Football
The Board of Trustees said alcohol is not to be sold at InfoCision Stadium — except in the suite and club areas.
Judge Jane Bond, in fact, voted to ban alcohol sales at the entire venue.
Great idea, folks. This Board of Trustees builds a 60-plus million dollar football stadium, and then it says, "Oh, but legal adults cannot buy alcohol. It's what the NCAA wants." It's a symbolic gesture of what sort of chance the stadium has to succeed.
Fans will only drink more before the games. This isn't about preventing drunken brawls. This is about allowing the University of Akron to make a boatload of profit on beer, and to entice upperclassmen to attend Zips games. Kent State and Cincinnati do it. Stop thinking like a bureaucracy and start thinking like a business.
Congratulations, Board of Trustees, you effectively cost your university thousands of dollars. There are hundreds of methods to regulate alcohol consumption. Allow beer sales only in the first half. Heck, even limit each patron to two brews. We can make it work without an outright ban.
Luckily, the board gets to vote again in 2010, because they can't possibly make the same mistake twice.
Maybe each trustee can write the taxpayers a personal check for such an poor decision. Judge Bond can pay double.
Loading ...
{ 42 comments… read them below or add one }
Now understand, I was for the sale of beer in the stadium. Everyone knows stadium beer is about 1% alchohol by volume, completely week and watered down, it's more of the mental "hey I'm drinking beer thing". I was for it because people buy it, and they want to drink it. I was for it for the financial reasons. But anyone who thinks this was the "make or break" thing of the stadium is totally fooling his/herself. There are 8 FBS schools and 2 sell beer. The rest, they might have a party yard or whatever, but they don't sell it in the stadium. We didn't sell it in the Rubber Bowl, why start now. The stadium is going to be with in walking distance of several bars, BW3, Brubakers, Manny's (if he ever re-builds). I say you have several nice pregame "party yards" and it's better for the surrounding economy.
I personally don't like the overall mentality on alchohol in this country. Still treated like a demon and that it should feared, as opposed to treated as a luxury and enjoyed responsibly, but that doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon. Roughly 2-3% of FBS schools sell beer, the 97-98% that don't seem to do just fine without it.
I am going to be selling concessions at the new stadium. If you want rum in your coke, just order a coke with a ten dollar bill and wink twice with your left eye, you will not receive change, but you will get a double rum and coke. Two of these and you won't care how many yards the opposing running back has. I will quit selling these when the third quarter expires, for safety reasons of course.
So it's okay to have beer companies ADVERTISE and SPONSOR
Wow, happy fingers hit the "submit" button too fast.
As I was saying, it's okay to have beer companies ADVERTISE and SPONSOR college athletics, but it's not okay to actually CONSUME their product?
Hey, if pro teams can regulate the sales (cut off after halftime, limits, etc.), then I'm sure a place of "higher learning" could manage it. Don't delude yourselves, UA officials, into thinking you've stopped the drinking. No, you've just put drunks out on the streets and campus area, instead of confining them inside the safety of a stadium.
Lower the drinking age and you won't have to worry about it. Right now about 80% of undergrads are under the drinking age. You enter at 17 or 18 and you aren't even legal to drink until your a Junior or Senior. So as far as universities being careful from a liability stand point, can you blame them. All it takes is one underage kid dieing on a campus that sells beer and they are out millions. Because by selling it they condone it's use.
Remember before Reagan every campus in the country sold beer. He's the one that f'd it up for everyone. 21 to drink, I guess we are less responsible than Europeans.
You can my my purchase of season tickets good-bye! I'll travel down the road to Kent State for my college football and a few first half brews. UA, you get Zip from me!
Just sell it, slow/close sales before the last inning(s), and everything will be fine. It will be overpriced anyway…This is stupid. There will be drinking going on regardless…
You can kiss my purchase of season tickets good-bye! I'll travel down the road to Kent State for my college football and a few first half brews. UA, you get Zip from me! This is the most asinine story I've read all year: Build a multi-million dollar stadium and not allow beer sales to legal adults. Maybe someone should vote to remove the Board of Trustees….hum, I wonder how much say religious right-wing Infocision had in this decision.
Akron U, you can do better.
On another subject: Akron turns on its first public WI FI service along S. Main St–way to go!
One phrase…
U of A Flasks… on sale soon!
For Judge Jane Bond. What in "drunk and beligerant", "public intoxication" don't you understand. It is to bad that some pay for the acts of others, however attending games and having to put up with such people has made moves like this needed. Maybe now the rest of the family can attend the games also.
This is really not about Alcohol. It's bigger than that. The issue of booze is really more symbolic of a bigger attitude held by UA. This is about the overall message sent by The University of Akron and it is not a good one. By allowing only patrons of luxury seating to drink booze in the stadium, UA is establishing itself as a bunch of elitist snobs. It really gives UA a distasteful image. In essence, UA students are being treated like second class citizens when in fact they should be regarded as UA's favored fans and customers. If the stadium belongs to anyone, it's University of Akron Students. Yet, the board of trustees are slapping them in the face and treating them like step children. No surprise though. This is exactly how UA regards student use of E.J. Thomas Hall…one token student concert per semester and some hot dog and pizza parties out on the PAH patio.
I'm terrribly dissapointed in my alma mater and will think twice before I make any further financial contributions to the school.
Agree wholeheartedly. The message here is wealthy people can handle alcohol but the average Joe is not as worthy a human being. What a disgraceful elitist attitude. And anyone will tell you, the rich folks get just as drunk and drive around wasted. They just can afford to pay off the system to get the charges reduced. Go to he!! BOT.
My guess is that UA was going to ban it all together but someone from the "in crowd" objected so as usual, UA buckles to Akron's snobs.
a little "ZIPPY LUBE" might rev up the crowd a little bit
i believe it should be "ZIPPY LUBE" for everyone or none for all
What type of elitist attitude is this?? Why don't they take alocohol sales away from everyone and watch those in the luxury boxes complain. So much for fair and balanced at the new stadium. Also, as Razor mentions, UA can use the additional money!
What I find amusing is the fact that only people with money can buy beer. Club and suite level only? Ouch! The (normal) guy gets it again. By the way………Go Kent!!!
I checked out OSU and Toledo…
They both have the same "elitist" set up that we do.
I don't know that they ever got their collective panties in as big of a bunch as we are.
What kind of communists are you people? "Beer is for everyone, regardless of what they contributed" is about as bad as it gets. The people who will buy beer at the stadium will have earned the privilege of doing so. Want to buy beer at the stadium? Well get off your @$$ and get a-working to earn enough money that you can afford it. That's what America is all about, earning what you deserve and not relying on somebody else to hand you things.
/This troll brought to you by the council for internet viewpoint balancing
/There was never this big of a deal when the same exact policy was adopted at the JAR and the Tommy Evans lounge.
The University of Akron today, Oral Roberts University tomorrow.
Wasn't Proenza one of the presidents that supported lowering the drinking age? Looks like he and his trustees are on very different pages.
Not more than a month ago we heard that Summit County has financial difficulties..right? Well banning the sale of alcohol would in turn be a revenue they are passing up on. Drunk, disorderly, and basically out of control adds up to court cost, jail fees and income for the county. Maybe they need to revaluate just how strapped for funds the county REALLY is! Seems to me they could use all the help they can get. Though I don't drink, others do and it is a proven fact they spend more money if they can buy a Coney and a Beer.
So I can take my kids to Disney or Chuckee Cheese and have a Bud Light but I cannot have a beer at a football game at Akron U? Wonder if Proenza is tossing back Dos Equis and Patron at a game? This type of little thinking is why that stadium is going to be empty. The Enquirer should do a sunshine records request to see how man tickets are sold and how many are given away this season. That number will amaze you and raise the question of why was this stadium and massive public expense needed in this economy.
WOW… typical Akron backwards thinking!!
It's interesting to note that I now live in Minneapolis and at the University of Minnesota they're currently working on possibly banning alcohol at the new Gopher Stadium as well. Of further note is the fact that they tried doing the same thing that Akron is doing right now by allowing beer sales in the more premium seating. WELL… state legislature stepped in and said that that would be illegal and that everyone should have access to the alcohol regardless of what they pay for their ticket. So they basically said that you either serve it to everyone or to no one. So now they're reconvening and voting on it again by the end of the month. But it looks like they'll ban it entirely according to rumors.
That is a great idea for the National Enquirer, investigate. They can call it BUDGATE.
Another thing… This decision will INCREASE local business revenue because people will be spending more time having drinks at the OBC or Buffalo Wild wings or wherever before and after the game. It's a positive for the local economy.
James Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
You can kiss my purchase of season tickets good-bye! I'll travel down the road to Kent State for my college football and a few first half brews. UA, you get Zip from me! This is the most asinine story I've read all year: Build a multi-million dollar stadium and not allow beer sales to legal adults. Maybe someone should vote to remove the Board of Trustees….hum, I wonder how much say religious right-wing Infocision had in this decision.
Akron U, you can do better.
On another subject: Akron turns on its first public WI FI service along S. Main St–way to go!
James….I doubt that you have ever been to a game, so UA will not miss any revenue. If you think this is a "right winged" conspiracy….you are delusional.
Mike,
I think you made a mistake with this post…and I am disappointed. It seems that you have just lobbed grenade into a room to watch all the hell that breaks loose. I can understand your feelings on this issue BUT…you are a quasi journalist and more is expected. Especially from you…you have greater abilities and more IS expected. I have been to games around the country and I have yet to be able to buy a beer at a college game…at least in the stadium. I think you need to provide statistics on how AU’s policy compared to the average, Ohio colleges and the MAC. Also, you are a lawyer and have better information regarding rented rooms/facilities. I know I can’t have open alcohol in public places at any of the hotels I have stayed but can in the room I rent. What rules apply at a stadium regarding private rented rooms and is there any issue with regard to the existing contracts for that room/facility was contracted for??
You have opened up this forum to morons who want to blame Bush and make this a social equality issue. AU attendance SUCKED before. They only question is the impact this may have on increasing attendance. Time will tell.
Respectfully,
Doug Snyder
Doug,
This isn't about liberal vs conservative or anything like that. This is just a poor decision and people have every right to be ticked. I personally don't care if most schools don't allow beer sales. Some do, and that's enough to convince me it can work with the proper precautions. I'm not sure what you're getting at with the hotel comparison.
Mike,
The hotel comparison is about what people can to in privately rented rooms. My guess is that the luxury boxes were sold with the idea that people could buy and consume alcohol. I think the school would have some contractual problems should they try to limit alcohol after they sold the boxes. But…..I am sure you have more qualified that I to answer that question.
I agree with you….this issue has NOTHING to do with Liberal or Conservatism politics. But some are making that case.
Personally…I am not sure about alcohol sales at the stadium. I know I won’t take my family to a Raiders game and only sit in selective sections in most NFL stadiums. If I were King for a day….I would have taken into consideration what other schools were doing and what, if any, problems occur because of alcohol. There are many people who want to bring a family to a game and not worry about having beer spilled on their 6 year old daughter/son. With that in mind, and depending on what I learned from other schools, I probably would have made an “adult” section were beer could be sold. Say….one side of the stadium. And the big reason for that is….I want to encourage fan support and increase attendance.
If you don’t like they rule, you can vote with your wallet or voice your objections as you have, Given that you are running this blog, I would expect you to provide some comparison data so that the debate would be more rational than emotional.
You know that I like you and your blog…but I think you are wrong this time. Not in your opinion….but in how you started the debate.
Respectfully,
Doug Snyder
Doug,
Good point about the contracts with luxury box owners. My hunch is that there are no legal reasons that box owners must have alcohol because Judge Bond voted to keep them out, as well.
I started the debate with a little personal outrage because that's how I feel. It would be a sad day for journalism if writers no longer expressed how strongly they felt about a particular issue, rather than just giving data and blandly stating which side they fall on.
Also respectfully,
Mike
I am coming at this from a different perspective than most of you. When I am able to attend the games I am usually with my children so I have no problem with at least limited alcohol availabilty on the stadium. the last thing i want is having my kids grow up and having sports and alcohol linked in their minds any more than it has to be.
Plus, I think one the posters hit the nail on the head above. I am sure the University realizes that alcohol sales would be a big financial boost but they are also hoping for a large student contingent of fans each game. That was one of the reasons cited for an on-campus stadium in the first place. A large percentage of college students are not of legal drinking age. Therefore, I would have to believe this is more about the university covering its own backside on liability issues and not about an elitist attitude or an image they are trying to create or maintain.
As far as allowing sales in the loges and whatnot, aren't nearly all of the people in those seats going to be over 21? I mean that is the only rationale I can see for the "they can but the rest can't" seperation.
Are you freakin' serious? I can't go to my alma mater's inaugural game in it's new stadium and have a beer with my father yet, some rich, elitist prick can chug down as many as he can? Is Jane Bond out of her mind? Hello……….can we all say discrimination? Or maybe Jane is padding her own pockets in preparation for retirement. What a crock! Hey Jane……..wake up, Lady! Please explain to me and every other Zip fan you just rear-ended and why it's ok for a guy with a lot of money to drink but not us, the majority of Akron fans? C'mon……..it's time for you to conjure up some bogus, politically correct EXCUSE for your blatant, arrogant stupidity!
Politicians……they all make me want to throw up. I swear…..Akron is a town where people try to recall the greatest Mayor they ever had yet they don't mind idiots like Jane Bond staying put. I wonder if Mendenhall is *greasing* Bonds palm. It sure sounds like it.
You idiots can try all you want to keep booze out of the new stadium. But I promise you won't keep ME from drinking at a football game. Not a chance! Morons.
Alcohol IS a luxury, G-Mann……….as long as you can afford expensive seats you can drink all you want. It's BS and you know it.
4EvrRowdy = 4EvrStupid
Alma mater?? Now I am REALLY disappointed in UA. The standards have really slipped.
From posters this decision is now:
1. Discrimination
2. Elitist snobs
3. Right wing conspiracy
4. Religious zealotry
Only a few posters ahave made a rational argument(like GJGood) for or against this issue. There are valid arguments for each side. And it is possible to accomodate each side…which I think UA will eventually do. But to demonize individuals is just wrong.
Here are some facts that Mike failed to metion:
in attendance will be DRIVING home. UA could has some liability.
1. UA is a COMMUTER school and many of the 30.000 (high hopes
2. 80% of the students are below drinking age.
3. Added costs for increased property damage, insurance and security will eat into any profits from the sale of alcohol.
Let's have a rational debate and maybe there is some way to accommodate everyone….families, students, beer drinking adults, non beer drinking adults, teachers, administration and anyone else. As Mike pointed out, there will be another vote next year. Emotional wailing and demonizing those who made this decision is not helpful and will accomplish nothing.
A private parking lot where people could tail-gate would go a long way to help the problem. Hopefully that can be accomplished in the future as well.
Hey Doug, what percent of fans are students at Akron games?
Why mention commuters if 80% are below drinking age and can't drink?
Where do you come up with your "added cost for increased property damage"?
If you want a rational debate, maybe you should start one.
80% of UA students are under the drinking age? If UA has 23,000 students, 18,400 are 20-and-under? 18,400!? There are only 4,600 combined grad students + older adults + Juniors/Seniors? No way.
Look up the stats: In 2008 there were 4,300 grad and professional students alone! Add in Juniors & Seniors…and Sophs in their 3rd year…80% doesn't add up.
How many sections of the stadium are dedicated to students? Two? What percentage of an average game day crowd will be students…8%? 10%? Is it that difficult to deny service to a kid with a painted face?
Let's say, for the sake of argument, the 80% number is valid. It is the same 80% that were at the Rubber Bowl the past 5 years that beer was sold. The same 80% that were commuters. And there were no problems with students obtaining alcohol illegally? Now it is different? I don't believe it.
Kent can do it, but Akron can't? Cincinnati can do it, but Akron can't? Why do these schools not have property damage, security and insurance problems? How can they figure it out, but UA can't? $6.00 16oz. beers pay for all of that, with plenty to spare. Herd folks into a "ZipsFest" controlled area and rake in the money.
A tail gate lot will solve the problem? Not unless it is located inside the stadium. I hope no UA decision-maker is thinking that way.
And there better be multiple tailgate lots available to the public. One would be insane.
Emotional wailing? Demonizing? It seems like the anti-beer crew is just as guilty as the pro-beer crew.
Mike wrote: "I started the debate with a little personal outrage because that's how I feel. It would be a sad day for journalism if writers no longer expressed how strongly they felt about a particular issue, rather than just giving data and blandly stating which side they fall on."
Best statement I've ever seen on this blog. Thank God there are venues like this site and ZipsNation where people can hold UA officials accountable. Where fans have a forum to be passionate, and not just sheep.
http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/StatsSummaries/snapshot.aspx
https://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg06_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=297
The drinkig age in Ohio is 21… not 20. It is obvious you want to bend the facts to support your argument.
There are no easily available statistics that show how many students are below the age of 21. But…the total average age is 23 including 4000+ grad students. Logic says that at least 75% of all of the 19,000 must be under the age of 21. But….as we no, there is significant drop out rate each year so there is a higher % of Freshman than Sophomores….more sophomores that Junior and more Juniors than Seniors. That is where the estimate of 80% Ii you say that 10% of the student population is Seniors (assuming >40% dropout rate in first year), then the math looks like this:
18.974 * 10% = 1,897 + 4,033 (all grads assumed over 21) then the total over 21 is 5,930. That is 5,930/23,007 = 25.77% over the drinking age. You are right and I was wrong…..it is probably 75%. The argument does not change.
If you do not believe there will be more policemen and security associated with beers sales, then having a discussion with you is moot. If you do not believe there will be added insurance costs associated with beer sales…you are a fool and probably graduated with a liberal arts degree.
I have not seen anyone demonized from the “anti beer” crowd. For that matter…I have not seen that many who are anti beer. There are rational reasons why MANY colleges do not sell alcohol. To label the decision makes as “right wing”, or “elitist” marginalizes their concerns and arguments. People can hold different views….this is the USA…it OK.
Lastly,,,,please do not use prior attendance statistics as a guide. Attendance SUCKED and thst is the reason for the new stadium. To get NEW statistics AND to garner student enthusiasm.
"The drinkig age in Ohio is 21… not 20. It is obvious you want to bend the facts to support your argument."
* "Bending facts" is a strong accusation. I suggest you re-read my post. I don't play that game.
* I don't buy math based upon "probably's" and "guesstimations."
* I don't buy into the biased web links from whatever group wants to promote it's agenda. I buy the more tangible fact that Kent, Akron and Cincinnati have offered beer at football games, for several years, in designated areas with no problems.
* Attendance "sucked?" I don't buy that generalization. I think 10,000+ fans per game is a statistically relevant sample (turnstile #'s are higher, and individual game attendance was higher, but we'll roll with 10k). Especially considering it samples the very fans subjected to the original question. Those 10,000+ fans per game had no problems with the ZipsFest area. No underage drinking issues arose.
* Calling some guy 4EVRStupid puts you at the same level as those you are negatively referencing.
* To allow beer sales in the upper echelon, and not below, under the guise of preventing underage drinking, is a sham. It will have zero affect on the alcohol consumption of any student 20 OR UNDER. 20 OR UNDER. It will only cost the University some cash.
They'll reverse the decision the minute attendance declines anyhow. So it is all a moot point.
Respectfully -
Schneider's Tool Belt
Making up false statistics (80% of UA students are under age), claiming to know UA's motives on this issue and accusing people of demonizing others just because Doug doesn't agree with their opinion is what is stupid on this site
@ Doug Snyder
"UA is a COMMUTER school and many of the 30.000 (high hopes
in attendance will be DRIVING home. UA could has some liability."
False. Somewhat.
Is UA a commuter school? Yes, but not in the same way that Cleveland State and YSU are. UA has over 10,000 kids who live either in dorms or in an apartment/house in the University Park area.
Trust me, as a student who goes to all the games, I will tell you that a very small number of the kids who traveled to all the football games at the rubber bowl are actually commuters. On campus residents make up most of the Rowdies. Always have and always will. Most of the commuters are a bunch of OSU fans like their daddy.
Not to sound like a total jerk, but I can't wait for UA to add the extra housing. It sucks going to class with kids who don't even know what the AK rowdies are. The sad truth is that commuters add precious little to campus life. If there is one goal I hope the university achieves, it's their goals to raise the number of on campus students.
*note: when I mention commuters, I mean those that travel from home, not the ones who live across the street from campus.
I'll attempt to close this thread with a quote from my neighbor Homer –
"Alcohol — The source of, and solution to, all of life's problems."
I wonder what kind of "liability problems" UA has from allowing liquor sales in its campus performing arts hall? That's been going on for a good 20 years. haven't heard any problems there. Hmmmmmmm! I think someone is contriving an issue where there is none.
http://criminal.lawyers.com/DUI-DWI/DUI-DWI-and-Property-Damage.html