Another Chance for Alcohol at TCF Bank Stadium?

[tjgopher]

The policy the U wanted to adopt - liquor in private boxes and luxury seating only - is the same policy used by a majority of the other schools in the conference.

Not only that, but it was the same policy the U had been using at Williams Arena and Mariucci Arena for years. Then, the geniuses in St. Paul decided to screw it up.

And to make matters even worse, the alcohol policy was clearly written in the TCF Bank Stadium state funding legislation that the lawmakers approved in 2006! The U was moving forward with that revenue-generating plan when the legislators reneged on what they had already approved.

 

[Go4Broke]

And where would you put this magic beer garden? On the plaza? Where it could hold only a couple of hundred folks? And would look tacky? Because ruining the look of the plaza is worth it to crowd a couple of hundred folks into a temporary fenced area.

I don't know if it would fit up there but my favorite location for a beer garden would be on the top concourse level with a great view of the game. Since they couldn't be large you might have to have more than one of them in different locations. Target Field has at least two of them on their top concourse. If that doesn't work you probably could find a place somewhere in the bowels of the the stadium without a view of the game but with plenty of TV's. Have ever been to a Twins game? People spend huge amounts of time in the Town Ball Tavern and Hrbeks bullsh*ting with their friends and watching the game on TV. The Gophers could easily do something like that. It just requires a little creativity.

There is too much potential revenue available not to do this. You naysayers are unbelievable. Beer is a legal product and consumed everywhere in the world but college sporting events. At the U you can drink it right across the street at the Alumni Center and at Northrup for concerts. The notion the U shouldn't have a beer garden at the Gophers Stadium because nobody else does it is childish. It is the kind of argument that 6 year olds make when they try to convince their parents of something.

 

[DLguy]

I don't know if it would fit up there but my favorite location for a beer garden would be on the top concourse level with a great view of the game. Since they couldn't be large you might have to have more than one of them in different locations. Target Field has at least two of them on their top concourse. If that doesn't work you probably could find a place somewhere in the bowels of the the stadium without a view of the game but with plenty of TV's. Have ever been to a Twins game? People spend huge amounts of time in the Town Ball Tavern and Hrbeks bullsh*ting with their friends and watching the game on the TV. The Gophers could easily do something like that. It just requires a little creativity.

There is too much potential revenue available not to do this. You naysayers are unbelievable. Beer is a legal product and consumed everywhere in the world but college sporting events. At the U you can drink it right across the street at the Alumni Center and at Northrup for concerts. The notion the U shouldn't have a beer garden at the Gophers Stadium because nobody else does it is childish. It is the kind of argument that 6 year olds make when they try to convince their parents of something.

Ok, but then you take people away from watching the game in the stadium. People complain all the time about empty seats at various arenas, and now you are giving people a reason NOT to sit in there seats. Genius Lloyd!!

 

[Go4Broke]

Ok, but then you take people away from watching the game in the stadium. People complain all the time about empty seats at various arenas, and now you are giving people a reason NOT to sit in there seats. Genius Lloyd!!

I agree with you and that is why the BEST solution is to make beer available to ALL adults EVERYWHERE in the stadium. I am happy you are with me on this.

 

[dpodoll68]

Beer is a legal product and consumed everywhere in the world but college sporting events.

I know, right? Like just last night, for example - I took my son to his karate lessons, and the bouncers kept having to throw all of the drunks out of the viewing area. I'm just trying to watch my 5-year-old, and there are people doing keg stands and Jell-O shots. I remember thinking, "Man, why couldn't I be at a college football game right now, so all of these people wouldn't be drinking all around me?"

 

[RodentRampage]

I upgraded my seats yesterday from the benches to the non-donation seatbacks. I'm actually paying less for better seats, both in location and quality of the seats themselves. I've been thinking, though - I should probably refuse this upgrade on principle. After all, how can I possibly enjoy my new seats in 208 when those poor, disenfranchised souls in 232 have to sit on aluminum benches? Permanent chairbacks for all, or permanent chairbacks for none!!!!

This seems to be the point that the "beer for all" crowd ignores. If it is such an outrage that some people pay more and get more, then that must apply for other things besides beer. Should all steaks cost the same price, or should I decide for myself how best to balance what I get against what I want to pay? These "populists" seem only to be populists about beer.

 

[GoAUpher]

You naysayers are unbelievable. Beer is a legal product and consumed everywhere in the world but college sporting events.

And HS sporting events. And youth sporting events. And beer actually is consumed at all sorts of sporting events, though typically only in priority seating. Your gross exaggeration and unwavering belief that drinking beer is somehow a protected right versus a well regulated privilege (see: drinking age limits, intoxication laws, liquor licenses, etc) is unbelievable.

 

[GoAUpher]

What I don't think the pro-beer people get is that (at least IMO) most of the U's defenders in this thread won't flip out if the U changed their mind and decided to serve beer everywhere. I drink lots of beer at my tailgate. If it was available to me I'd have an occasional beer at the game (not often b/c of price and quality). We only care because of the crazy freakout dance pro beer folks always seem to do as they attempt to explain why the U can be forced to give beer to everyone (hint, the can't), why a policy that is the norm for college sports is somehow extreme, why their rights are being infringed upon (they aren't), or that beer is fundamentally different as an amenity from better food, better seats, etc.

 

[RodentRampage]

Beer is a legal product and consumed everywhere in the world but college sporting events.

This is absolutely false. Beer may be legal, but you may most certainly not buy and consume it anywhere. In fact, there are a very limited number of places that you can get beer. You can go to a liquor store, a bar or a restaurant, and if they have a liquor license, you can buy beer there. But a restaurant doesn't have to serve beer, and doesn't have to serve it in the entire establishment. They could have a VIP room with a cover charge, and only sell beer there. Establishments make their own alcohol policies.

And avoiding being a national laughingstock is a solid motivation for not having beer in general seating.

 

[GoAUpher]

And avoiding being a national laughingstock is a solid motivation for not having beer in general seating.

This is hyperbole in the other direction. Why would we be a national laughingstock? We weren't when it was served at the Dome. And being off campus in a pro facility isn't the reason. It's because no one nationally had any clue that we were. Just like most folks wouldn't know if they did it at TCF (there would be an initial media flurry that most casual fans would probably miss/forget). We'd simply be the answer to the trivia question "Name the only B1G school to serve alcohol in their general football seating."

The only way we'd become a laughingstock is if there was a sudden outbreak of fights and riots which is beyond unlikely.

 

[Go4Broke]

What I don't think the pro-beer people get is that (at least IMO) most of the U's defenders in this thread won't flip out if the U changed their mind and decided to serve beer everywhere. I drink lots of beer at my tailgate. If it was available to me I'd have an occasional beer at the game (not often b/c of price and quality). We only care because of the crazy freakout dance pro beer folks always seem to do as they attempt to explain why the U can be forced to give beer to everyone (hint, the can't), why a policy that is the norm for college sports is somehow extreme, why their rights are being infringed upon (they aren't), or that beer is fundamentally different as an amenity from better food, better seats, etc.

The world is changing and college sports need to change right along with it. With declining state subsidies public universities need to look for ways to maximize revenues. Beer is sold to adults, including students who are adults, on college campuses all over the country. The policy of not selling it at college sporting events is a relic of a bygone era. It is high time that it passes into history along with Sunday closing laws and all of the other blue laws enacted at a time when people were far too willing to allow the do-gooders of the world to impose their ways on everyone else.

 

[Mustang Mountain Man]

If beer was allowed in generally, the additional premium value of that right to drink in the premium seating would be diminished. Therefore, they would deserve to have a lower price ticket, let's say $5 bucks a game per ticket. Well, you add that loss on to the cheap general tickets and sell them beer and everything is made up and then some. Everybody can feel better that they are not getting screwed. I don't know why premium seating holders might not want a lower ticket price and I couldn't fathom the U not wanting an offset in ticket prices or increased revenue from food and beverage sales. I would expect people would pay premium beverage prices for beer. The U gains revenue and the public suffers not. What possible loss does a premium ticket holder receive when they get compensated by lower ticket prices and the masses get their beer. Am I missing something or will the NIMBY crowd prove to me once again it is about class warfare.

 

[GoAUpher]

The world is changing and college sports need to change right along with it. With declining state subsidies public universities need to look for ways to maximize revenues. Beer is sold to adults, including students who are adults, on college campuses all over the country. The policy of not selling it at college sporting events is a relic of a bygone era. It is high time that it passes into history along with Sunday closing laws and all of the other blue laws enacted at a time when people were far too willing to allow the do-gooders of the world to impose their ways on everyone else.

See, this is a pretty well reasoned argument. It's also pretty much the first time I've heard anything this rational presented minus loads and loads of needless hyperbole (the do-gooder thing is there but that doesn't even register compared to some of the ridiculous stuff that has been tossed out there).

Go convince the Regents (I mean it! Up until now I sincerely doubt they've been given good arguments for beer in GA that didn't come tagged with faux populist rhetoric). That's what is standing in the way of any changes.

 

[GoAUpher]

If beer was allowed in generally, the additional premium value of that right to drink in the premium seating would be diminished. Therefore, they would deserve to have a lower price ticket, let's say $5 bucks a game per ticket. Well, you add that loss on to the cheap general tickets and sell them beer and everything is made up and then some. Everybody can feel better that they are not getting screwed. I don't know why premium seating holders might not want a lower ticket price and I couldn't fathom the U not wanting an offset in ticket prices or increased revenue from food and beverage sales. I would expect people would pay premium beverage prices for beer. The U gains revenue and the public suffers not. What possible loss does a premium ticket holder receive when they get compensated by lower ticket prices and the masses get their beer. Am I missing something or will the NIMBY crowd prove to me once again it is about class warfare.

Some more good points here! If the U could make money while keeping the costs of premium seating lower then they are more likely to sell out their premium seating. It's a business related dynamic that I had never considered before. That's a win/win.

Seriously, I think there is promise here (from a pure profit/sales perspective) if they find a way to make the numbers work. The U is in a competitive pro town where there is too much premium seating capacity and not enough demand for it. Making their premium seating even more attractive (alcohol available AND a lower price) is a good way to make sure it gets sold.

 

[RodentRampage]

Why would we be a national laughingstock? We weren't when it was served at the Dome. And being off campus in a pro facility isn't the reason.

Yes, it was. It wasn't the U's stadium, and the U could not dictate alcohol policy.

 

[GoAUpher]

Yes, it was. It wasn't the U's stadium, and the U could not dictate alcohol policy.

A fact that no casual fan nationally would know. Heck, most casual MN fans don't seem to know this. It's not the reason we weren't a laughingstock.

 

[RodentRampage]

No one "deserves" to get a lower price, that's not the way economics works. Prices only come down if people decline to pay a higher price. And the class warfare is being waged by the "beer for all" people.

 

[GoAUpher]

No one "deserves" to get a lower price, that's not the way economics works. Prices only come down if people decline to pay a higher price. And the class warfare is being waged by the "beer for all" people.

Of course that is how economics works. And you're right that the faux populist elitism crap is only coming from pro beer folks. But the U couldn't sell all the premium seating when beer was still available as part of the sales pitch. It is unlikely that that would suddenly change given the economy and the addition of Target Field's premium seat options to the marketplace.

I don't think the U changes its mind no matter what. But I'd agree that there are some good, rational arguments to be made for serving beer in GA on economic grounds (so long as the populist nonsense is kept out of it). And I think MMM raised a good new point on that front with his note about the premium seating. Up until now the only economic argument was "people buying beer that you hadn't previously planned for means you make more money".

 

[BisonGopher]

Of course that is how economics works. And you're right that the faux populist elitism crap is only coming from pro beer folks. But the U couldn't sell all the premium seating when beer was still available as part of the sales pitch. It is unlikely that that would suddenly change given the economy and the addition of Target Field's premium seat options to the marketplace.

I don't think the U changes its mind no matter what. But I'd agree that there are some good, rational arguments to be made for serving beer in GA on economic grounds (so long as the populist nonsense is kept out of it). And I think MMM raised a good new point on that front with his note about the premium seating. Up until now the only economic argument was "people buying beer that you hadn't previously planned for means you make more money".

But they could sell alcohol to those who have already bought suites. Why deny that extra source of revenue?

 

[GoAUpher]

But they could sell alcohol to those who have already bought suites. Why deny that extra source of revenue?

I'm a little confused. In the scenario I was exploring the suites would get alcohol.

 

[supadupafly]

Of course that is how economics works. And you're right that the faux populist elitism crap is only coming from pro beer folks. But the U couldn't sell all the premium seating when beer was still available as part of the sales pitch. It is unlikely that that would suddenly change given the economy and the addition of Target Field's premium seat options to the marketplace.

I don't think the U changes its mind no matter what. But I'd agree that there are some good, rational arguments to be made for serving beer in GA on economic grounds (so long as the populist nonsense is kept out of it). And I think MMM raised a good new point on that front with his note about the premium seating. Up until now the only economic argument was "people buying beer that you hadn't previously planned for means you make more money".

premium seating may not have been 100% sold out prior to the opening in 2009, but it was damn close to it. and certainly part of that for some of the premium seating purchasers was the expectation of the paid for luxury of alcohol sales/service in those seats.

the ONLY defections from already made premium seat purchases (people/companies, etc. asking for refunds on their premium seating purchase) were because the legislature stupidly stuck their nose in on the liquor license front right before the stadium was to open (requiring it be sold throughout the entire stadium or no where at all when they should have rightfully known that would go against established big ten and ncaa policy of only allowing alcohol sales in controlled/monitored premium seating sreas) and mucked everything up for the U of M financially and its already pre-established premium seating sales model.

 

[BisonGopher]

I'm a little confused. In the scenario I was exploring the suites would get alcohol.

I thought you were saying they wouldn't be able to sell anymore suites, using alcohol sales as the carrot, and so there isn't a good enough reason to permit alcohol in suites.

 

[Unregistered User]

It is high time that it passes into history along with Sunday closing laws and all of the other blue laws...

What are you talking about? These are perfectly reasonable laws:

State Laws:
A person may not cross state lines with a duck atop his head.
It is illegal to sleep naked.
Citizens may not enter Wisconsin with a chicken on their head.
All bathtubs must have feet.

Hibbing:
It shall be the duty of any policeman or any other officer to enforce the provisions of this Section, and if any cat is found running at large, or which is found in any street, alley or public place, it shall be the duty of any policeman or other officer of the city to kill such cat.

Minneapolis:
Red cars may not drive down Lake Street.

Minnetonka:
Driving a truck with dirty tires is considered a public nuisance.
Any person who persuades another to enter a massage therapist business after 11:00 PM is guilty of a misdemeanor.

St. Cloud:
Hamburgers may not be eaten on Sundays.

 

[GoAUpher]

I thought you were saying they wouldn't be able to sell anymore suites, using alcohol sales as the carrot, and so there isn't a good enough reason to permit alcohol in suites.

Ah...gotcha. No, whatever happens they need to at least get booze back in the suites.