U of M Announces Alcohol Sales Policies at TCF Bank Stadium

Donate To GopherHole
Gopher Warrior said:
Sorry, you're wrong. Read what I've written - it's all there. And take care to read what's there, not what you're making up (i.e., "there are no kegs, taps, or any other yada yada yada" in response to me saying "There are ~30 beer cashiers at TCF Bank stadium, ready to do business with anyone of age.")

Others who were near or at the pretty concession stands setup to sell beer today may be able to verify that in the West Plaza area alone there were 24 cashiers machines operating - 6 per tent x 4 tents. I counted them with my own eyes, partner.

You've accepted the "begrudging... with their focus on the highest chance of keeping alcohol out of student's hands" line of thinking, whereas I'll tell you they flip flopped because of ticket sales. We can disagree on that. I wonder what you'll say, though, when they start selling at more than 2 locations and get closer and closer to the student section...

I'll say it's an obvious move and should have been done today. Having alcohol sold a 2 minute walk away from the student section didn't keep beer and wine away from students today - but at least you feel good about making them walk a couple hundred yards for it.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like your whole issue is all about selling beer in the entire stadium. Right or wrong?
 

Gopher Warrior said:
Sorry, you're wrong. Read what I've written - it's all there. And take care to read what's there, not what you're making up (i.e., "there are no kegs, taps, or any other yada yada yada" in response to me saying "There are ~30 beer cashiers at TCF Bank stadium, ready to do business with anyone of age.")

Others who were near or at the pretty concession stands setup to sell beer today may be able to verify that in the West Plaza area alone there were 24 cashiers machines operating - 6 per tent x 4 tents. I counted them with my own eyes, partner.

You've accepted the "begrudging... with their focus on the highest chance of keeping alcohol out of student's hands" line of thinking, whereas I'll tell you they flip flopped because of ticket sales. We can disagree on that. I wonder what you'll say, though, when they start selling at more than 2 locations and get closer and closer to the student section...

I'll say it's an obvious move and should have been done today. Having alcohol sold a 2 minute walk away from the student section didn't keep beer and wine away from students today - but at least you feel good about making them walk a couple hundred yards for it.
Click to expand...

Well I can tell you the April 2012 legislation absolutely did change the verbiage of the ruling "alcohol for all or none" to "alcohol for all in a 'convenient' location, even if it's only one spot along with in premium seating, or none at all." In addition it also clarified the ability of the U to do so in Mariucci and Williams Arenas. So yes, the recent legislation did exactly what station19 said.

By your logic, they could have done this alcohol move a year ago due to sagging sales. Remember, Kill also walked around campus passing out free tickets to students. The previous season had also been 3-9 with B10 wins over only Iowa and Illinois. Interest was low, early attendance confirmed, especially with embarrassing losses to NDSU and New Mexico St. Yet they didn't, and I wonder why?

If you don't think distance is a deterrent to people eating or consuming things, I can't help you. Go read some studies proving how much more likely people are to eat candy or drink soda if it's within arm's reach, and how there is a similar but lower multiplier for if those things are within easy walking distance. Furthermore, you think walking up the stands and around the entire stadium (roughly 200 yds as you state) takes 2 minutes? I posted in another thread the experience of my friend who was in the student section with me. The worst part of his journey was the walk to and from, as he explicitly stated to me. Carrying the booze back in your hands has a high chance of spills. Although I have regular season tickets I met up with my sister and some of my friends down in the student section halfway through the second quarter and can confirm I saw 3 beers total - all of which in my 27 year old friend's hands. I obviously did not pass through the entire student section, but I can tell you that there was FAR, FAR less beer present than when I attended games in the Dome student section in 2007-2008. And I'm pretty attentive to most things like that.

You refuse to accept that the U did many things to keep up with their principles while fighting a public perception and market desire nightmare situation. The location of the garden opposite the student section and the fact that beer sales ended at halftime (rather than end of 3rd quarter like the Dome and most venues) prove this to me. The U is in the unfortunate position of being one of the few big time college football programs in a top 20 population/media market that has all 4 pro sports teams (name me 5 other schools with this situation?). Yes, they did bend on selling in the general seating "area" to gain the revenue from the suites to compete for fan and business attention and loyalty, something schools like Iowa, Wisconsin, and Illinois don't have to do.

If, in 2 years, the U begins selling beer at ever concession stand along the concourse, I will eat crow. However, I guarantee they will only do this if they get continued negative press (ie, 3 years similar to the ragging they got over this original alcohol issue) about the "loooong beer lines" and "extreme inconvenience for fans near the bowl end" from the many media outlets. I wouldn't be surprised but would still be disappointed that the only venue in the B10 where one can buy beer gets more negative press than anyone else does.
 


Real change is even better ... so Doctor Don or anyone else for that matter ... can you summarize this conversation upstairs? Hey-19 seems to be on target, by GW seems to have the most volume.
 

RailBaronYarr said:
I wouldn't be surprised but would still be disappointed that the only venue in the B10 where one can buy beer gets more negative press than anyone else does.
Click to expand...

Within in five to ten years the only Divsion I public universities that WON'T be selling beer at football games are those that make so much money they don't need to. Eventually, even the extremely successful programs will do it because they will start to understand what a ridiculous, hypocritical, and ineffective policy it is.
 


Go4Broke said:
Within in five years the only Divsion I football programs that WON'T be beer at football games are those that make so much money they don't need. Eventually, even the extremely successful programs will do it as well because they will start to understand what a ridiculous policy it is.
Click to expand...

Sure is funny that despite your claim and all the redneck places in the world with college football stadiums (successful or not) it isn't the case yet. Can't be that ridiculous of a policy. Sad that your view is that simply because the market demands something that it's the right (or only) thing to do and institutions (companies or universities) shouldn't stand on their principles if there is money to be made.

I'll also defend the position - you're a university with a stadium that (if filled 100%) is guaranteed to have 20% students in it. Of these students, roughly 60% of them are underage (assuming all freshman, all sophomores, and half of juniors) during the college fb season. That makes for ~15% of your customers underage but of "wanting/able to drink age." To say nothing of the many 15-18 year olds there with their family, getting tickets as a HS football player, etc etc. I will bet you this is a MUCH higher % of your attendance than any pro sport venue in town. Higher prices, no student section, different atmosphere (slightly more family friendly in college venues than NFL or other pro sports) keep younger people out. Why would you, as a university, not only want to promote drinking by placing it right next to students, but also be held liable if anything were to happen. The negative public perception, especially in a big market like this, would probably be worse than the monetary ramifications.

Are there ways to "ensure" only 21+ kids drink? Sure - wristbands, 1 per purchaser, etc. Somehow I think no solution out there keeps 100% of underage kids from drinking.
 

RailBaronYarr said:
Sure is funny that despite your claim and all the redneck places in the world with college football stadiums (successful or not) it isn't the case yet. Can't be that ridiculous of a policy. Sad that your view is that simply because the market demands something that it's the right (or only) thing to do and institutions (companies or universities) shouldn't stand on their principles if there is money to be made.

I'll also defend the position - you're a university with a stadium that (if filled 100%) is guaranteed to have 20% students in it. Of these students, roughly 60% of them are underage (assuming all freshman, all sophomores, and half of juniors) during the college fb season. That makes for ~15% of your customers underage but of "wanting/able to drink age." To say nothing of the many 15-18 year olds there with their family, getting tickets as a HS football player, etc etc. I will bet you this is a MUCH higher % of your attendance than any pro sport venue in town. Higher prices, no student section, different atmosphere (slightly more family friendly in college venues than NFL or other pro sports) keep younger people out. Why would you, as a university, not only want to promote drinking by placing it right next to students, but also be held liable if anything were to happen. The negative public perception, especially in a big market like this, would probably be worse than the monetary ramifications.

Are there ways to "ensure" only 21+ kids drink? Sure - wristbands, 1 per purchaser, etc. Somehow I think no solution out there keeps 100% of underage kids from drinking.
Click to expand...

There are just as many kids at professional football games.
 

afurry91 said:
There are just as many kids at professional football games.
Click to expand...

Really have a hard time believing that there are as many 16-20 year olds at NFL games as there are at college football games where tickets are cheap, the stadium is close, and there is no parking fee. Oh, did I mention that 100% of students at college games don't have an adult supervisor with them?
 

Go4Broke said:
Within in five to ten years the only Divsion I public universities that WON'T be selling beer at football games are those that make so much money they don't need to. Eventually, even the extremely successful programs will do it because they will start to understand what a ridiculous, hypocritical, and ineffective policy it is.
Click to expand...

That would be your opinion.

Let's all keep track of it.
 



station19 said:
That would be your opinion.

Let's all keep track of it.
Click to expand...

Preface this with I have zero idea....but when the legislature gave the all or none in 2010, I didn't think there were that many FBS teams selling booze. I was shocked that there are now 20-25 that do now. Has there been a big jump in the last two years?
 

Maximus said:
Preface this with I have zero idea....but when the legislature gave the all or none in 2010, I didn't think there were that many FBS teams selling booze. I was shocked that there are now 20-25 that do now. Has there been a big jump in the last two years?
Click to expand...

From what I remember hearing; there a few that do on off-campus stadiums like was done at the dome. However there are less than ten or so that sell in on-campus stadiums.

11 according to wcco

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/...w-many-colleges-sell-beer-at-sports-stadiums/
 

RailBaronYarr said:
The U is in the unfortunate position of being one of the few big time college football programs in a top 20 population/media market that has all 4 pro sports teams (name me 5 other schools with this situation?)
Click to expand...

1. Rutgers
2. Northwestern
3. Temple
4. TCU
5. Boston College
6. Georgia Tech
7. Miami
8. Arizona St.

depending on your definition of "media market", one could also include:

9. Michigan
10. Michigan St.
11. Cal
12. Stanford
 

The simple truth is that if Minnesota had better ticket sales (i.e. premium), the school would not have flip flopped.

They had a chance to take a reasonable stance of "we've had alcohol at games for the past 20 years - we'll still have it at TCF Bank stadium; we take underage drinking seriously, but we believe we can keep things under control as we believe was done at the Dome. Go Gophers."

Instead, they took a stance of "alcohol for all at the stadium would not be consistent with the University's principles. We're certainly not going to be the only B1G school that sells to the general public. Yuck. We are righteous." That has since turned into, "screw it, we can't sell football without booze. Roll out the barrell!!!!!!! Oh, but we're still righteous -- we're going to make students walk like really super far in order to grab a couple beers!!!"
 



dpodoll68 said:
1. Rutgers
2. Northwestern
3. Temple
4. TCU
5. Boston College
6. Georgia Tech
7. Miami
8. Arizona St.

depending on your definition of "media market", one could also include:

9. Michigan
10. Michigan St.
11. Cal
12. Stanford
Click to expand...



And the common theme about all of the above except maybe Michigan and Michigan State is that they ALL play 2nd fiddle to most of the professional teams in the area in regards to media coverage, publicity, and ticket sales.
 

Gopher Warrior said:
The simple truth is that if Minnesota had better ticket sales (i.e. premium), the school would not have flip flopped.

They had a chance to take a reasonable stance of "we've had alcohol at games for the past 20 years - we'll still have it at TCF Bank stadium; we take underage drinking seriously, but we believe we can keep things under control as we believe was done at the Dome. Go Gophers."

Instead, they took a stance of "alcohol for all at the stadium would not be consistent with the University's principles. We're certainly not going to be the only B1G school that sells to the general public. Yuck. We are righteous." That has since turned into, "screw it, we can't sell football without booze. Roll out the barrell!!!!!!! Oh, but we're still righteous -- we're going to make students walk like really super far in order to grab a couple beers!!!"
Click to expand...

How many times are you going to post the same thing? I swear you picked 5 topics to beat into the ground at the beginning of the year and just keep riding them out. Is this the first time a business has changed a policy based on market conditions? They originally wanted to sell in the suites/club seats only, consistent with the majority of college football. The legislature said "Hey, you can't do that, it's not American, sell it everywhere or nowhere." They chose nowhere, suite and club seat sales fell as they most likely projected. They then decided to try the beer garden concept out to see if it would in fact be successful without being a gigantic shi* show. I have no idea if it helped the sales in the premium areas, but I saw no issue with the beer garden this past weekend.

beating_a_dead_horse.jpg
 

Attachments

  • beating_a_dead_horse.jpg
    beating_a_dead_horse.jpg
    29.7 KB · Views: 2

dpodoll68 said:
1. Rutgers
2. Northwestern
3. Temple
4. TCU
5. Boston College
6. Georgia Tech
7. Miami
8. Arizona St.

depending on your definition of "media market", one could also include:

9. Michigan
10. Michigan St.
11. Cal
12. Stanford
Click to expand...

You forgot Washington, USC, UCLA, Maryland, and possibly Colorado and/or Utah.
 

dpodoll68 said:
1. Rutgers
2. Northwestern
3. Temple
4. TCU
5. Boston College
6. Georgia Tech
7. Miami
8. Arizona St.

depending on your definition of "media market", one could also include:

9. Michigan
10. Michigan St.
11. Cal
12. Stanford
Click to expand...

I don't count Mich St as part of the metropolitan area the same way people don't typically see St Cloud as part of the MSP metro area (and it's a full 20 miles closer to Minneapolis than East Lansing is to Detroit). My point

I'd also hardly consider Rutgers or Temple a "big time" college football program. But you made my point that except for Miami, none of these schools has had any sustained level of success on the field or is the #1 team in their respective markets for fanbase (quantity or rabid-ness) and media coverage. And yes, I'm including Cal/Stanford in that discussion even though I think you'd be hard pressed to call that large of a geographic area a single place with all 4 pro sports.
 

GopherRock said:
You forgot Washington, USC, UCLA, Maryland, and possibly Colorado and/or Utah.
Click to expand...

Seattle doesn't have an NHL team. LA doesn't have an NFL team. I thought of Colorado earlier, and totally spaced when I typed out the list. Maryland is a good addition, and is an omission. Utah? What am I missing? They don't have MLB, NHL, or NFL.
 

RailBaronYarr said:
I don't count Mich St as part of the metropolitan area the same way people don't typically see St Cloud as part of the MSP metro area (and it's a full 20 miles closer to Minneapolis than East Lansing is to Detroit).
Click to expand...

You did say media market, which is why I put the disclaimer.

RailBaronYarr said:
I'd also hardly consider Rutgers or Temple a "big time" college football program.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your definition entails, but both are members of an AQ conference and are unquestionably located in major media markets/population centers.

RailBaronYarr said:
And yes, I'm including Cal/Stanford in that discussion even though I think you'd be hard pressed to call that large of a geographic area a single place with all 4 pro sports.
Click to expand...

They are all within ~15 miles of one another with the exception of the San Jose Sharks, which is about 47 miles away. They do consider Oakland-SF-San Jose one media market for statistical purposes.
 

dpodoll68 said:
Seattle doesn't have an NHL team. LA doesn't have an NFL team. I thought of Colorado earlier, and totally spaced when I typed out the list. Maryland is a good addition, and is an omission. Utah? What am I missing? They don't have MLB, NHL, or NFL.
Click to expand...

Seattle also doesn't have an NBA team. I'll admit they're the oddest large city with only 2 major sports now. Colorado and Maryland are good examples that, again, further prove my point of schools part of big time college football conferences that struggle to gain/retain fans and media attention due to the presence of many pro sports teams located close to them.

dpodoll68 said:
I'm not sure what your definition entails, but both are members of an AQ conference and are unquestionably located in major media markets/population centers.
Click to expand...

Temple was forced out of the Big East (arguably the worst AQ conference from a play quality/fan attendance/national media coverage perspective) due to poor attendance, and had only even been int hat status from 91-04. They only just re-joined the conference this year, proving that they can barely hold on to status as one of the worst teams in arguably the worst AQ conference. I don't think if you polled a majority of college football fans that they would count Temple as a "major college football" team. I stated my opinion as such.

dpodoll68 said:
They are all within ~15 miles of one another with the exception of the San Jose Sharks, which is about 47 miles away. They do consider Oakland-SF-San Jose one media market for statistical purposes.
Click to expand...

Again, ask anyone in the bay area if they feel the San Jose/Silicon Valley area is the truly part of the same area as SF/Oakland. I understand that for media market statistical areas they combine them. But when vying for fan attention there is a huge divide between the areas. Do you count Baltimore and Washington DC as the same market since they're 41 miles away?

Regardless of your opinion in these matters, you're squabbling with me on the finer points of my statement: it is clearly difficult to name programs that have the same situation as ours (big time college football program in a legitimate conference in the same media market as a pro sports town), and that when you do name them, none of them have been particularly successful in the past 20-30 years on a national or even conference level. A few have had a single breakout season (Northwestern, Boston College, and Georgia Tech come to mind having had a share of conference champions) but nothing sustained. I will also posit that these schools, even if they have consistently mediocre seasons where they finish around .500 in conference/overall play (rarely 1-11 to 3-9 like the Gophers have dealt with lately) have attendance issues similar to what we have been dealing with. And I believe that stems from the distractions of other sports and the likelihood that one or more of them will be good enough on any given season to draw fan and media attention away from the school, sometimes permanently.
 

I wasn't debating your overall point, but rather quibbling with your assertion (oft-repeated by many) that the Gophers are unique (or close to it) by being located in a major market with all 4 pro sports teams. It's not that rare or unique. It's a phenomenon experienced by as much as 10% of the Division I-A teams, and by as much as 20% of the AQ conference teams. Schools like Miami, Colorado, Georgia Tech, and USC in the 60s/70s prove that you can be successful in such a situation. A lot of teams/fans like to use it as a crutch, but it's an excuse for poor performance by the team for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with competing with pro sports.
 

dpodoll68 said:
I wasn't debating your overall point, but rather quibbling with your assertion (oft-repeated by many) that the Gophers are unique (or close to it) by being located in a major market with all 4 pro sports teams. It's not that rare or unique. It's a phenomenon experienced by as much as 10% of the Division I-A teams, and by as much as 20% of the AQ conference teams. Schools like Miami, Colorado, Georgia Tech, and USC in the 60s/70s prove that you can be successful in such a situation. A lot of teams/fans like to use it as a crutch, but it's an excuse for poor performance by the team for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with competing with pro sports.
Click to expand...

There will be no convincing you, I'm guessing, but it is not the SOLE reason for poor performance or lacking/sagging ticket sales, but a contributor. It is also an indicator of a metropolitan area with many things to do that aren't University of XXX related, as well as a much larger percentage of the population not being tied to the university in any way. By that second point I mean doesn't work there, didn't go there, doesn't have a kid who does, or anything else. A sports section in a newspaper only has so many pages and columnists, and having pro sports present will reduce the footprint and coverage the university gets. Pro sports will also more than likely get the top talent to cover them in the media (beat writers, etc). Companies in metros with 4 sports teams and a large university looking to buy tickets or suites to games will more likely buy the pro venue over the collegiate one. I could go on.

I don't believe this is a crutch of an excuse. One could argue that the local NFL team simply did a better job marketing themselves or engendering themselves to fans through outreach and by winning. I would argue that the NFL/etc as a whole has done a better job marketing itself than the NCAA which makes them the big brother to college football in many fans eyes, regardless of how good or bad the local team may be in a given season/decade. The top level for the athletes is the pros, and people view it as such for their hierarchy of watching and following. When you're not in that direct market, you have much less competition and more of a chance to retain fans even if you falter for a few years. That's my opinion.

Also, not sure where you think that <20% of the AQ conference teams being in a major metro area (noted by 4 pro sports teams, and I'll be generous with Michigan, Stanford, Cal) is NOT rare. That means over 80% of the teams that play in a major college conference don't have this level of fan/media competition. That's a lot. You also pull out cherry picked success stories from the list of 12-13 teams. USC has obviously had extreme long-term success and, like a Michigan or other program, is probably too good to fail. Miami had success in the late 90s and early 200s but clearly has an extremely hard time filling seats and keeping fan interest even when ranked in the polls (but not winning championships). The rest of the programs you cited have had brief stints of success with marginal seasons and fan following in every other year. I would be 110% pleased if we pulled a Colorado or Georgia Tech and won ONE national championship in the next 30 years, but that doesn't make them sustained success stories. Georgia Tech has won 3 conference titles in 22 years, Colorado 4 in 23 years, and those were the best examples you could give? It's not THE reason for lack of success, it's one of many that contribute, but seems like across the board these teams have a pretty hard time winning consistently after pro sports take hold in their cities.
 




You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom