word on this that isn’t a reader mail in the combined Times/PI Sunday edition. Though I understand the issue might get a sentence or two soon… but we’ll see.
Comments
7 Responses to “More section 101 coverage”
I wouldn’t be surprised at all to have the Mariners keep the seats next year and spin it as proof that they care about the fans because they moved the bricks. That’s basically what they did when they finally cut Kevin Jarvis and used that as proof they were committed to winning no matter how painful a financial sacrifice it was.
I’m waiting for Nanna McCrudden, 98, to walk into the Mariner’s front office and say, ‘oh, I like those new seats out there.’ And the FO to parade her in front of cameras, with a banner behind her, ‘section 101 – back this year by popular demand!’
That’s “USS Mariner faithful reader, John Ringler…”
I hate to defend those seats out there because I really liked that section before, but when I went to the game on Friday night those seats eventually filled up with a ton of rowdy teenagers just going crazy and seemingly having a great time. It doesn’t really look like they are selling at all and the ushers are just letting anybody sit there. It also looks like they are letting people just hang out in front of those bleachers still. But I do hate them and I wish they would go away.
Brandon… i’m trying to figure out your point. Are you in favor of the bleachers? Your post starts in a way that would make a reader assume you are writing pro-bleachers, but your tone later suggests a dissatisfaction with the seating arrangement.
Just curious. It is a far more entertaining topic for me to grade than my freshman essays…
It does? Sorry if there was some confusion. I guess it is a bit confusing. I do not like those bleachers one bit and I’d rather see them removed. I was just sharing an observation and maybe defending them just a little bit. Nonetheless, I’d rather see them gone.
I’m sure they think they’re the Red Sox, all they need now is the wins. How about 50 seats for every 5 games over .500?