"Alcohol — The source of, and solution to, all of life's problems."

"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.

* "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

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.

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.

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:
1. UA is a COMMUTER school and many of the 30.000 (high hopes in attendance will be DRIVING home. UA could has some liability.
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.