Go Gophers!!! Booze at The Bank?

[Killjoy]

Arrogance Personified

We don't do that in a public college stadium financed with taxpayer dollars in Minnesota. We do things our own way in Minnesota. If you don't like it, then move someplace you like better. If you don't live here, then stay the hell out. We don't need you, or want you.

Since you are the Pope I suppose it is natural that you believe that god speaks through you. Go ahead and believe what you may but those of us without your devine insight still prefer to express our own opinions.

LOL Talk about arrogance and delusion.

 

[ShushPush]

Nothing "aristocratic" about it. You pay for more, you get more. why not turn all seats into luxury boxes, if it is aristocratic that paying for more gets you more? Is it aristocratic that the sideline seats are chairs, while the cheaper seats are bleachers?

I dub thee Prince Rodent Rampage.

I don't mind you getting an upgrade in seating if you pay for it. I wouldn't mind you getting a beverage if that is part of the price of admission. But, if you are paying to exclude others from having a drink, well, that is where you and I will not see eye to eye.

 

[dpodoll68]

if you are paying to exclude others from having a drink

That's the most ridiculous logic ever. When you go to Harvard and pay Harvard tuition, are you paying to exclude others from having a Harvard degree? When you buy a Bentley, are you paying to exclude others from owning a Bentley? When you fly first-class on Continental, are you paying to exclude others from flying first-class?

Increased costs come with increased perks/privileges/status/etc. in every other facet of life and society. Why would a freaking college football game be unique in that regard?

 

[RodentRampage]

I dub thee Prince Rodent Rampage.

I don't mind you getting an upgrade in seating if you pay for it. I wouldn't mind you getting a beverage if that is part of the price of admission. But, if you are paying to exclude others from having a drink, well, that is where you and I will not see eye to eye.

No one is paying so you can't get a drink. They are paying so they can have it. Since you admit that you don't have a problem with people paying more and getting seating unavailable to those who don't pay extra, you don't have a problem with the general concept of people paying more and getting more. Why then should beer be an exception?

 

[CrocShots]

You can always sneak stuff in still.....

 

[Killjoy]

Paying for It

You can always sneak stuff in still.....

And sometimes you have to pay for that also.

 

[Rodent]

I appreciate differing opinions about whether the University should or should not sell alcohol and to whom. The point remains, however, that it is (or well, should be) the University's decision.

The State's Micromanagement of the University has to stop. Leadership involves setting goals and then getting out of the way.

 

[ShushPush]

No one is paying so you can't get a drink. They are paying so they can have it. Since you admit that you don't have a problem with people paying more and getting seating unavailable to those who don't pay extra, you don't have a problem with the general concept of people paying more and getting more. Why then should beer be an exception?

That is easy. Your ticket didn't come with the offer of beer and neither did anybody elses. If I go to Manny's, I expect that I can still order beer with my burger even if I didn't order the chateaubriand. Manny's certainly wants you to order the steak, but won't complain too loudly if you order the burger. The U is complaining that not everybody is ordering the steak, so they are withholding the beer from all willing customers. If a guy walks into Manny's and has a reservation, and has the full faith and credit to pay for whatever he orders, then he should be able to buy whatever is on the menu. TCF stadium is adding an item to the menu, and I want to order. Just because you reserved and paid for a room in the back, should not mean I can't order from the menu. If you get a special menu, I don't care if I can't order from that. But, when it is on the menu, your damn right I expect I won't be denied. Does that clarify for you and all the other nitwits what is happening at the U. And, if I vote for my senator, and he votes for universal access to the beer at TCF, too f-ing bad for the U. They want my money... it has strings. My negotiating stance hasn't changed. I am all in or all out. My patronage will go elsewhere without the beer. I can't think of a more elitist thing coming out of the U than the beer issue. I paid for my 4 years college at the U. I paid room, board, and fees. I paid for other non-credit classes. I paid for parking. I paid taxes. I gave donations. I paid for multiple season tickets for 23 of the last 31 years, if I counted properly. I have paid for game day tickets in all the other seasons, except a period when I was on active duty and could not go to any games. But, my season ticket holding days are over. I only want to go to a few games each year. And that means, I don't want to buy high buck tickets any more. I just want a beer like the next guy. I don't need your f-ing permission to get it, either. It isn't a national crime to sell beer to adults and the U should not measure me by the size of my football donations. My donations went straight to my college and specifically to the Russian Studies department. So, as far as I am concerned, all the elitist, dumbass GHers who want to claim their higher price ticket is worth more than me haven't proven a thing. All they have proven is that their egos are larger than their heads.

 

[tjgopher]

That is easy. Your ticket didn't come with the offer of beer and neither did anybody elses. If I go to Manny's, I expect that I can still order beer with my burger even if I didn't order the chateaubriand. Manny's certainly wants you to order the steak, but won't complain too loudly if you order the burger. The U is complaining that not everybody is ordering the steak, so they are withholding the beer from all willing customers. If a guy walks into Manny's and has a reservation, and has the full faith and credit to pay for whatever he orders, then he should be able to buy whatever is on the menu. TCF stadium is adding an item to the menu, and I want to order. Just because you reserved and paid for a room in the back, should not mean I can't order from the menu. If you get a special menu, I don't care if I can't order from that. But, when it is on the menu, your damn right I expect I won't be denied. Does that clarify for you and all the other nitwits what is happening at the U. And, if I vote for my senator, and he votes for universal access to the beer at TCF, too f-ing bad for the U. They want my money... it has strings. My negotiating stance hasn't changed. I am all in or all out. My patronage will go elsewhere without the beer. I can't think of a more elitist thing coming out of the U than the beer issue. I paid for my 4 years college at the U. I paid room, board, and fees. I paid for other non-credit classes. I paid for parking. I paid taxes. I gave donations. I paid for multiple season tickets for 23 of the last 31 years, if I counted properly. I have paid for game day tickets in all the other seasons, except a period when I was on active duty and could not go to any games. But, my season ticket holding days are over. I only want to go to a few games each year. And that means, I don't want to buy high buck tickets any more. I just want a beer like the next guy. I don't need your f-ing permission to get it, either. It isn't a national crime to sell beer to adults and the U should not measure me by the size of my football donations. My donations went straight to my college and specifically to the Russian Studies department. So, as far as I am concerned, all the elitist, dumbass GHers who want to claim their higher price ticket is worth more than me haven't proven a thing. All they have proven is that their egos are larger than their heads.

Wow. You paid four years to get a degree at the U and come away with that line of logic? Again, wow.

 

[go4rob]

I've always felt it was like a first class airline ticket. You pay more, you get better treatment, pretty simple. I pay more, and I get a better seat. If I paid even more, I could get served beer...I get that. More importantly, which ever way it goes, I think it should be the U's decision and NOT the State Legislature...either way, I support the Gophers and will have my beer in the parking lot.

 

[AO54]

How dense can you guys get? The U doesn't care about providing a perk to the premium seat-holders, they're more interested in keeping the masses under control. If they were motivated by money, they would sell to everyone. They're much more interested in fitting in with the rest of the big ten, and pretending that they are diminishing binge drinking by their underage students.

 

[Ron Johnson Super Fan]

How dense can you guys get? The U doesn't care about providing a perk to the premium seat-holders, they're more interested in keeping the masses under control. If they were motivated by money, they would sell to everyone. They're much more interested in fitting in with the rest of the big ten, and pretending that they are diminishing binge drinking by their underage students.

Ding, ding ding. We have a winner.

 

[GoAUpher]

Oneoldgopher, I see your arguments and logic on this topic have not improved. I notice you have pulled out the "full faith and credit" card. Can we expect the playing of the "protected classes card" next?

If you're willing to not go to games over this then more power to you. It's your dollar and if you want to withold over a silly thing like beer then please do so.

 

[GoAUpher]

How dense can you guys get? The U doesn't care about providing a perk to the premium seat-holders, they're more interested in keeping the masses under control. If they were motivated by money, they would sell to everyone. They're much more interested in fitting in with the rest of the big ten, and pretending that they are diminishing binge drinking by their underage students.

Oh good grief...keep the masses under control? Really? Their nefarious plan is to make sure "the masses" are only able to drink what they believe to be the appropriate thing? You should have stuck with the "want to fit in with the B1G/pretend to diminish binge drinking" line of thinking. That at least makes sense (and is IMO probably a big part of it). The whole masses under control drivel is just ridiculous.

 

[AO54]

Oh good grief...keep the masses under control? Really? Their nefarious plan is to make sure "the masses" are only able to drink what they believe to be the appropriate thing? You should have stuck with the "want to fit in with the B1G/pretend to diminish binge drinking" line of thinking. That at least makes sense (and is IMO probably a big part of it). The whole masses under control drivel is just ridiculous.

Do you think the administration was thrilled that fans were having sex in the bathrooms and attempting to remove the goalposts from the field?

 

[harrys ghost]

Do you think the administration was thrilled that fans were having sex in the bathrooms and attempting to remove the goalposts from the field?

The solution to both those problems is simple -- just ban Hogeye fans.

 

[GopherRock]

Do you think the administration could have done anything about it?

This is exactly how the booze situation should have been handled in the first place: BY THE REGENTS.

 

[Ron Johnson Super Fan]

Oh good grief...keep the masses under control? Really? Their nefarious plan is to make sure "the masses" are only able to drink what they believe to be the appropriate thing? You should have stuck with the "want to fit in with the B1G/pretend to diminish binge drinking" line of thinking. That at least makes sense (and is IMO probably a big part of it). The whole masses under control drivel is just ridiculous.

Come on GAU, I don't know what percentage of the people responsible for keeping alcohol out of college stadiums are doing it cynically but you can't dispute that a portion of those people think that they are doing the public a great service by protecting people from themselves and fostering a "safe" environment. As misguided as that may be I can guarantee you that some of the people in charge think that.

 

[Killjoy]

The Soup Nazi Episode

This string is beginning to feel like Jerry Seinfeld's plot from the soup Nazi episode. In the story everybody had to follow the rules or they would be sent to the back of the line. All these conspiracy theories espoused here also have that same tone that we need to control the masses. I find this quite entertaining. Now if I could only find a way to stop these conspiracists from plotting against me in having a drink.

 

[station19]

This string is beginning to feel like Jerry Seinfeld's plot from the soup Nazi episode. In the story everybody had to follow the rules or they would be sent to the back of the line. All these conspiracy theories espoused here also have that same tone that we need to control the masses. I find this quite entertaining. Now if I could only find a way to stop these conspiracists from plotting against me in having a drink.

I wonder what Jesse Ventura's take on this issue would be.

To all the 'beer for everyone' people; where were you before TCF, when selected sales were in effect at Williams and Marriucci.

 

[Jeshurun]

We're talking about beer? Not a game, but beer. Keep that in mind. If only people would get this riled up about the actual game, and not whether or not their constitutional right to beer is being offended. I mean, really? Beer? What are you going to the stadium for? Beer, or to see some football? If selling beer in the premium seats helps our program acheive more wins, then whatever. We're talking about beer, not a game (which is what we should be talking about).

 

[station19]

We're talking about beer? Not a game, but beer. Keep that in mind. If only people would get this riled up about the actual game, and not whether or not their constitutional right to beer is being offended. I mean, really? Beer? What are you going to the stadium for? Beer, or to see some football? If selling beer in the premium seats helps our program acheive more wins, then whatever. We're talking about beer, not a game (which is what we should be talking about).

Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Beer.

 

[marathonman]

Originally Posted by Oneoldgopher
That is easy. Your ticket didn't come with the offer of beer and neither did anybody elses. If I go to Manny's, I expect that I can still order beer with my burger even if I didn't order the chateaubriand. Manny's certainly wants you to order the steak, but won't complain too loudly if you order the burger. The U is complaining that not everybody is ordering the steak, so they are withholding the beer from all willing customers. If a guy walks into Manny's and has a reservation, and has the full faith and credit to pay for whatever he orders, then he should be able to buy whatever is on the menu. TCF stadium is adding an item to the menu, and I want to order. Just because you reserved and paid for a room in the back, should not mean I can't order from the menu. If you get a special menu, I don't care if I can't order from that. But, when it is on the menu, your damn right I expect I won't be denied. Does that clarify for you and all the other nitwits what is happening at the U. And, if I vote for my senator, and he votes for universal access to the beer at TCF, too f-ing bad for the U. They want my money... it has strings. My negotiating stance hasn't changed. I am all in or all out. My patronage will go elsewhere without the beer. I can't think of a more elitist thing coming out of the U than the beer issue. I paid for my 4 years college at the U. I paid room, board, and fees. I paid for other non-credit classes. I paid for parking. I paid taxes. I gave donations. I paid for multiple season tickets for 23 of the last 31 years, if I counted properly. I have paid for game day tickets in all the other seasons, except a period when I was on active duty and could not go to any games. But, my season ticket holding days are over. I only want to go to a few games each year. And that means, I don't want to buy high buck tickets any more. I just want a beer like the next guy. I don't need your f-ing permission to get it, either. It isn't a national crime to sell beer to adults and the U should not measure me by the size of my football donations. My donations went straight to my college and specifically to the Russian Studies department. So, as far as I am concerned, all the elitist, dumbass GHers who want to claim their higher price ticket is worth more than me haven't proven a thing. All they have proven is that their egos are larger than their heads.


It is disappointing when you post without knowing what the facts are. You state that the tickets did not come with the offer to be able to enjoy a beer. You may wish to read the contract that premium seat holders signed. The contract for the premium seats did in fact come with that offer. I would guess that the same can be said for the suites. Please get your facts straight.

 

[RodentRampage]

If you get a special menu, I don't care if I can't order from that. But, when it is on the menu, your damn right I expect I won't be denied.

The luxury boxes do get a special menu.

If the U's alcohol policy is that important to you that you will withhold donations, that's your choice.

 

[GoAUpher]

Come on GAU, I don't know what percentage of the people responsible for keeping alcohol out of college stadiums are doing it cynically but you can't dispute that a portion of those people think that they are doing the public a great service by protecting people from themselves and fostering a "safe" environment. As misguided as that may be I can guarantee you that some of the people in charge think that.

To be honest, I wasn't considering the idea of "fostering a positive atmosphere" type of thought process. And I think that has a lot to do with the language choices you and AO54 were using. "Keeping the masses under control" and "protecting people from themselves" add a level of scheming to the whole thing. Assuming that this idea is part of the decision making (and I'm sure it could be) that doesn't mean that the U decision makers are actively attempting to control the masses or protect people from themselves. It means that they view a dry-ish non-premium seating area as better for any number of reasons.

And if you've ever read posts here from people with kids their answer on that one seems to be a resounding yes. Parents don't want to take young kids to Vikings games because of drunk a**holes. They all love Gopher games because that element is reduced. I've never had a beverage spilled on me or anyone in my group at TCF. At the Dome someone got one down their back courtesy of a drunk idiot at least once a season. So to be honest, I like that part of it too. I don't think anyone has illusions about stopping drinking in TCF. I still sneak in some liquid warmth myself when it gets cold. I just happen to be ok with not getting beer at the game. Not having it does nothing to impair my enjoyment of the game.

If you disagree with that take that's totally legitimate. But talking about it like the Ivory Tower Poobahs at the U are scheming to make sure the peons can't booze out of some benevolent paternalism is taking the whole thing more than a bit far.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

Let's not forget something here. (correct me if I'm wrong, but) To the best of my knowledge, No other team in the Big 10 sells beer in the general admission seating area of their stadiums. There are (I believe) 1 or 2 stadiums that have a no-booze-for-anyone policy. The rest of the schools in the conference have alcohol only in suites and luxury boxes.

In other words - the policy the U of M wanted to institute before the Legislature stepped is is simply following the lead of the majority of schools in the conference. And, the action by the legislature did cause the U to lose revenue from alcohol sales, and lose revenue from people who cancelled their luxury seats, because they were promised alcohol when the seats were originally solicited.

IMHO, the legislature needs to get out of the way and let the U run its own business.

By the way, I don't have a stake in the matter - I can't afford the luxury seats, and I'm a recovering alcoholic, so I would not be drinking at the games even if I could afford that level of seating.

 

[Go4Broke]

Parents don't want to take young kids to Vikings games because of drunk a**holes. They all love Gopher games because that element is reduced. I've never had a beverage spilled on me or anyone in my group at TCF. At the Dome someone got one down their back courtesy of a drunk idiot at least once a season. So to be honest, I like that part of it too. I don't think anyone has illusions about stopping drinking in TCF. I still sneak in some liquid warmth myself when it gets cold. I just happen to be ok with not getting beer at the game. Not having it does nothing to impair my enjoyment of the game.

If you disagree with that take that's totally legitimate. But talking about it like the Ivory Tower Poobahs at the U are scheming to make sure the peons can't booze out of some benevolent paternalism is taking the whole thing more than a bit far.

I had Gopher football season tickets for 10 years at the Dome before the new Gophers Stadium was built. I went to every Gopher home game during that time and I witnessed exactly ONE out of control fan who had too much to drink. It is a safe bet that people at college football games who are drunk did the large majority of their drinking BEFORE the game. Very few people can afford to get drunk on $7.00 beers.

Beer is a legal product which is consumed almost everywhere in the world. American college sports stadium are one of the very few places people can't enjoy a beer. It is an idiotic policy that is costing college athletics programs hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

During these difficult financial times U.S. taxpayers should start holding the people who make these kinds of decisions accountable for their actions. It is financially irresponsible for any public college in the country that takes taxpayer dollars not to take advantage of the opportunity to increase their revenues in this way.

 

[Ron Johnson Super Fan]

To be honest, I wasn't considering the idea of "fostering a positive atmosphere" type of thought process. And I think that has a lot to do with the language choices you and AO54 were using. "Keeping the masses under control" and "protecting people from themselves" add a level of scheming to the whole thing. Assuming that this idea is part of the decision making (and I'm sure it could be) that doesn't mean that the U decision makers are actively attempting to control the masses or protect people from themselves. It means that they view a dry-ish non-premium seating area as better for any number of reasons.

And if you've ever read posts here from people with kids their answer on that one seems to be a resounding yes. Parents don't want to take young kids to Vikings games because of drunk a**holes. They all love Gopher games because that element is reduced. I've never had a beverage spilled on me or anyone in my group at TCF. At the Dome someone got one down their back courtesy of a drunk idiot at least once a season. So to be honest, I like that part of it too. I don't think anyone has illusions about stopping drinking in TCF. I still sneak in some liquid warmth myself when it gets cold. I just happen to be ok with not getting beer at the game. Not having it does nothing to impair my enjoyment of the game.

If you disagree with that take that's totally legitimate. But talking about it like the Ivory Tower Poobahs at the U are scheming to make sure the peons can't booze out of some benevolent paternalism is taking the whole thing more than a bit far.

I think that our disagreement is one of semantics so let me try and layout my position more clearly. I do not believe that there is any sort of "scheming" or "conspiracy" going on here. What the U of M (and virtually every other college and university) is trying to do with their alcohol policy is extremely transparent. They want to reduce the amount of alcohol fueled bad behavior that goes on inside the stadium as much as possible.

Is what they are trying to do "controlling the masses?" I can see why you think that that rhetoric goes too far. However, there is no doubt that their policy represents at a minimum an attempt to influence (or control, if you will) the behavior of fans at the game. I don't think that stating that fact implies that there is any sort of sinister intent on behalf of the people responsible for putting the policy in place.

 

[GoAUpher]

I had Gopher football season tickets for 10 years at the Dome. I went to every Gopher home game during that time and I witnessed exactly ONE out of control fan who had too much to drink. Beer is a legal product which is consumed pretty much everywhere in the world. The only only place you can't consume a beer is in American college football stadiums. It is an idiotic policy that is costing college athletics programs hundreds of millions of dollars every year. During these difficult financial times U.S. taxpayers should start holding the people who make these kinds of decisions accountable for their actions. It is financially irresponsible for any public college in the country that takes taxpayer dollars not to take advantage of the opportunity to increase their revenues in this way.

For the love of...

I'm glad you had a better experience with Dome drunks. If you note, I made sure that my experience was listed as being relevant to me and my other Dome reference was to posts here on GH that represented the views of a select group of posters.

If the dept gets permission to sell in the premium seating they will be earning enough revenue to be self sufficient. So that kind of eliminates the "tax payer money" thing. Beer is indeed a legal product. It is also a legal product that is controlled all over the place. There are tons of places that you can't drink it in the US, both public and private. It's "consumed pretty much everywhere in the world" in the sense that you can purchase it somewhere in most countries, not that it is available to be had everywhere you can think of. There is no inherent human or constitutional right to consume it anywhere you please. I can understand people wanting to drink beer and the addition of beer to the general seating wouldn't result in any complaints from me. In fact, the U would make money off me if they stocked something better than watered down AB products. I only object to over the top hyperbole (controlling the masses for their own benefit) and factual/logical failures (basically everything Oneoldgopher has put forth on this topic).

Neither you or I are "right" or "wrong" on this. It's all opinion. The only facts that matter are that the U has the right to determine it's own policies (which the Legislature is finally prepared to acknowledge) and that for better or worse those policies will fit within the "norm" for college athletics.

 

[howeda7]

I think that our disagreement is one of semantics so let me try and layout my position more clearly. I do not believe that there is any sort of "scheming" or "conspiracy" going on here. What the U of M (and virtually every other college and university) is trying to do with their alcohol policy is extremely transparent. They want to reduce the amount of alcohol fueled bad behavior that goes on inside the stadium as much as possible.

Is what they are trying to do "controlling the masses?" I can see why you think that that rhetoric goes too far. However, there is no doubt that their policy represents at a minimum an attempt to influence (or control, if you will) the behavior of fans at the game. I don't think that stating that fact implies that there is any sort of sinister intent on behalf of the people responsible for putting the policy in place.

The fact that this exact policy is in place in virtually every other on-campus stadium and arena in America seems lost on all the 'beer for all' folks. That is annoying, but I guess folks don't get out much. But the fact that this exact policy was in place for literally thousands of hockey and basketball games for years and no one cared is inexplicable to me. You only 'had' to have a beer at the football games? Only now is it an outrage?

Even if the legislature's attempt to get 'everyman' his beer at a Gopher game had some noble point, it failed. They are not selling beer in the GA seats and they never will. So you can either swallow your sweet 'justice' at keeping the fat-cats from their booze and cost the University you supposedly support millions of dollars every year, or you can tell the legislature to mind its own business and let them compete with every other sports venue in town.