State house doesn't vote for alcohol change

[Maroon]

I don't agree that it is at all obvious.

That doesn't surprise me.

 

[RodentRampage]

Simply asserting that something is obvious doesn't mean it is obvious. That people can present arguments against a position indicates that it is not obvious. And it's not a personal attack to attack your arguments.

 

[Pewterschmidt]

If there were only two choices - providing beer in suites or none at all to anyone - then I would be in favor of letting those in suites have it, but only because the U needs the money. But that doesn't mean I think it's fair. And it's very obvious why that situation is patently unfair.

So while I would be OK allowing the U to do that, I really just think all the petty criticism and personal attacks directed at those saying it's not fair and shouldn't be allowed is out of bounds and not warranted.

It's obvious why it's patently fair in my opinion.

If everyone understood that the University would never sell alcohol to students on campus at a football game, it becomes quite fair because common sense says students can't afford luxury suites where as in the general admission areas it becomes almost impossible to differientate between students and non-students.

Key phrase here is common sense.

 

[FreakyDeke]

The cost of a beer is 1 premium seat+cost of the beer. That I can agree with.

Another cost of the beer could be 1 tv, 1 cable +big ten network + cost of the beer.

Another cost of the beer could be transportation to bar + cost of the beer.

In these scenarios you would have to determine which is more important to you.

This statement proves Pewterschmidt's point that everyone has access to beer, which you were disputing. The other point in your "access vs. quality" argument that I disagree with is that you say everyone has access to a seat, it's the quality that varies. This may be true now, but what if we win a Rose Bowl and 100,000 people want to go to games. By your logic not everyone would have access to a seat because it's a sellout. Should the U be forced by the legislature to build an addition because not everyone that wants to go to a game has access? The truth is your access isn't limited if you are willing to pay for it. At that point, going to the game would be a luxury regardless of where you get to sit. If I have enough money I can pay to sit in a suite and drink a beer or go to a sold out game, access isn't limited.

 

[Maroon]

Simply asserting that something is obvious doesn't mean it is obvious. That people can present arguments against a position indicates that it is not obvious. And it's not a personal attack to attack your arguments.

Really?

Is this the kind of thing you're referring to (courtesy of Pewterschmidt):

"If you don't understand why alcohol can't be served in general admission and then feel the need to prevent/legislate it from being sold in suites as a result, common sense flew out the window long ago with you. May God have mercy on your soul.

Come off the fringes of life and join the rest of us in the real world.

This issue has been discussed over and over on this board and I'm still amazed that there is even a few people that think this law is a good idea. Nothing is more disturbing than legislating out common sense."

This thread specifically and this board in general is littered with juvenile personal attacks like these.

To paraphrase you, Rodent, simply asserting that there are no personal attacks doesn't mean it's true.

ETA: On the first page alone, there are multiple references to "stupid," "ridiculous," "unbelievable," "joke," "tool," "nonsense," "crap."

 

[Pewterschmidt]

Really?

Is this the kind of thing you're referring to (courtesy of Pewterschmidt):

"If you don't understand why alcohol can't be served in general admission and then feel the need to prevent/legislate it from being sold in suites as a result, common sense flew out the window long ago with you. May God have mercy on your soul.

Come off the fringes of life and join the rest of us in the real world.

This issue has been discussed over and over on this board and I'm still amazed that there is even a few people that think this law is a good idea. Nothing is more disturbing than legislating out common sense."

This thread specifically and this board in general is littered with juvenile personal attacks like these.

To paraphrase you, Rodent, simply asserting that there are no personal attacks doesn't mean it's true.

ETA: On the first page alone, there are multiple references to "stupid," "ridiculous," "unbelievable," "joke," "tool," "nonsense," "crap."

I stand 100% behind that post. I really do worry about those lacking common sense.

Also, show me the personal attack. I certainly was attacking your judgement. If that's personal, guilty as charged.

 

[monk10]

This statement proves Pewterschmidt's point that everyone has access to beer, which you were disputing. The other point in your "access vs. quality" argument that I disagree with is that you say everyone has access to a seat, it's the quality that varies. This may be true now, but what if we win a Rose Bowl and 100,000 people want to go to games. By your logic not everyone would have access to a seat because it's a sellout. Should the U be forced by the legislature to build an addition because not everyone that wants to go to a game has access? The truth is your access isn't limited if you are willing to pay for it. At that point, going to the game would be a luxury regardless of where you get to sit. If I have enough money I can pay to sit in a suite and drink a beer or go to a sold out game, access isn't limited.

Is it really fair that Joe Millionaire gets to buy the large soda {in the stadium} while I can only afford the small one, if one at all?

*{my interrpretation}

I think the part that might have gotten lost in the multitude posts was the original statement that I updated using my words in { }. (which obviously invalidates the people who I reference of watching it on tv or in the bar). So I wasn't trying to argue with Pewter about his conclusion, that the law is dumb, b/c I agree with him. I just thought the analogy was invalid, and diverted away the goal of disagreeing with the law. I think in the follow up posts the clarifications were made, and correctly articulate the position we both hold, that the law should be revoked.

 

[Pewterschmidt]

"Is it really fair that Joe Millionaire gets to buy the large soda {in the stadium} while I can only afford the small one, if one at all?"

That was a bad analogy to the topic at hand but the intent was there...

It was mostly meant to make a point that I'm bothered by people that resent others that can afford something they can't. I think that if you peel away the layers of the onion, you'll see that's the reason why a law like this has support and that it trumps common sense for many.

 

[howeda7]

Minnesotans seem to have a very hard time giving up on utopian ideas. We want things 'the way they should be' and don't tell us we can't have them.

In a perfect world, professional sports owners would pay for thier own stadiums and let the communities they play in reap all of the associated benefits for free. What has developed over the last 50 years is that there are more communities that want teams then there are teams. This has led to communities who want to attract/keep thier teams to have to invest partially in the funding of the facilities. In most places around the US, this has occured with minimal problems. The reality is that MSP did just this in the building of the Met and Dome. But in the last 20 years, every time investment in a new facility has been required, we have heard HOWLS of protest over how wrong it is. It's bailout for billionaires, etc. We don't care if everyone else is doing it! We want our owners to pay for it themselves or get out. Only after years of exhaustive debate will we agree to any public funding of a facility and even then we'll complain about it until the facility opens, then pretend we were in favor all along.

Now this much smaller but equally perplexing issue. Over the last many years it has become de-facto NCAA policy across the country that arenas/stadiums that are on-campus serve alcohol only in premiums seats but never in the general seats. At virtually ever other campus this is no big deal. And Minnesota has complied at The Barn and Mariucci and nary a complaint has been heard. Yet take away beer from the general seats in TCF and suddenly the masses are in an uproar. We don't care if everyone else complies with this rule, we're Minnesotans and if we want a beer we should get it.

 

[UpnorthGo4]

Now this much smaller but equally perplexing issue. Over the last many years it has become de-facto NCAA policy across the country that arenas/stadiums that are on-campus serve alcohol only in premiums seats but never in the general seats. At virtually ever other campus this is no big deal. And Minnesota has complied at The Barn and Mariucci and nary a complaint has been heard. Yet take away beer from the general seats in TCF and suddenly the masses are in an uproar. We don't care if everyone else complies with this rule, we're Minnesotans and if we want a beer we should get it.

There is a considerable amount of evidence compiled over many years that Minnesotans are smarter than people in most other states. The NCAA and every other college/university that discriminates in this manner is wrong. Beer has been a legal product in the U.S. for approximately 80 years. The taxpaying and ticket buying adults who paid for Gophers Stadium should be able to buy a beer if it is sold anywhere else in the stadium.

If the U doesn't want underage students to drink beer in Gophers Stadium then there are many ways to prevent that from happening. The large majority of Gopher football fans are hardworking responsible adults who absolutely deserve the privelege of enjoying a beer while watching their favorite football team.

The Board of Regents and U Administration are financially irresponsible for not taking advantage of the revenue stream available to them by selling beer to all adults at Gopher football games. The Governor and State Legislature should take whatever action is necessary to force them to do it.

I attended the U, am a long time season ticketholder, pay a lot of taxes to support the U, and pay a helluva lot of tuition to send my son to the U. It is outrageous that I am not allowed to enjoy a beer while supporting the Gopher football team at Gophers Stadium.

 

[Goldmember]

It is outrageous that I am not allowed to enjoy a beer while supporting the Gopher football team at Gophers Stadium.

But to put things in perspective, you would be "outraged" at the policy at the other 120 FBS campuses as well. SOOOOO, how reasonable is that?

People who hold your view see no problem with forcing the U adopt a pilot program that has never been successful in anywhere in the history of college football. And it's all because you're basically pissed off at the world.

 

[at the bar]

Whether or not it is "fair" for the gov to butt into the U's business or not, both sides can make good arguments to support their opinion. The issue that should be debated is now what?

The U can sell beer to anyone over 21 at TCF or not sell anywhere. If the U doesn't sell anywhere, that is their right and I'll just continue to sneak in bottles of booze. It will save me big $ each year.

TCF better enjoy the U2 concert this year because it could very well be the last big outdoor show they get once Target Field allows concerts next year. The U couldn't pretend that students wouldn't attend TCF concerts and allow beer sales. It seems like the U will end up losing too much money by sticking to their guns but they can always cut golf or some other non-revenue sports to save money if they need to. I don't care. Sell or not, I'll still get a buzz.

 

[monk10]

Upnorth,

Even though I disagree with your desires some of our interests are the same. The current law doesn't accomplish what we desire. You would like the law changed, and I think revoking the current law and introducing a new one to go forth would be helpful to your goals. In the meantime one of our shared interests of increased revenue for out favorite program would go forward as a new law to force the U to be able to sell you a beer could be put in place.

Under the current scenario the U can abstain from serving beer, which isn't in your interest.

 

[dpodoll68]

discriminates

You can't use this word in reference to this debate and expect people to take you seriously. Selling a good to some, and not to others, on the basis of their ability to pay, is by definition NOT discriminatory. It is the basis of a capitalist society - if you don't like it, move to China or Cuba. If they tried to institute a policy wherein they would only sell beers to whites or men, then yes, your point would be valid. But you are instead misappropriating incendiary language in order to make your side seem more egalitarian. But you're not really interested in having a valid discussion, are you?

Beer has been a legal product in the U.S. for approximately 80 years.

Actually, for more than 200, but who's counting?

If the U doesn't want underage students to drink beer in Gophers Stadium then there are many ways to prevent that from happening.

Do you honestly think that any institution of higher learning, public or private, should be in the business of selling alcohol to its own students, whether underage or not? I mean, HONESTLY? Wow....just, wow.

The Governor and State Legislature should take whatever action is necessary to force them to do it.

Why is it ok for the government to legislate on this topic, but not everything else? Should Pawlenty take over the athletic department and start hiring and firing coaches? Should Rukavina start setting policy for the medical school? Why just this? Why not everything else? Do you think it would be a great idea to allow Margaret Anderson Kelliher to select the faculty for the law school?

It is outrageous that I am not allowed to enjoy a beer while supporting the Gopher football team at Gophers Stadium.

Yup, it's just terrible. I mean, I get angry when I go to my 3-year-old's t-ball games and I'm not allowed to buy beer from the concession stand. It is my God-given right as a taxpaying adult to get drunk at a public sporting event, regardless of the fact that the participants on the field are all/mostly underage.

 

[Pewterschmidt]

You can't use this word in reference to this debate and expect people to take you seriously. Selling a good to some, and not to others, on the basis of their ability to pay, is by definition NOT discriminatory. It is the basis of a capitalist society - if you don't like it, move to China or Cuba. If they tried to institute a policy wherein they would only sell beers to whites or men, then yes, your point would be valid. But you are instead misappropriating incendiary language in order to make your side seem more egalitarian. But you're not really interested in having a valid discussion, are you?



Actually, for more than 200, but who's counting?



Do you honestly think that any institution of higher learning, public or private, should be in the business of selling alcohol to its own students, whether underage or not? I mean, HONESTLY? Wow....just, wow.



Why is it ok for the government to legislate on this topic, but not everything else? Should Pawlenty take over the athletic department and start hiring and firing coaches? Should Rukavina start setting policy for the medical school? Why just this? Why not everything else? Do you think it would be a great idea to allow Margaret Anderson Kelliher to select the faculty for the law school?



Yup, it's just terrible. I mean, I get angry when I go to my 3-year-old's t-ball games and I'm not allowed to buy beer from the concession stand. It is my God-given right as a taxpaying adult to get drunk at a public sporting event, regardless of the fact that the participants on the field are all/mostly underage.

It's a bit. UpNorth can't possibly believe what he's saying.

 

[howeda7]

There is a considerable amount of evidence compiled over many years that Minnesotans are smarter than people in most other states.

I seriously doubt that, but hey as a native Minnesotan, I'll let you have that one.

The NCAA and every other college/university that discriminates in this manner is wrong. Beer has been a legal product in the U.S. for approximately 80 years. The taxpaying and ticket buying adults who paid for Gophers Stadium should be able to buy a beer if it is sold anywhere else in the stadium.

Just because something is legal, doesn't mean the U is obligated to allow you to bring it into TCF or anywhere else on campus. You also can't smoke or bring your legally held gun with you. Just because the U is a public university should not mean it gives up it's right to control its own buildings and everything that goes on within them as they see fit. It is certainly not discrimination to say 'if you want to come in here, you can't bring your gun, you can't smoke and you can't drink unless you're in the restricted area (the premium seats).

If the U doesn't want underage students to drink beer in Gophers Stadium then there are many ways to prevent that from happening. The large majority of Gopher football fans are hardworking responsible adults who absolutely deserve the privelege of enjoying a beer while watching their favorite football team.

You don't 'deserve' the right to do anything in the University-controlled facilities. Attending any event at TCF or anywhere else is a 'privledge' as you said. And drinking a beer while there is a 'priveledge' that the U has chosen to extend only to the premium seat-holders as is its right.

The Board of Governors and U Administration are financially irresponsible for not taking advantage of the revenue stream available to them by selling beer to all adults at Gopher football games. The Governor and State Legislature should take whatever action is necessary to force them to do it.

Perhaps it is financially short-sighted, however, one good lawsuit from a dead student's family after they were served alchol at TCF would wipe-out many years of beer sale revenues. So now the Legislature should take it further and REQUIRE them to sell booze at TCF? On what possible basis do they have that right? They are already way over-stepping thier bounds by prohibiting the U from selling the in premium seats given the U's Constitutional autonomy (sp?). The Minnesota legislature has no authority to require the University of Minnesota to sell any particular product to anyone. All they could ever really do is threaten to withhold funding and if I were the Board of Regents I'd have called thier bluff and ignored this law in the first place.

 

[at the bar]

Perhaps it is financially short-sighted, however, one good lawsuit from a dead student's family after they were served alchol at TCF would wipe-out many years of beer sale revenues.

If the U sells beer upstairs only, what happens if a high roller in the DQ Club gets hammered at TCF and runs over a student on the way home from a game? Liability insurance protects the U's money in either case.

 

[RodentRampage]

If the U sells beer upstairs only, what happens if a high roller in the DQ Club gets hammered at TCF and runs over a student on the way home from a game? Liability insurance protects the U's money in either case.

Their liability insurance would cost a whole lot more if alcohol was allowed in the entire stadium than just in the luxury boxes.

 

[at the bar]

The difference in liability insurance would easily be made up for in more beer sales. The dome, X, and Target Field etc. wouldn't serve alcohol if liability insurance was cost prohibitive selling to more fans.

 

[howeda7]

The difference in liability insurance would easily be made up for in more beer sales. The dome, X, and Target Field etc. wouldn't serve alcohol if liability insurance was cost prohibitive selling to more fans.

Probably true. It's more for the PR and perception reasons then the actual $$ that they want to avoid that situation ever occuring.

 

[UpnorthGo4]

Most college students spend a significant amount of their waking hours drinking beer - or planning to drink beer. The notion that colleges and universities can have any impact whatsoever on underage student drinking by banning it in the cheap seats at sporting events is beyond absurd. The hypocrisy involved with this policy is laughable. It is a prime example of the out-of-control Nanny State that America has become. Anyone who supports such policies is a moron who doesn't know enough to come in out of the rain.

During the entire time I have been in GopherHole the only posts that I have read which HAVE NOT been critical of NCAA policies are those in favor of banning beer for Tax Paying Adults at sporting events. Otherwise, the NCAA is the most reviled organization in college sports and their policies are routinely criticized by almost everyone with even a passing interest in sports. If you all just think about that for a few hours maybe you will start to come to your senses. We can only hope so because one day it will be your generation's turn to govern the nation. God help us all.

 

[Pewterschmidt]

I hope you find peace in your life.

 

[FreakyDeke]

Most college students spend a significant amount of their waking hours drinking beer - or planning to drink beer. The notion that colleges and universities can have any impact whatsoever on underage student drinking by banning it in the cheap seats at sporting events is beyond absurd. The hypocrisy involved with this policy is laughable. It is a prime example of the out-of-control Nanny State that America has become. Anyone who supports such policies is a moron who doesn't know enough to come in out of the rain.

During the entire time I have been in GopherHole the only posts that I have read which HAVE NOT been critical of NCAA policies are those in favor of banning beer for Tax Paying Adults at sporting events. Otherwise, the NCAA is the most reviled organization in college sports and their policies are routinely criticized by almost everyone with even a passing interest in sports. If you all just think about that for a few hours maybe you will start to come to your senses. We can only hope so because one day it will be your generation's turn to govern the nation. God help us all.

Oh my god, do you even read this board? It's not that banning it in the cheap seats will stop students from drinking, it's that the U doesn't want to be the entity PROVIDING the beer. Also it isn't an NCAA rule.

 

[Conan]

You know what really gets me? Those bastards who get to ride in the HOV lane on 394 with a single passenger just because they pay extra for it! I mean, I don't want to pay (or maybe can't afford to pay) for the toll and for that dang transponder. I have worked hard and my taxes have built that damn road - it should be my right to drive in whatever lane I choose. This is pure unadulterated discrimination and elitism...

--
To me this is the perfect comparison. We all have access to the same road (or stadium). We all have the option of buying a MNPASS transponder (which equates to premium seating - which is available oh by the way). Our tax $ help pay for both. Shouldn't government get involved and make this an all or nothing thing too? Seriously, if people think having a beer at a game is a God given right - shouldn't driving in a certain lane on a freeway be as well?

The fact is, right or wrong, the U's hands are tied - they cannot serve alcohol to students in an athletic facility they own. Can't do it. I think it would be hilarious if the U decided to serve beer throughout the whole stadium but charged $100 a beer in general admission for a beer and the typical $7 in premium. Now everyone has access, but no one will pay $100 for a beer!
I am kidding of course.

 

[RodentRampage]

Most college students spend a significant amount of their waking hours drinking beer - or planning to drink beer. The notion that colleges and universities can have any impact whatsoever on underage student drinking by banning it in the cheap seats at sporting events is beyond absurd.

So, students are going to drink anyway, so the U should provide them with alcohol?

The hypocrisy involved with this policy is laughable. It is a prime example of the out-of-control Nanny State that America has become. Anyone who supports such policies is a moron who doesn't know enough to come in out of the rain.

You still haven't established that there is any hypocrisy, but that's typical, you merely assert. But I can establish that this is not anything to do with some mythical 'nanny state'. To not sell alcohol in college stadiums isn't anything new. If these policies were the result of some alleged nanny state, then there must have been a time before the nanny state where serving alcohol was widespread at college stadiums. Since there wasn't, your claim that colleges not serving alcohol is the result of a 'nanny state" is meaningless.

During the entire time I have been in GopherHole the only posts that I have read which HAVE NOT been critical of NCAA policies are those in favor of banning beer for Tax Paying Adults at sporting events. Otherwise, the NCAA is the most reviled organization in college sports and their policies are routinely criticized by almost everyone with even a passing interest in sports. If you all just think about that for a few hours maybe you will start to come to your senses. We can only hope so because one day it will be your generation's turn to govern the nation. God help us all.

Untrue. For one, people don't bother to post about policies they agree with unless there is some issue. And in any case, you wouldn't have to look far to find posts agreeing with NCAA policies. "Most reviled organization in college sports"? How many other organizations are there? Your assertion that we disagree with the NCAA with all things except for alcohol on campus is false.

Again, the policy of colleges not serving alcohol in their stadiums isn't some new policy of this generation.

 

[monk10]

Whether you are for or against the beer in the stadium for all or for premium, the current law doesn't accomplish anyone's interests. Continuing to support the current implementation is counter to everyone's interest in this thread. The key is to get this law revoked and then work on getting a new law that actually accomplishes your interests.

 

[Maroon]

You know what really gets me? Those bastards who get to ride in the HOV lane on 394 with a single passenger just because they pay extra for it! I mean, I don't want to pay (or maybe can't afford to pay) for the toll and for that dang transponder. I have worked hard and my taxes have built that damn road - it should be my right to drive in whatever lane I choose. This is pure unadulterated discrimination and elitism...

--
To me this is the perfect comparison. We all have access to the same road (or stadium). We all have the option of buying a MNPASS transponder (which equates to premium seating - which is available oh by the way). Our tax $ help pay for both. Shouldn't government get involved and make this an all or nothing thing too? Seriously, if people think having a beer at a game is a God given right - shouldn't driving in a certain lane on a freeway be as well?

The fact is, right or wrong, the U's hands are tied - they cannot serve alcohol to students in an athletic facility they own. Can't do it. I think it would be hilarious if the U decided to serve beer throughout the whole stadium but charged $100 a beer in general admission for a beer and the typical $7 in premium. Now everyone has access, but no one will pay $100 for a beer!
I am kidding of course.

It's not the perfect comparison because the MNPASS is available to all and the price is the same for everyone.

 

[ruralgopher]

It's not the perfect comparison because the MNPASS is available to all and the price is the same for everyone.

We're still on this? Beer would be available to all and it would be the same price for everyone.
You would just have to spend however much it costs to get the seat& beer. It might not be the price you want, but that would be the price.

 

[tjgopher]

It's not the perfect comparison because the MNPASS is available to all and the price is the same for everyone.

Yeah, but one guy gets to drive him BMW in the MNPASS lane, while I only get to drive my Chevy Impala. Shouldn't the state legislature make sure that we ALL get to drive BMW's in the MNPASS lane? Wouldn't that be fair? Why does one guy get to drive a BMW - I mean it even has seat warmers and automatic cruise control and leather seats - while I only get to drive my Impala that has cold vinyl seats and manual windows and crappy wiper blades? Shouldn't we all get to drive BMWs in the MNPASS lane? Wouldn't that be fair?

You understand that the price IS NOT the same for everyone at TCF Bank Stadium, right? Suite holders pay tens of thousands of dollars. General ticket holders pay $50. You understand that paying tens of thousands of dollars might bring in some other perks, just as a guy who buys a $50,000 BMW might have a nicer ride than me in my $18,000 Impala, right? Even if we're watching the same game at the same facility or driving our cars in the same lane on the highway, there are differences based on price, period.

I mean, the suite holder gets access to a semi-private bathroom. They have temporary heaters in the luxury boxes. They have flat screen TVs in the suites. Do you believe that EVERY ticket holder at the stadium should get all of those things, too? It is only fair, right? EVERY fan gets a TV. They all get carpeted floors. Why is it only beer that concerns you? What's so big about beer in your mind? Suite holders get ALL KINDS OF PERKS, why should beer be off limits? What makes that so sensational that they shouldn't get it? What separates that from the other aforementioned perks? Where's your outcry that suite holders get TVs? Or heaters? Or nice Cambria counter tops? Or high top chairs? Or cushioned seats? They get all of that when the general public doesn't. What pushes beer above the limits?

 

[Maroon]

We're still on this? Beer would be available to all and it would be the same price for everyone.
You would just have to spend however much it costs to get the seat& beer. It might not be the price you want, but that would be the price.

I don't share that opinion.