U won't fight alcohol ban at TCF Stadium

[WAGopher]

The easiest solution is to open 1 area in each of the facilities to sell beer, only staff it with 2 people, require you to buy a wrist band before you purchase beer, locate this area as far away from the students as possible, and charge a nice fee for each beer. Only allow open containers in certain areas of the venues for the gen. populace, with limited views of the games. This would discourage go to a game to only get drunk folks...


For those who support the two layers of society, and use the student excuse, the question really is what is the purpose of college? Isn't learning social skills as important as learning what the square root of -1 is? If that is not the case, then why have liberal arts schools, if it is only to learn numbers, then wouldn't the states money be better spent on Tech schools instead of large universites with liberal arts schools? The real answer is the students need to learn how to drink responsibly, and by banning alcohol, you are not doing anyone any favors.

I like your idea of limited areas to serve beer in. They could even go so far as to designate sections that are on sale and have family and student sections that aren't.

There are many factors that the U must consider when deciding the sale of alcohol in its facilities and the Regents and administration are the ones that should be weighing all information and making a good decision for the University. The problem with the Minnesota all or nothing law is that it takes that decision away from the ones best suited to make it.

 

[The Sentinel]

This legislation wasn't liberal or conservative, it was bipartisian populism. If we hadn't served alcohol in general seating at the Metrodome, people wouldn't have been up in arms that we "took away" their alcohol. It's extremely unusual to serve alcohol in general seating at college games, but people are still used to it here.

Metrodome is an off campus facility, and therefore, could serve alcohol at any event, besides NCAA regionals (which was a condition laid down by NCAA to host a regional). Gopher football games had beer sales at the dome because the U had no say over the Metropolitan Sports Commission in this regard. It also added to concession sales which the U gladly took a percentage of...

When the move was going to be made back to campus at TCF, alcohol was only going to be available in the premium seats, only. This fact was no secret to the legislature, and the U was forthright for years in it's proposals to the Capitol. Our lawmakers changed the game at the 11th hour, and while I believe the U could have mounted a stronger lobby against the law, they didn't.

The law was ill-conceived, and has now become penalizing to the U versus other entertainment options in the Twin Cities.

 

[RodentRampage]

Metrodome is an off campus facility, and therefore, could serve alcohol at any event, besides NCAA regionals (which was a condition laid down by NCAA to host a regional). Gopher football games had beer sales at the dome because the U had no say over the Metropolitan Sports Commission in this regard. It also added to concession sales which the U gladly took a percentage of...

When the move was going to be made back to campus at TCF, alcohol was only going to be available in the premium seats, only. This fact was no secret to the legislature, and the U was forthright for years in it's proposals to the Capitol. Our lawmakers changed the game at the 11th hour, and while I believe the U could have mounted a stronger lobby against the law, they didn't.

The law was ill-conceived, and has now become penalizing to the U versus other entertainment options in the Twin Cities.

The U did have a say in whether or not alcohol would have been served in the Metrodome for Gopher football games. All they would have had to do was say "We won't sign the contract unless alcohol is not served for Gopher football games." They could not order the MSC not to serve alcohol, of course, but they had a measure of power if they had chosen to use it.

I understand why the U didn't fight this law. Legally, they were in the right, the legislature overstepped their powers under the state Constitution. But fighting it probably wouldn't have done the U many favors in the future.

 

[RodentRampage]

For those who support the two layers of society, and use the student excuse, the question really is what is the purpose of college? Isn't learning social skills as important as learning what the square root of -1 is? If that is not the case, then why have liberal arts schools, if it is only to learn numbers, then wouldn't the states money be better spent on Tech schools instead of large universites with liberal arts schools? The real answer is the students need to learn how to drink responsibly, and by banning alcohol, you are not doing anyone any favors.

Got to love the populist angle. There have always been and always will be many tiers in life. If I go to a show, I can pick from many tiers, such as price range in tickets. I can choose to pay to be front and center, or I can choose a cheaper ticket off to the side. I went to see Spamalot a couple years ago, I chose some middle priced tickets. I could have seen it in NYC, but I wasn't willing to pay the price they asked there, so I waited until the show came to Minneapolis, where tickets were a lot cheaper.

Should the tickets that are front and center be the same price as the nosebleed seats? If we're really against multiple tiers in society, we should. Of course, that leaves the people in the nosebleed seats feeling they overpaid.

But alcohol in the general seating being an "educational experience" on responsible drinking, that's just funny. Just how does serving alcohol teach anything?

 

[GophBen]

The U is doing the right thing by letting other people deal with this issue. No need to get their fingers dirty dealing with this turd.

Why not try this: Go to caucuses tomorrow night and try bringing up a resolution. If enough people mention this at enough caucuses, I'm sure it'll get a little attention.

 

[homerdance]

There is a limited number of seats, so one could, and should expect to pay more for the more desirable locations. Anytime there is something in low demand, you should not be surprised if the price is more. Go to stub hub and figure that one out, limited supply games, and more desirable seats are more expensive. There is no alcohol shortage though, and to create a level of "privileged" and "non-privileged" fans is problematic.

The "learning to drink" is more of a social aspect of college. What you see at other Big Ten football games you see the adverse affects of limited access to alcohol. Since drinking isn't allowed at the game chances are people will a) get as drunk as possible before kick off so they don't sober up, and thus get dangerously drunk before the game or 2) sneak hard liquor into the game and drink a 5th of whiskey instead of two beers, which is also a dangerous situation. So at the end of the day, yeah there are going to be some who drink to much, but it is in a controlled environment, with plenty of structure (you streak you go to jail) as opposed to when someone drinks in a dark room with no structure, and thus is more likely to do things that are dangerous.

Anyone who thinks by not selling alcohol you are eliminating it is being very niave.

 

[RodentRampage]

There is a limited number of seats, so one could, and should expect to pay more for the more desirable locations. Anytime there is something in low demand, you should not be surprised if the price is more. Go to stub hub and figure that one out, limited supply games, and more desirable seats are more expensive. There is no alcohol shortage though, and to create a level of "privileged" and "non-privileged" fans is problematic.

No, it's not problematic. You pay more, you get more. It's no different than paying more for better tickets.

The "learning to drink" is more of a social aspect of college. What you see at other Big Ten football games you see the adverse affects of limited access to alcohol. Since drinking isn't allowed at the game chances are people will a) get as drunk as possible before kick off so they don't sober up, and thus get dangerously drunk before the game or 2) sneak hard liquor into the game and drink a 5th of whiskey instead of two beers, which is also a dangerous situation. So at the end of the day, yeah there are going to be some who drink to much, but it is in a controlled environment, with plenty of structure (you streak you go to jail) as opposed to when someone drinks in a dark room with no structure, and thus is more likely to do things that are dangerous.

Anyone who thinks by not selling alcohol you are eliminating it is being very niave.

The ones likely to get as drunk as possible before the game if they can't buy alcohol at the game are likely to do so anyway even if they can buy alcohol at the game. The ones who are likely to drink a fifth of whiskey are likely to do so even if they are allowed to buy beer at the game.

Adverse affects of limited access to alcohol? Compared to WHAT?

 

[The Sentinel]

Got to love the populist angle. There have always been and always will be many tiers in life. If I go to a show, I can pick from many tiers, such as price range in tickets. I can choose to pay to be front and center, or I can choose a cheaper ticket off to the side. I went to see Spamalot a couple years ago, I chose some middle priced tickets. I could have seen it in NYC, but I wasn't willing to pay the price they asked there, so I waited until the show came to Minneapolis, where tickets were a lot cheaper.

Should the tickets that are front and center be the same price as the nosebleed seats? If we're really against multiple tiers in society, we should. Of course, that leaves the people in the nosebleed seats feeling they overpaid.

But alcohol in the general seating being an "educational experience" on responsible drinking, that's just funny. Just how does serving alcohol teach anything?

Heck, even the State has two tiers on the roads we drive. That thing they call MNPass is a perk to get around traffic by paying a fee... They're hypocrites in St. Paul and their foolishness is going to cost the U a program or two unless it's remedied. The law wasn't about fostering an atmosphere of equality at TCF. It was about letting the U know who was really calling the shots. Power play - Pure and simple.

 

[Maximus]

The real answer is the students need to learn how to drink responsibly, and by banning alcohol, you are not doing anyone any favors.

And that should be part of the mission of the University? How does one apply to become a professor? Night classes at Sally's?

 

[BradDad]

President Bruininks should be fired his financial misfeasance. The U is losing at least $1,000,000 in annual revenue by not selling beer to every Gopher fan who wants one at The Brickhouse, Williams Arena, and The Barn. We can only hope that the next U of M president will understand that it is not their job to impose their moral standards on rest of us. Beer is a legal product. Who doesn't have a close relative or friend who doesn't enjoy drinking beer. It is Un-American to oppose people drinking beer at college sporting events.

Beer distributor, by any chance?

 

[1983]

Oh boy

President Bruininks should be fired his financial misfeasance. The U is losing at least $1,000,000 in annual revenue by not selling beer to every Gopher fan who wants one at The Brickhouse, Williams Arena, and The Barn. We can only hope that the next U of M president will understand that it is not their job to impose their moral standards on rest of us. Beer is a legal product. Who doesn't have a close relative or friend who doesn't enjoy drinking beer. It is Un-American to oppose people drinking beer at college sporting events.

please!

 

[RodentRampage]

President Bruininks should be fired his financial misfeasance. The U is losing at least $1,000,000 in annual revenue by not selling beer to every Gopher fan who wants one at The Brickhouse, Williams Arena, and The Barn. We can only hope that the next U of M president will understand that it is not their job to impose their moral standards on rest of us. Beer is a legal product. Who doesn't have a close relative or friend who doesn't enjoy drinking beer. It is Un-American to oppose people drinking beer at college sporting events.

It is the job of the University to decide what is permissible within their facilities. That beer is legal is immaterial. Just because it is legal doesn't mean that you can do it where ever you wish. Baking cakes is legal, but that doesn't mean you can bake cakes within the stadium. Parrots are legal to own, but you can't bring your parrot with you to the game. People also like cakes and their pets, but that doesn't mean that you can bake cakes at the stadium or bring your parrot with you to the game.

Un-American to not allow beer at games? I must have missed the part where the founding fathers fought for the right to drink where ever and whenever you felt like it. If banning alcohol in stadiums is un-American, then the vast majority of universities are un-American, and college football is un-American. I for one am not willing to call college football un-American!