Things must be going swimmingly at our nation's capitol. Apparently the problems with health care, unemployment and war are under control.
Arguments about the economy and climate change have evidently reached solutions.
Why else would Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah have enough time on his hands to dig into something as vital to our nation as college football?
I’ve always been critical of politicians who make a point of attempting to show their knowledge of sports. What credentials do they have to be considered experts? Our current president’s opinions on basketball and the NFL are of no more relevance than those of any other fan.
Generally, their efforts are mere publicity stunts used to garner support from the masses.
It gives the illusion of a common bond with the hard-core supporters who religiously follow their favorite teams.
Hatch’s disdain for the current system that crowns a national champion is not without some merit.
For years, the Bowl Championship Series has been under criticism for favoring schools from more established
conferences. Last season, his beloved Utes rolled through an undefeated season, and their Sugar Bowl destruction of highly regarded Alabama certainly put them among the nation’s elite.
But is being left out of national title consideration means for a congressional hearing?
After reading accounts of Tuesday’s session, one can understand why elected leaders receive so much criticism for wasting time and money. In the two-hour session, Hatch ranted long and loud about how unfair the BCS is, and how his team was cheated of playing for a championship.
He even partook in some good-natured debate with the president of the University of Nebraska about who has a better football program. Is this really taxpayer money well-spent?
It’s also disheartening to see our state legislature take an active role in the ongoing debate of alcohol sales at the new University of Minnesota stadium.
As at the national level, things must be going well here. Ample time was available for a debate on drinking beer at a football game.
Originally, the university was to allow alcohol in premium seats and luxury areas only. This would be in line with all Big Ten schools other than Michigan and Ohio State, who prohibit use altogether.
It’s a logical plan that’s been used effectively on campuses all over the country.
Unfortunately, many of our representatives have little knowledge of how major college football operates.
The university’s decision to go completely dry at TCF Bank Stadium is a direct result of a law passed allowing anyone of legal age to purchase alcohol, regardless of seating. The legislators supporting this believe everyone should have the same right, regardless of what they pay for a ticket.
While their hearts may be in the right place, their decision left the university in a precarious position. Do they allow alcohol and face the possibility of a lawsuit should an underage student be harmed after drinking in the stadium?
Do they want games to become a party that could get out-of-control, thus putting the school in a bad light?
As a Gopher season ticket holder and longtime fan, I have a pretty clear opinion on a solution. The university officials had it right with their initial idea.
To keep things on par with others in the Big Ten makes the most common sense.
Paying a higher price for premium seating should come with certain privileges, with alcohol being one of them.
It’s not much different than spending more for a first-class seat on an airplane, or upgrading to a nicer hotel room. In order to enjoy certain amenities, it usually costs extra.
I also like the idea of keeping the new venue more family-friendly and controlled.
One of my biggest worries is the stadium having an atmosphere like the Metrodome during Vikings games, where too many fans drink excessively while verbally abusing the opposition.
It’s too bad our government had to get involved. What’s wrong with a system that’s worked everywhere else? Do any of these legislators follow the Gophers or college football?
It’s funny that lawmakers tried make it our right to purchase a lukewarm $7 beer.
Perhaps next January they can debate the color of the end zones, or maybe whether games should really be played when it’s cold outside.
They seem to have the time.