The thing is, the U has the "sole discretion" clause in legal writing already as part of the Facilities agreement. It's just that it appears to be written in a way that allows the Vikings the ability to customize the field for their games (with the customization subject to U approval). Since the content of what goes on the field appears to be subject to U oversight and the Vikings aren't allowed to contradict existing U sponsorship contracts (outside of the expressly called out Powerade deal) so I'd expect the only thing you'll see the Vikings put on the field are their end zone names, their logo, and the NFL logos.
The basic issue is always going to be $$$ for the Vikings. I can't explain why the Bears didn't care, although I'm betting the fact that Memorial Stadium seats more fans than Soldier Field and the fact that the temporary digs were only for one season (i.e. they prob stood to lose less money than the Vikings) played into it. Petty or no, the Vikings are pushing for what they want. I'd prefer that the U get the best deal possible, but I certainly don't think what they've agreed to is worth being upset over.
What if the U thinks that from a future maintainability and operations standpoint that the heating tarp makes more sense? After all, you've got to install a really pricey support system to use the coils - a system that based on what I know of similar systems like the one at Target Field is expensive as hell to run. If the U anticipates not using it enough for that solution to be cost effective beyond the Vikings years and instead thinks the tarp is a better way to go - then If I were the U I'd be asking the Vikes to go the tarp route, especially if the end result is effectively equivalent.
This is a good point and I think if it's the U's position it makes a lot of sense.
This isn't really comparable to the U losing face over booze sales though. In that situation the U lost money selling a product that should easily make money and they did so because they took a WORSE % than was originally offered by Aramark and didn't get Aramark on the hook for startup costs. The field painting is a situation where the U made a concession allowing the Vikings limited branding in a way that doesn't impact that U's branding while the U makes money and gets an improved stadium retains legal rights to veto basically anything the Vikings do.
I really do doubt that most people think the Vikings are pushing the U around. The legal agreements explicitly spell out how the U has all the power in the relationship. Is the average person (many of whom are Vikings fans) going to find allowing the Vikes to paint their logo on the field unreasonable? Probably not.
To be honest, the Vikings haven't gotten their way on most of the things they care about in this scenario. The U has all the legal power, the Vikings and the NFL are pretty well constrained on when they can schedule games thanks to clauses about the State Fair, no night games during a school week, preference to Gopher FB games whenever possible, and the U can veto everything while retaining all the (free to them) capital improvements.
Thanks for bringing up the fact that the painting bit does affect other things like marching band and football walkthroughs - that's a good notion. Though hopefully they'll just do the painting on Saturday and Sunday nights. There's no Monday Night games because of the rules in the agreement, so that should minimize that potential issue.
