BOOZE AT THE BANK: IT AIN'T OVER TIL IT'S OVER.

JOHN4254

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
115
Reaction score
0
Points
16
As I wrote earlier on this issue, it ain't over until they all go home. This morning, I have another old bromide to toss out once again, "Nothing is ever dead at the Legislature until it is really dead." As many of you may have read by now in the Strib online, the Minnesota House of Representatives has resurrected the so-called, "Booze at the Bank" issue with a softer approach that Strib reporter, Mike Kaszuba, has waggishly nicknamed Booze Lite:
http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/93702319.html?page=1&c=y

Stay tuned folks, we may all live to see the day when Representative Tom Rukavina and Gov. Tim Pawlenty dance and sing the "Beer Barrel Polka" on the TCF Bank Plaza before the USC game on September 18, with Jim Erickson leading the Gopher's Marching Band.

I would pay real money to see this event. :)
 

If this passes, will the U still say 'no?' How would they set it up to determine which third of the stadium would be served? Would the concourse (already crowded) be more jammed up with people from the student section traveling to the other end of the stadium for a legally purchased beer?
 

This sounds pretty good but who will be the 1/3 of the general seating that will be allowed to buy alcohol/beer and how on earth will the U be able to implement and control such a process ?
 

If this passes, will the U still say 'no?' How would they set it up to determine which third of the stadium would be served? Would the concourse (already crowded) be more jammed up with people from the student section traveling to the other end of the stadium for a legally purchased beer?

I don't see how this would change the U's position. Unless they can block off a section of GA seats as 'quasi-club seats' and control who gets in and out, it doesn't solve the reason they're objecting in the first place.
 



That's no compromize at all. If it's sold in 1/3 of the sections, that means it is available in all of the sections. It just means that people will have to walk a little farther. I think we will have to let this issue rest for a couple years, and then try to quietly fix it then. The people who are supporting the legislature's "all or none" law have no comprehension that it is very rare for colleges to allow alcohol in general seating. They think it is the norm, but it is not.

Another curse of having been stuck in the dome. Had we not been in the dome, people wouldn't have gotten used to having beer at a college football game.

Then there are the "beer for all" supporters who ask "why is the legislature wasting their time with this?" That's just dishonest: where was their complaints when the legislature stuck their noses in this in the first place? If it is a waste of time to NOW attempt to dictate alcohol policy at the U, it was a waste THEN to attempt to dictate policy at the U.

And there are the people who argue "The stadium was paid for with tax dollars, therefore I should be able to have beer at the game!" But they can never say WHY the stadium being (partially) paid with government funds = "Everyone should be able to have beer at the game".

And you hear rantings about "nanny state". But that's nonsense, not serving alcohol in general seating goes back LONG before any alleged "nanny state".
 


That's no compromize at all. If it's sold in 1/3 of the sections, that means it is available in all of the sections. It just means that people will have to walk a little farther. I think we will have to let this issue rest for a couple years, and then try to quietly fix it then. The people who are supporting the legislature's "all or none" law have no comprehension that it is very rare for colleges to allow alcohol in general seating. They think it is the norm, but it is not.

Another curse of having been stuck in the dome. Had we not been in the dome, people wouldn't have gotten used to having beer at a college football game.

Then there are the "beer for all" supporters who ask "why is the legislature wasting their time with this?" That's just dishonest: where was their complaints when the legislature stuck their noses in this in the first place? If it is a waste of time to NOW attempt to dictate alcohol policy at the U, it was a waste THEN to attempt to dictate policy at the U.

And there are the people who argue "The stadium was paid for with tax dollars, therefore I should be able to have beer at the game!" But they can never say WHY the stadium being (partially) paid with government funds = "Everyone should be able to have beer at the game".

And you hear rantings about "nanny state". But that's nonsense, not serving alcohol in general seating goes back LONG before any alleged "nanny state".


Give it up, Rodent. You have lost the debate. Intelligent people don't try to justify a policy or action because it has ALWAYS been done a certain way, or because EVERYONE does it that way.

The U is going to come up with NEW way of doing things that will provide them much needed revenue in tough economic times. It is a virtual certainty that schools all over the U.S. will follow suit once they see how well it works. After all, beer is a legal product that is sold almost everywhere in the country.

It won't be long before it will be considered financially irresponsible for schools to not pursue this additional revenue stream to help fund student scholarships and defray the cost of extemely expensive athletic programs.
 

As I wrote earlier on this issue, it ain't over until they all go home. This morning, I have another old bromide to toss out once again, "Nothing is ever dead at the Legislature until it is really dead." As many of you may have read by now in the Strib online, the Minnesota House of Representatives has resurrected the so-called, "Booze at the Bank" issue with a softer approach that Strib reporter, Mike Kaszuba, has waggishly nicknamed Booze Lite:
http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/93702319.html?page=1&c=y

Stay tuned folks, we may all live to see the day when Representative Tom Rukavina and Gov. Tim Pawlenty dance and sing the "Beer Barrel Polka" on the TCF Bank Plaza before the USC game on September 18, with Jim Erickson leading the Gopher's Marching Band.

I would pay real money to see this event. :)

This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of and will never be accepted by the regents. Besides, the new bill calls for taking 75% of the revenue generated by alcohol sales for NON-athletic scholarships.
 



At this point given that the Legislature is being so stubborn on this issue, the only "compromise" I see the U adopting is selling alcohol everywhere but have a cut off at halftime. This sets it up a lot like the MLB with their last call being the 7th inning.

It really defeats the purpose of not selling in general admission. Students will have access to alcohol, and the U will hold liability for their actions (should they be alcohol related). We would stand out in the Big 10. Not a bad thing in most cases, but this isn't the best issue to stand out on. It really depends on if the U wants that revenue or not. Last year, they chose not to accept it. This year maybe they will. Maybe there is a loop hole in the language (like charge outrageous prices for one beer at concessions, or just mysteriously be "out" of beer at the taps). Of course that wouldn't fly with customers/fans/politicians.

I'm guessing they still reject it. Could always just increase the price of luxury boxes (believe they were discounted last year) with a "luxury fee" and provide complimentary drinks. Like a beer garden or something. Nothing is being sold.
 

Seriously?

i hope your not serious...

YAH beer!!

If the 56 in your moniker applies to your graduation year at the U of M, I'll give you a pass. It's kind of like me and Lady Gaga. I don't get it.
 

This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of and will never be accepted by the regents. Besides, the new bill calls for taking 75% of the revenue generated by alcohol sales for NON-athletic scholarships.

So raising money for academic scholarhips by selling a legal product to adults who are willing to pay for it is a dumb idea? Just think about that for a second, or two.

After you figure out what you what you just said I recommend that you turn in your resignation to the ACLU before they get a chance to kick you out.
 

Give it up, Rodent. You have lost the debate. Intelligent people don't try to justify a policy or action because it has ALWAYS been done a certain way, or because EVERYONE does it that way.

The U is going to come up with NEW way of doing things that will provide them much needed revenue in tough economic times. It is a virtual certainty that schools all over the U.S. will follow suit once they see how well it works. After all, beer is a legal product that is sold almost everywhere in the country.

It won't be long before it will be considered financially irresponsible for schools to not pursue this additional revenue stream to help fund student scholarships and defray the cost of extemely expensive athletic programs.

I have asked you this question before, and you have refused to answer. Answer it NOW, one-trick-pony, or forever keep your peace on this topic:

Do you think that it is a good idea for a public institution of higher learning to provide alcoholic beverages for sale to its own students?
 



So raising money for academic scholarhips by selling a legal product to adults who are willing to pay for it is a dumb idea? Just think about that for a second, or two.

After you figure out what you what you just said I recommend that you turn in your resignation to the ACLU before they get a chance to kick you out.

The booze in 1/3 of the stadium plan, captain thought process. Note the use of the word "besides." I thought 75% of the impetus for TCF was to earn additional revenue for the athletic dept.
 

I
Do you think that it is a good idea for a public institution of higher learning to provide alcoholic beverages for sale to its own students?

Yes. For those of age, I don't see any problem at all with it. I don't see why Upnorth would either though I can't always follow his arguments.
 

The NCAA doesn't allow the sale of alcohol at Championship games. Sure the rest of the season is up to individual institutions, but it shows you that attitude towards the issue from the higher governing body of college sports.
 

At this point given that the Legislature is being so stubborn on this issue, the only "compromise" I see the U adopting is selling alcohol everywhere but have a cut off at halftime. This sets it up a lot like the MLB with their last call being the 7th inning.

It really defeats the purpose of not selling in general admission. Students will have access to alcohol, and the U will hold liability for their actions (should they be alcohol related). We would stand out in the Big 10. Not a bad thing in most cases, but this isn't the best issue to stand out on. It really depends on if the U wants that revenue or not. Last year, they chose not to accept it. This year maybe they will. Maybe there is a loop hole in the language (like charge outrageous prices for one beer at concessions, or just mysteriously be "out" of beer at the taps). Of course that wouldn't fly with customers/fans/politicians.

I'm guessing they still reject it. Could always just increase the price of luxury boxes (believe they were discounted last year) with a "luxury fee" and provide complimentary drinks. Like a beer garden or something. Nothing is being sold.

No they couldn't. If they could simply serve alcohol in the suites, this never would have been an issue. They can't sell it or serve it. At best they could give them some sort of voucher to purchase it themselves and bring it in with them, but even that would probably violate the rule.
 



belushi_in_animal_house-13.jpg
 

Give it up, Rodent. You have lost the debate.

I've made mincemeat out of your position. It's sad that you can't realize it.

Intelligent people don't try to justify a policy or action because it has ALWAYS been done a certain way, or because EVERYONE does it that way.

Have you ever heard of the concept of precedent?

It is a virtual certainty that schools all over the U.S. will follow suit once they see how well it works.

It's quite unlikely. But even if schools moved in this direction, you were the one who said it was irrelevant what other schools did.

After all, beer is a legal product that is sold almost everywhere in the country.

True, but it is irrelevant that beer is legal. If we followed your reasoning, the U would have to allow every legal product into the stadium. A couch is a legal product, why can't I bring it into the stadium?
 



I am really shocked that some didn't get that reference.

Don't be. I've tried nearly filling a satirical post with :eek::D;):p:):cool: and still had people respond "how can you POSSIBLY say that?"

Go figure.
 

I have asked you this question before, and you have refused to answer. Answer it NOW, one-trick-pony, or forever keep your peace on this topic:

Do you think that it is a good idea for a public institution of higher learning to provide alcoholic beverages for sale to its own students?

I don't have a problem with it as long as the students are of legal drinking age, and their use of it is tightly controlled and strictly monitored. There are a number of ways that the U can sell beer to anyone over 21 at Gophers stadium that would prevent it from getting in the hands of underage students. Beer gardens are an obvious example.

Both St. Johns and St. Ben's sell beer to students in their on-campus pubs and allow them to drink in their on-campus apartments. I assume that there are colleges all over the country that do the same thing. How logical is it that these same schools will not sell beer in their football stadiums? The only possible answers are that it is tradition, a half-assed NCAA policy, or both.

The tradition and the NCAA policy are bullsh*t and they need to go away. Sooner rather than later.
 

I have asked you this question before, and you have refused to answer. Answer it NOW, one-trick-pony, or forever keep your peace on this topic:

Do you think that it is a good idea for a public institution of higher learning to provide alcoholic beverages for sale to its own students?

When I was looking at schools, and Wisconsin's drinking age was 18, I remember having a VERY fresh Miller High Life on campus in Marquette's cafeteria! :)

This "compromise" stinks for a lot of the reasons mentioned in this thread.

What it DOES show is that with nearly all members on both sides of the aisle and the Governor all grandstanding this issue for two years with very little if public backlash, animosity toward the University may be at an all time high.

Pretty sad.
 

I think they would gate off the student sections and allow alcohol sales everywhere else. That's the most likely implementaiton.
 

I think they would gate off the student sections and allow alcohol sales everywhere else. That's the most likely implementaiton.

Theoretical implementation, you mean. The U will never sell alcohol to any non-premium seats, ever. They are in no way going to become the first school in the Big Ten to do that.
 

How about this plan:
1. Sell to the premium seats.
2. To achieve the 1/3rd you sell to anyone with the chairback expensive seats on the 50s and as far out as you need to get the 1/3. The catch is that you only sell beer from walking vendors in the aisles so that if you aren't seated in those sections you don't have access to the beer.
 

Does anyone have a list of what alcohol policies each college has?
 

How about this plan:
1. Sell to the premium seats.
2. To achieve the 1/3rd you sell to anyone with the chairback expensive seats on the 50s and as far out as you need to get the 1/3. The catch is that you only sell beer from walking vendors in the aisles so that if you aren't seated in those sections you don't have access to the beer.

IF the U were to go along with the micro-managing compromise then this would be the best way to handle it that I've heard.
 




Top Bottom