Interesting... Goes against many arguments on Rupp Rafters for not selling alcohol at games and that it would ruin the experience for fans
Indiana AD says selling alcohol at FB games reduced alcohol incidents in and around the stadium
- Thread starter WitnessGreatness
- Start date
Cause and effect not proven. Just because Y follows X does not show X caused Y.
Just because you allow liquor sales ... doesnt mean liquor related incidents will rise ......
I mean you can stick your head in your sand and try to ignore all positive news about selling alcohol. Indiana is not the only school to say this after they started selling alcohol. Is your saying still right?
You kind of killed your own argument because what's the difference between what I said and saying selling alcohol will increase incidents
When you take away binge drinking in the parking lot before the game by allowing people to spread their drinking out during the game, then you likely reduce alcohol related issues. It's not rocket science. I don't know why Mitch can't figure that out. Plus it would bring in millions of dollars in revenue a year that he could put toward his sports that lose money. I don't drink by the way.
The pro-booze lobby was saying this for a while. Same was reported by OSU and Maryland prior to the season. There’s plenty of evidence that selling beer will help with alcohol-related incidents, but evidence doesn’t convince those wedded to the status quo because they fear change.
Last edited:
I’d rather smuggle in a pint of hooch than pay $10 for a beer. and i like beer it makes me a jolly good fellow.
That's true but people won't magically stop drinking in the parking lot now just because they can drink inside. They'll just do both.
That said it's stupid to not sell alcohol.
If someone is there to drink and cause trouble, they'll do it no matter inside or out.
Great idea, let’s model our athletic program after indiana’s.
Personally, I don't care one way or the other. As for revenue, If money was made, it probably wouldn't be set aside solely as additional revenue for Football and I'm not concerned about any other UK programs or sports. So the money thing is moot from that position.
As a person that has enjoyed the experience of having been sued, I think in terms of limiting exposure. If I'm an ambulance chasing attorney, the first time someone who is impaired by alcohol sold at a UK game gets into an accident/someone gets hurt due wholly or in part to intoxication that can be attributed to their alcohol use via purchasing alcohol sold by UK / perhaps they hurt someone in a traffic accident, etc.... I'm steering my client toward UK's deep pockets. Does MB or UK want that exposure?
As for reducing the amount of liquor brought into games, I guarantee the bourbon drinking guys that sit next to me won't forego their bourbon for an $8-$12 beer.
Just my views. Adding beer sales won't impact whether or not I attend games.
As a person that has enjoyed the experience of having been sued, I think in terms of limiting exposure. If I'm an ambulance chasing attorney, the first time someone who is impaired by alcohol sold at a UK game gets into an accident/someone gets hurt due wholly or in part to intoxication that can be attributed to their alcohol use via purchasing alcohol sold by UK / perhaps they hurt someone in a traffic accident, etc.... I'm steering my client toward UK's deep pockets. Does MB or UK want that exposure?
As for reducing the amount of liquor brought into games, I guarantee the bourbon drinking guys that sit next to me won't forego their bourbon for an $8-$12 beer.
Just my views. Adding beer sales won't impact whether or not I attend games.
If your theory is right, how are professional athletics teams not sued out of existence?
Yep. Same argument the people use in dry counties against them going wet. "Going to be more DUIs" even though statistics say otherwise.
It would definitely cut down on some of the binge drinking.
UK would be up for a lawsuit now for turning a blind eye to obvious drinking out in the parking lots if fear of a lawsuit was keeping them from doing it. The only reason that alcohol is not sold now is for "feel" good reasons. It's good PR to cater to a certain segment of the population. Much like a state politician being anti-abortion even though they know that federal law would never let them stop it. People really buy into some stuff and it makes the people making the decision feel as though they are on a higher moral ground than others.
Not saying it is right, just the way I'd see it. For example:If my client or a child was hurt by of a person under the influence of alcohol that was served by UK, I'd go after the driver, UK, the server, etc....
Like I said, when you see your name as defendant on law suits, it affects the way you look at things.
UK may have exposure. Just because it has not happened does not mean it won't. Like I said, I don't care whether they do it or not. They just need to consider the positives vs the negatives. Apparently they have. You know it's been discussed.
People who are going to be stupid drunk are already stupid drunk. They're getting sloshed in the parking lot and sneaking shit in.
Inside the stadium is an environment that can be easily controlled.
Set up beer concessions at only a couple of specific locations that can be easily monitored by police and security. People who already look wrecked can be turned away.
Stop alcohol sells at the end of half time and give people 2 quarters (about an hour and a half of real-time) to sober up.
I don't have a dog in the race, not a drinker...
However, It's hard to sell an alcohol-free and safety argument in a stadium in which there is a Woodford Reserve lounge.
The masses can't drink piss watered-down lite beer, but some folks can drink 80 and 90+ proof liquor?
Unless somebody irresponsibly sells alcohol to minors or in excess to somebody who is clearly sloshed, the University is protected like most places of business that sell alcohol.
If "they sold alcohol" was an argument that held up in court often, nobody would sell alcohol. Kroger, Sam's, Costco, Restaurants, Bars, Liquor Stores, etc...I think it's a pretty well-established precedent that more often than not the responsibility of any alcohol-related issues relies on the individual with the exception of gross negligence on the part of places of business that sell.
The university has teams of lawyers, a law school, plenty of smart people, and deep pocket boosters who can donate to politicians to come up with legislation to protect the University...
Also, the economic boon is too much to ignore and will eventually have to prevail at a place such as a University and Athletic Department that always seem to need more money and donations...
Inside the stadium is an environment that can be easily controlled.
Set up beer concessions at only a couple of specific locations that can be easily monitored by police and security. People who already look wrecked can be turned away.
Stop alcohol sells at the end of half time and give people 2 quarters (about an hour and a half of real-time) to sober up.
I don't have a dog in the race, not a drinker...
However, It's hard to sell an alcohol-free and safety argument in a stadium in which there is a Woodford Reserve lounge.
The masses can't drink piss watered-down lite beer, but some folks can drink 80 and 90+ proof liquor?
Unless somebody irresponsibly sells alcohol to minors or in excess to somebody who is clearly sloshed, the University is protected like most places of business that sell alcohol.
If "they sold alcohol" was an argument that held up in court often, nobody would sell alcohol. Kroger, Sam's, Costco, Restaurants, Bars, Liquor Stores, etc...I think it's a pretty well-established precedent that more often than not the responsibility of any alcohol-related issues relies on the individual with the exception of gross negligence on the part of places of business that sell.
The university has teams of lawyers, a law school, plenty of smart people, and deep pocket boosters who can donate to politicians to come up with legislation to protect the University...
Also, the economic boon is too much to ignore and will eventually have to prevail at a place such as a University and Athletic Department that always seem to need more money and donations...
I don't know. The guy goes to court today.
Have you ever been sued? My experience with it was a 5 year suit. Even though my colleague and I were in the right, we had the stress of dealing with it. We had attorneys talking about "settling" even though we were in the right. Ultimately, the issue went to the state supreme court where we were finally vindicated.
Point being, I learned the importance of considering risk and limiting exposure.
Last edited:
I'm not a fan of drinking beer. I drank my share when I was in college - it was a peer pressure thing I guess. However, I also remember taking a pony keg inside of stoll field for my fraternity brothers to enjoy- yes a keg! Another fraternity brother brought in the tap. We put a hat on it when we weren't drawing from it. It was a great fun filled day and evening! My point is this- people who want to drink at the football games - will find a way. Wouldn't it be better if UK made income from those who wish to pay $8 for a beer - than have them rush to finish their six packs, cases, etc. before staggering into the game from the parking lot? My only caveat is if you let people buy beer - don't be afraid to take the drunks out of the stadium! Encourage and enforce being good fans - and not jerks!
Go Big Blue!
Not trying to be a smartass but having been sued doesn't make you a lawyer.
Suing the University of Kentucky is no small task.
Read truebluewildcats post above as he touches on all the reasons this would be an improbability.
So 400 K is millions of dollars...I would like to see that figure on a piece of paper because no way are they making 55k+ A game on beer sales.
Zero ADs are going to say anything differently. If they approved it then it is their ass that’s on the line. I’m not arguing for or against liquor sales...personally I would like to see them...but that said, any school that saw an increase in alcohol related incidents is going to bury that news. The net effect is you will only hear from the positive outcomes.
The other issue is with risk/liability. There may well be a net decrease in alcohol related incidents but by becoming a seller you assume the risk and liability for being at fault if anything does happen.
I paid 10 at the MCB for a 16oz goose island. Doubt they paid 2.
Domestic non craft was going for 9 and I'm sure they can buy Miller and Bud Light 16oz for less than $1 a can.
The Titans draw about 65K at Nissan have no idea what a crowd that size would generally purchase in units.
Domestic non craft was going for 9 and I'm sure they can buy Miller and Bud Light 16oz for less than $1 a can.
The Titans draw about 65K at Nissan have no idea what a crowd that size would generally purchase in units.
I would have to see statistics on alcohol related payouts by all pro sports venues before I will believe that the University is taking a big financial risk by having alcohol sales.
Guy tailgating next to us at the Tennessee game puked and passed out in his truck bed before the game. Walking through the parking lot I stepped over multiple piles of vomit. I have to think if you could buy beer in the game, people wouldn't go so hard in the parking lot.
How can the argument be that UK is worried about getting sued when tens of thousands of places sell the stuff every day? Alcohol revenue will be more than enough to pay the liability policy. They would more likely get sued for someone falling on the steps walking to their seats. Unless it could be proven that they intentionally served a person to extreme intoxication then the person probably won't win. Venues stop selling early just for that simple reason.
UK is already allowing alcohol to be consumed on their university property in the parking lot. Does that not already set them up for the risk and liability you fear may occur?? College and pro teams sell beer and are doing this with no issue. People are going harder in the parking lot and sneaking in liquor now. We already sell it in the private suites. This whole debate is really silly all things considered.
Selling or not selling beer at Kentucky games isn’t going to sway me one way or the other from attending games. With that said. Just do it already and be done with it. Stop selling after the 3rd qrt like at other venues. Like a lot have said it’s not going to stop the people that drink before and even during the game from having alcohol. So might as well make some money on it.
His church would probably not looked fondly at it - even though it's a no brainier for a forward thinking AD. He's going to eventually fold, lead the damn way.
I'm assuming it would be sold for all sports. You throw in 18 basketball games as well plus whatever is sold at the lesser sports.
Counterintuitive, to say the least. I suspect their AD wants to justify a rationale for selling a highly profitable concession that helps their bottom line. But IU fans are plenty crazy enough even when they are sober.
