The Daily Gopher: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
New Blog: Cowboy Altitude for Wyoming Fans!

No Beer Here - TCF Bank Stadium to be Dry Thanks to Misguided Law

The relatively big news out of Dinkytown this week is centered on U of M President Bob Bruininks' decision to make the new TCF Bank Stadium a dry venue for all fans during football games. Fans, donors and many others are rightfully fired up over this decision, but the vitriol aimed at Bruininks and Athletic Director Joel Maturi is misguided.

Star-divide

The relatively big news out of Dinkytown this week is centered on U of M President Bob Bruininks' decision to make the new TCF Bank Stadium a dry venue for all fans during football games. In addition, Bruininks is pulling alcohol from the club rooms/suites at Mariucci Arena. and Williams Arena.

Fans, donors and many others are rightfully fired up over this decision, but the vitriol aimed at Bruininks and Athletic Director Joel Maturi is misguided. Anyone who knows the facts about Bruininks' decision knows that this was the only path he could take once the legislature/governor passed this misguided law.

Beer was never going to be served in the cheap seats, regardless of this law being passed or not. The original plan was for alcohol to be sold only in the premium seating areas of the stadium (suites, loges, club seats). Then the Minnesota legislature, in all its wisdom (sarcasm anyone?), decided to pass a law saying that if alcohol was sold/served in one part of the stadium, it had to be sold/served in the entire stadium (this law also now applies to other U venues that serve booze).

So in response to this law, Bruininks issued a press release yesterday afternoon that told of his recommendation "to make TCF Bank Stadium, Williams Arena and Mariucci Arena alcohol-free during athletic events as a result of recent legislation enacted by the Minnesota legislature and signed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty."

Many critics of the U are now calling Bruininks "out of touch" for making this decision, saying he's naïve to think that banning alcohol at athetic events is going to prevent underage drinking and/or alcohol-related problems in the stands. They're partly correct in that students and fans are going to find a way to drink whether or not alcohol is sold in the stadium, but they're missing the point and their criticism is aimed at the wrong institution/person.

It was the legislature and Pawlenty, not the U and Bruininks, that brought about this turn of events. Sure, Bruininks made the final decision, but the legislature forced the U's hand on this and now the athletic department is losing a significant revenue source that has been in the department's budget plans for some time.

While using a lame "it's only fair" logic (more on that later) to pass this law, our lawmakers undercut the University and its athletic department. And what do we have to show for it? A dry stadium (that's not the end of the world), a loss of alcohol revenue and a possible loss in premium seating sales - all helping to hinder the athletic department's ability to be self-sufficient and bringing about the very real possibility of the cutting of a sport or sports in the near future. Nice work, St. Paul.

Not that we should expect it out of our lawmakers in this state, but was there any forethought put into this law before it got passed? Did the legislature really think the U was going to become the first Big Ten school (and one of the few in the entire country) to sell alcohol to the entire stadium?

What was St. Paul's objective in passing this legislation? The answer is simple, really: pandering and populism. Our lawmakers decided to cave in to a handful of whiners who complained that they wouldn't be able to have a drink during a football game, while the "pretty people" were offered beer and wine in the premium seats. Our wise public servants decided to pander to voters in a purely political effort.

And their logic? Well, let's go right to the words of Pawlenty:
"My view is we don't have a two-class society, so you can't just have a situation where you have a beer up in the skyboxes and then nobody else gets the beer."

And Rep. Tom Rukavina, DFL-Virginia, who wrote the preliminary legislation that became the omnibus liquor bill:
"There was an overwhelming feeling in the Legislature that what the Board of Regents did was elitist. If you can afford to sit in the premium seats, you can drink chardonnay, and if you sit in the cheap seats, you get water or pop … We didn’t think that was right."

So there you have it. The legislature passed this law on the logic of "fairness." Pawlenty, Rukavina and the others who voted for this law used the ridiculous notion that "it's only fair" that if the suite-holders get beer, then all should get beer. As long as we're using that logic, we should to demand wider, cushioned seats, better sightlines from our bleacher seats, access to the DQ Club Room, an expanded food menu, HDTVs at our seats and all the other amenities that premium seat-holders are getting.

No one has been able to explain to me how the notion of "fairness" applies to beer, but not to padded seats or better sightlines.

The lawmakers those who support this law who say we don't live in a "two-class society" certainly don't get out much, and must never have stepped foot in the Xcel Energy Center or Target Center. You pay more, you get more services (i.e., alcohol). Is that such a foreign concept here?

As a regular season ticket holder, I don’t expect to get the same services that a premium season ticket holder (who is paying a lot more for his/her seat) gets. If a ticket holder in the premium seats get access to a free DQ Blizzard machine in the DQ Club Room, does that mean all should get access to a free DQ Blizzard machine in the DQ Club Room? Fairness, schmairness. Life isn’t fair. The rich get richer. That’s just the way it is. It sucks, sure, that the rich get more, but again, is that such a foreign concept?

Nevertheless, I don’t really care if I’ll have the opportunity to buy a beer or not. If it’s there, I may have a beer during the game. If it's not there, I'll enjoy the game just as much. And if it’s only in the premium areas, it won’t bother me one bit.

This originally appeared on my blog: http://mrheavyfoot.blogspot.com/

Editors of The Daily Gopher retain the right to remove posts deemed excessively offensive or grossly inappropriate. Keep it clean and don't be mean.

1 recs  |  Comment 9 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

What makes it impossible

for so many not to be able to enjoy a football game without a beer?

by COJOMAY on Jun 15, 2009 8:39 AM CDT reply actions  

That's a great question.

We should let the U dictate the terms of where and to whom alcohol can be served, and go from there. If you can’t get loaded enough to sit through Big Ten Football in the time before the game, perhaps you need to wake up earlier to get a better start.

by WhiteSpeedReceiver on Jun 15, 2009 8:59 AM CDT up reply actions  

It's not about the beer, it's about the revenue.

In my opinion, this issue isn’t about whether or not fans need a beer to enjoy a football game. This debate is about the loss of revenue to the athletic department, thanks to a stupid law out of a bunch of pandering politicians.

by gophersports on Jun 15, 2009 10:05 AM CDT reply actions  

You don't get a FREE blizzard in the "DQ room"

But you can sure as hell buy one at the concession stand. Not a valid way to compare things. It may be pandering to voters, but the law-makers are right when they call this elitist. If they want to pay more for better sightlines, better parking and better booze, that’s fine. But telling everyone else “look, you don’t even get the chance to overpay for swill because you’re poor” is elitist crap.

You honestly want to tell me they wouldn’t make more selling Miller Lite for $6-$8 a pint to everyone addled enough to think “hmm… $8 for 16 oz of swill? I’ll take it!” than they would just selling it to just the ritzy seats? You’re going to have to explain that one to me… I realize you may be able to mark the pricey stuff up even more, but I don’t think that could make up for the quantity the unwashed masses might buy.

If the athletic dept wanted to maximize revenue they could have gone with the status-quo as it was at the dome. Someone tell me why that would have been such a disaster?

by IronMonkee on Jun 16, 2009 2:35 PM CDT up reply actions  

Never underestimate....

…the ability of government to shoot itself in the foot.

The government will now have to look at alternate sources of revenue for ……. itself ….. to pay back the stadium debt. This is a state university, after all. If the University has a budget gap, either the students or the taxpayers have to “mind the gap.”

Rukavina = colossal tool.

With all that said, no booze in the stadium is a good thing. The focus should be on the game. Everyone can drink before the game and ride out the buzz.

by JG2112 on Jun 16, 2009 6:03 AM CDT reply actions  

$2 million in revenue

CNBC has a story on this. Estimated loss is $2 million. If they opened up beer sales to the entire stadium, then it could be triple that.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/31375653/

By the way, I want everyone to know that I like to drink beer at ball games.

by Garrick on Jun 16, 2009 12:24 PM CDT reply actions  

Maybe someone will invent "Beer Crystals"...

Then you can just buy a bottle of water, pour in the beer crystals and viola…

by COJOMAY on Jun 16, 2009 12:56 PM CDT reply actions  

like Kool-Aid?

come up with that and you will be able to donate a lot of money to TDG! :)

what you say here can, and will, be used against you

by GopherNation on Jun 16, 2009 2:40 PM CDT up reply actions  

The new liquor law provides:

No alcoholic beverage may be sold or served at TCF Bank Stadium unless the Board of Regents holds an on-sale intoxicating liquor license for the stadium as provided in paragraph (a), clause (3).

Paragraph (a), clause (3) provides:

(a) Notwithstanding any other law, local ordinance, or charter provision, the commissioner may issue on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses: … (3) to the Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota for events at Northrop Auditorium, the intercollegiate football stadium, or at no more than seven other locations within the boundaries of the University of Minnesota, provided that the Board of Regents has approved an application for a license for the specified location provided that a license for an arena or stadium location is void unless it requires the sale or service of intoxicating liquor throughout the arena or stadium if intoxicating liquor is sold or served anywhere in the arena or stadium…

Here’s the solution: Allow alcohol throughout the stadium. Any fan seated in the common sections who wants a drink must enter through a certain gate (or two). At this gate, ticket takers or some other employee will check IDs and put one or two wrist bands on any individual who wants to buy a drink. Then, if any fan seated in the common section wants a drink, s/he has to show his/her ID at the concession stand, pay for the drink, and have one of his/her wrist bands cut off and taken by the concessionnaire. When s/he has no more wrist bands, no more drinks are allowed to be sold.

This idea allows the U to make a significant amount of money, allows everyone to drink, and limits drinking to one or two (or maybe even three) drinks per individual.

Its amazing that an institution that is supposed to be full of creative thinkers can’t come up with a creative solution to this mess. I don’t pretend that this is a perfect solution, but it is a relatively simple solution that covers, in part, everyone’s concerns.

by Tubtastic on Jun 16, 2009 3:44 PM CDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Minnesota Golden Gophers sports--Usually analytical, sometimes snarky.
Start posting about the Golden Gophers »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Connect_with_facebook

SBNation.com Recent Stories

Utah wide receiver Jereme Brooks (85) celebrates a touchdown with teammates during the first half of an NCAA college football game against Pittsburgh on Thursday, Sept. 2, 2010, in Salt Lake City. (AP Photo/Steve C. Wilson)

No. 15 Pittsburgh Rallies In Fourth Quarter, But Loses To Utah In Overtime, 27-24

LOS ANGELES, CA - MAY 01:  Head coach Lane Kiffin talks with quarterback Matt Barkley #7 during the  USC Trojans spring game on  May 1, 2010 at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum in Los Angeles, California.  (Photo by Stephen Dunn/Getty Images) link

In Progress: Lane Kiffin Era Begins As No. 14 USC Opens Season At Hawaii

South Carolina quarterback Stephen Garcia, left, celebrates a first-quarter touchdown with South Carolina tackle Kyle Nunn, center, and South Carolina guard Rokevious Watkins, right, during the first half of their NCAA college football game against Southern Mississippi, Thursday, Sept. 2, 2010, at Williams-Brice Stadium, in Columbia, S.C.  (AP Photo/Brett Flashnick) link

South Carolina Rolls Over Southern Miss, Wins 41-13

More from SBNation.com >


Managers

Mn_basketball_small GopherNation

Bigbuck_small Buck Bravo

Editors

Yp_kelly-minnesota-011_37832_small PJS

Small Jeffrick

Dsc02076_small JG2112

Caddyshack12_small JDMill