This is great for recruiting/the U

Donate To GopherHole
RedPoo said:
Getting a little off topic, but the legislature didn't say the U couldn't sell alcohol at the stadium. They said if they're going to sell it to rich people, they have to sell it to everybody. And, since the stadium IS in Minnesota, this is will within their jurisdiction.
Regardless of whether or not you or I agree with the law (and I'm as pissed as anyone that we're losing this revenue stream) I don't see anything un-constitutional about it.
Click to expand...

Where in the stadium they sell it is a U decision. It is their facility, not the legislature's. I really don't care one way or the other because I do my drinking beforehand. But I know overreach when I see it.

Did you read the link? The legislature can't interfere with the internal management of the U. They have appropriations and police power. The U isn't breaking the appropriate laws about serving alcohol. This doesn't have anything to do with appropriations. Instead, they've made a decision about where in their facilities they wish to serve. That's an internal policy.

Since when is it constitutional for a state legislature to tell a specific organization the manner in which they must obey a law that they are already in compliance of?

You might also have missed this part: "A condition is more likely to be found valid if it applies equally to all public agencies and the court finds that it (1) promotes the general welfare, and (2) makes very limited intrusions on the regents’ management duties." How does writing a law that applies to 3 buildings on one campus meet the standard for all public agencies or make a limited intrusion on the Regents' management? I suppose the general welfare provision depends on your point of view. ;)

The legislature even undercut their own position when they revised it to require the U to allow alcohol sales in 1/3 of the general admission seats if it is in the suites. So suddenly its ok to limit which of the average joe fans get to drink? Its faux populist pandering.

There is no constitutional right to drink booze. Beer at TCF is a commodity that the U can offer to anyone it pleases so long as they do so within the applicable statues. Like wider, padded seats or free parking right next to the stadium it is a benefit offered to premium seatholders in exchange for their money.
 

I am currently in a National Guard class in Arkansas. One other Minnesotan is in the class. Two months ago we introduced a lot of University of Minnesota talk to our classmates (all the other talk has been about the Razorbacks, Mississippi State & Michigan) Most in the class didn't know anything about the Gophers. Not even the Michigan fans really. Thanks to the two of us, and now this weeks news, they all know about the Gophers. I think the national exposure this week has at least put the Gophers on some people's radar that never would've noticed us.
 

I was talking to some my fellow Football M men 2 years ago when I went to the TCF opener A couple of them have kids in High School that are considering D1 football programs. It seems that these days kids still look for the basic things they always did. Their relationship with the Head Coach, the University Experience during their visit, the number of good looking girls on Campus, and the chance for playing time, and of course a belief they will be part of a wining program. However, more and more these days kids are really into first class facilities, Weight Room, Practice Field, Football Player Lounge. I can tell you that TCF Locker Room sure helps.

Of course I'd be kidding if Weather was no factor, it will scare some off but that is mostly related to how far they are away from Home if they are from South Florida or Southern Cal.
 







Oneoldgopher said:
Still didn't read anything relevant to the "unconstitutional" issue. The state made no law that prohibited alcohol and stated clearly that if alcohol be served, it be served equally to all who could legally be served. Nothing in violation of the law there and would appear to support other acts and constitutional intent. Seems to satisfy most tests for the UCC and Human Rights amendments. The legistlature just reminded the U that a self imposed restraint of trade was not going to be allowed when segregating one ticket holder from the next when offering adult beverage. The U was going to create classes of buyers offering a deal to buy booze for one economic class of ticket holder and restraining that trade to a lesser level of ticket holder, even if both classes had the same ability to purchase the product. I am sure that with the new law, a protected class could show harm when only one economic level of ticket holder gets to participate in a sale when the other is denied. The test would be simple, a valid proof of age, such as a state issued drivers license. The subsequent demand for a certain level of economic participation could then be shown by the plaintiff as the unfair hurdle and the U would be found in the wrong. The legislature demonstrated some foresight and set up a simple test for the courts to determine if a human right, trade, was being denied by forming unfair economic hurdles. I hope I put it in the easiest to understand language. I didn't want to put in too much legaleze for the lawyers out there that somehow passed their bar and failed to grasp the most basic performance of the law.
Click to expand...

You are hired, oldgopher. If the legislature ever gives the U what they want you should be the person to represent all Gopher fans over the age of 21 who sit in the cheap seats but still want to enjoy their favorite beverage while watching their favorite football team.
 



GoAUpher said:
Because the Gophers typically play football after the field has been left under snow for 3+ weeks straight. Give recruits some credit for their brains and the coaches some credit for being able to explain the situation in 3 sentences.
Click to expand...

The topic of this forum is that tonight's game is good for recruiting. Saying that playing a game in crappy weather on a field whose safety has been publicly questioned in front of a national T.V. audience is good exposure for the University of Minnesota is sort of like claiming that the bridge collapse was good exposure for the Twin Cities.

Yes, if recruits use their brains they will realize the conditions are no reflection on the U. But their first and last reaction is going to be, "would I really want to go THERE?" Unfortunately, due to that pesky thing called human nature, that is what is going to stick with many people REGARDLESS of their intelligence level.
 

Oneoldgopher said:
Still didn't read anything relevant to the "unconstitutional" issue. The state made no law that prohibited alcohol and stated clearly that if alcohol be served, it be served equally to all who could legally be served. Nothing in violation of the law there and would appear to support other acts and constitutional intent. Seems to satisfy most tests for the UCC and Human Rights amendments. The legistlature just reminded the U that a self imposed restraint of trade was not going to be allowed when segregating one ticket holder from the next when offering adult beverage. The U was going to create classes of buyers offering a deal to buy booze for one economic class of ticket holder and restraining that trade to a lesser level of ticket holder, even if both classes had the same ability to purchase the product. I am sure that with the new law, a protected class could show harm when only one economic level of ticket holder gets to participate in a sale when the other is denied. The test would be simple, a valid proof of age, such as a state issued drivers license. The subsequent demand for a certain level of economic participation could then be shown by the plaintiff as the unfair hurdle and the U would be found in the wrong. The legislature demonstrated some foresight and set up a simple test for the courts to determine if a human right, trade, was being denied by forming unfair economic hurdles. I hope I put it in the easiest to understand language. I didn't want to put in too much legaleze for the lawyers out there that somehow passed their bar and failed to grasp the most basic performance of the law.
Click to expand...

So which of these protected classes does a would be beer buyer in the the cheap seats fall into again? (link is PDF)
There are 13 protected classes defined in the Minnesota Human Rights Act
• Race • Color • Creed • Religion • National Origin • Sex • Marital Status • Familial Status • Disability • Public Assistance • Age • Sexual Orientation • Local Human Rights Commission Activity
Click to expand...

I don't think I see "classes of buyers" listed on there. Oddly enough, "classes of buyers" exist all the time in our world. First class seatholders get more legroom, wider seats, and free booze. Luxury car buyers get leather interiors and GPS navigation screens. In both cases those are perks included with the delivery of a higher priced service.

Protected classes refer to someone's rights being infringed upon based on a protected characteristic. Care to show me where "drinking beer" is recorded as a right and "not being a champagne sipping elite" is listed as a protected class?
 

GoAUpher said:
So which of these protected classes does a would be beer buyer in the the cheap seats fall into again? (link is PDF)


I don't think I see "classes of buyers" listed on there. Oddly enough, "classes of buyers" exist all the time in our world. First class seatholders get more legroom, wider seats, and free booze. Luxury car buyers get leather interiors and GPS navigation screens. In both cases those are perks included with the delivery of a higher priced service.

Protected classes refer to someone's rights being infringed upon based on a protected characteristic. Care to show me where "drinking beer" is recorded as a right and "not being a champagne sipping elite" is listed as a protected class?
Click to expand...

+1. This was ridiculous populist pandering driven by one angry legislator who said 'if I can't have my beer, I'll take yours away.' This exact policy existed at The Barn and Mariucci Arena for years and no one ever said boo. But now it suddenly needs a state law to correct the injustice? Delta airlines should immediately be banned from offering free booze in first class in all flights originating from MSP. Otherwise, this law is not being equally applied.
 

tato2001 said:
The topic of this forum is that tonight's game is good for recruiting. Saying that playing a game in crappy weather on a field whose safety has been publicly questioned in front of a national T.V. audience is good exposure for the University of Minnesota is sort of like claiming that the bridge collapse was good exposure for the Twin Cities.

Yes, if recruits use their brains they will realize the conditions are no reflection on the U. But their first and last reaction is going to be, "would I really want to go THERE?" Unfortunately, due to that pesky thing called human nature, that is what is going to stick with many people REGARDLESS of their intelligence level.
Click to expand...

What national TV audience is this being questioned in front of? You didn't link to a TV broadcast. You linked to an article about a punter spouting off. If we're talking about the TV coverage then Jaws will need to start blabbing about the terrible field conditions first.

Again, if that is their split second "human nature" reaction to the conditions in MN (and if they stick with it despite any evidence to the contrary) then they likely wouldn't have ended up here anyway because there is already too much "cold weather" stuff out there in the public consciousness for a opposing recruiter to latch on to.
 



The field is gonna be fine, they were able to manage to play a game on it Nov. 27th when the Gophers beat Iowa. And that field hadn't been played on for almost a month (Oct 30th against OSU cause of two roadies and a bye week), plus went through an ice storm, and also like 8" of snow. If it can survive that and then host a game that was played in the teens without any major issues, then the field tonight will be absolutely fine to play when the temps will be in the 20s. and all it had was a bunch of snow, and then was covered when the temps hit their worst, and is now being heated.

If a recruit is that concerned about weather here, they already weren't considering us. This would be more of a factor to those who maybe didn't have many impressions of the U at all, but not for weather reasons, just didn't really consider us. But maybe just seeing the "M" logos on the field and stuff plus and just seeing the new stadium in action during a MNF broadcast will just put the U in the back of their conscious. It's not like this is gonna make a recruit say "Oh yeah, I'm signing on cause they played NFL there!"
 

GoAUpher said:
What national TV audience is this being questioned in front of? You didn't link to a TV broadcast. You linked to an article about a punter spouting off. If we're talking about the TV coverage then Jaws will need to start blabbing about the terrible field conditions first.

Again, if that is their split second "human nature" reaction to the conditions in MN (and if they stick with it despite any evidence to the contrary) then they likely wouldn't have ended up here anyway because there is already too much "cold weather" stuff out there in the public consciousness for a opposing recruiter to latch on to.
Click to expand...

It's already been discussed on ESPN and even CNBC. That's national.

Put it this way. If you were trying to sell the state of Minnesota, would you show people a video of a blizzard? No freaking way. You'd show them videos of pristine lakes, vibrant cities, etc. How do I know that? Because that's what happens. The tourism commericals for North Dakota that we get shown on local TV emphasize the GOOD parts of NoDak (snicker). They don't show desolate winter scenes of dreary small towns. Why? Because marketing WORKS on the human psyche. Yet folks here seem to think that a 3 hour video of a Minnesota snowstorm and a football field the national media is referring to as unsafe in headlines isn't a negative. I'm just calling BS on that one.

Go to the University of Minnesota website. Go to the visitors section. Forget snowstorms and media hype about unsafe conditions for a second. How many winter scenes are among the pictures of campus? Now why do you think that is?
 

tato2001 said:
Go to the University of Minnesota website. Go to the visitors section...How many winter scenes are among the pictures of campus? Now why do you think that is?
Click to expand...

If you show me where all these alleged pictures of campus are in the Visitors section, I'd be glad to count how many show winter scenes.
 

dpodoll68 said:
If you show me where all these alleged pictures of campus are in the Visitors section, I'd be glad to count how many show winter scenes.
Click to expand...

Umm... When I go to www.umn.edu and click on visitors & families I get a big picture of a family in SHORTS on the Northrup Mall. Wonder why they picked a picture of a family in SHORTS.

Surely the people that are considering the U have brains and are intelligent enought to know we have winter here, so why not show a few winter scenes as well?
 

tato2001 said:
Umm... When I go to www.umn.edu and click on visitors & families I get a big picture of a family in SHORTS on the Northrup Mall. Wonder why they picked a picture of a family in SHORTS.

Surely the people that are considering the U have brains and are intelligent enought to know we have winter here, so why not show a few winter scenes as well?
Click to expand...

So you've figured out the U's marketing strategy on the basis of one picture, eh? You are truly a master of insight.
 

tato~
From a marketing perspective I don't think you're way off base. Obviously winter is harder to sell. The same is true from a recruiting perspective. But IMO, there are 2 sides to this. Any player who is turned off by this game just wasn't going to come here. I can't say that enough. A kid turned off that viscerally to cold isn't going to be convinced by Kill or Brew or anyone. This is a point that I have yet to see you or anyone else ragging on this opportunity really disagree with. The argument against is always "cold sucks...why do you want to show people it can be cold and snowy here?" My response is "WTF? You think you can hide that it is cold and snowy here in the winter?"

The recruiting benefit (if there is one) is focused solely on the opportunity to focus on the stadium. It's a chance to say "hey, come play for us and you'll play at a facility the NFL considers good enough to host a big primetime game". Personally, I don't expect it to change the minds of any recruits. But I don't see a downside.

It is also a nice chance to recruit the fans of Minnesota who might not yet have seen a game there. Sure, some of those folks will whine about the cold and pine for the Dome. But then those folks weren't going to appreciate TCF anyway. Its the same deal that I list with the recruits above. Any "on the fence" fans or recruits turned off by this game likely wouldn't have signed on anyway. The upside is much bigger than the downside and the likelihood is that it will be a wash.
 

dpodoll68 said:
So you've figured out the U's marketing strategy on the basis of one picture, eh? You are truly a master of insight.
Click to expand...

Yep. One picture. I'm not going to spend more time on it. I'll tell you what, though: you go ahead and take the time to browse the U's website in full, and report back to us with the ratio of snowstorm pictures to sunny warm day pictures. That should provide us all with far better insight into the U's marketing strategy.
 

tato2001 said:
Yep. One picture. I'm not going to spend more time on it. I'll tell you what, though: you go ahead and take the time to browse the U's website in full, and report back to us with the ratio of snowstorm pictures to sunny warm day pictures. That should provide us all with far better insight into the U's marketing strategy.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one who talked about all of the "pictures" of campus on the U of M visitor page.
 

Civil Rights act of 1866

Merry Christmas.
 

Oneoldgopher said:
Gives me a white, male, over 40 year old the right to buy, lease, rent or otherwise have access to all things offered for sale. With that said, I hope to be able to buy my strawberry shake at the DQ lounge next fall. They do sell them, I hope.
Click to expand...

Do you know how to use Google? 10 seconds later you'll find that this has nothing to do with where beer gets served in TCF.
 


Oneoldgopher said:
Gives me a white, male, over 40 year old the right to buy, lease, rent or otherwise have access to all things offered for sale. With that said, I hope to be able to buy my strawberry shake at the DQ lounge next fall. They do sell them, I hope.
Click to expand...

Also, I notice you have no response to being called on your spurious use of protected class. What legal or constitutional related information do you wish to misuse next?
 

GoAUpher said:
Also, I notice you have no response to being called on your spurious use of protected class. What legal or constitutional related information do you wish to misuse next?
Click to expand...

GoAUpher,

1. This Vikings / Bears game is going to be good public relations for the University of Minnesota football program.

2. We have a beautiful stadium, we have a beautiful campus, the backdrop of the lit up Minneapolis skyline at night at the open (scoreboard) end of the stadium is going to be absolutely stunning. That is, unless it is snowing too hard to see it. Even if it is snowing hard, it will all be good PR for Golden Gopher Football and new coach Jerry Kill and his staff. We are a world class Big Ten research university which is going to have its outstanding football facilities showcased on national TV like no other time in the last 50 years.

3. It is going to be great and recruits who aspire for the NFL will love it. These high school kids will be talking all about this game for the rest of the week. They will not be scared of it. They are not sissies.

Winona Phantom we salute you!
Michigan – 0
Minnesota – 22
24 October 1953
SKI-U-MAH!
http://www.vva.org/testimony/2010/092910.html
http://www.dol.gov/ocia/congressionaltestimony/20090514_OFCCP.htm
 

Confused. 6 Nov, are you quoting me because you think I disagree with you or what?
 

This is going to be great PR for Golden Gopher Football!

GoAUpher said:
Confused. 6 Nov, are you quoting me because you think I disagree with you or what?
Click to expand...

GoAUpher,

1. I hope you agree with me. If not, then just wait and watch the game, and the banter that ensues in the days to follow after this Bears / Vikings game. I was just latching on to the last person to post and it happened to be you!

Winona Phantom we salute you!
Michigan – 0
Minnesota – 22
24 October 1953
SKI-U-MAH!
http://www.vva.org/testimony/2010/092910.html
http://www.dol.gov/ocia/congressionaltestimony/20090514_OFCCP.htm
 

6 Nov 1999 said:
GoAUpher,

1. I hope you agree with me. If not, then just wait and watch the game, and the banter that ensues in the days to follow after this Bears / Vikings game. I was just latching on to the last person to post and it happened to be you!

Winona Phantom we salute you!
Michigan – 0
Minnesota – 22
24 October 1953
SKI-U-MAH!
http://www.vva.org/testimony/2010/092910.html
http://www.dol.gov/ocia/congressionaltestimony/20090514_OFCCP.htm
Click to expand...

I do, so that's what confused me. Like I said a couple of times in this thread, MNF will showcase TCF nicely. :)
 

Steve Young just had some really good things to say about the stadium
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom