Interesting... Goes against many arguments on Rupp Rafters for not selling alcohol at games and that it would ruin the experience for fans
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Cause and effect not proven. Just because Y follows X does not show X caused Y.Interesting... Goes against many arguments on Rupp Rafters for not selling alcohol at games and that it would ruin the experience for fans
Cause and effect not proven. Just because Y follows X does not show X caused Y.
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?Cause and effect not proven. Just because Y follows X does not show X caused Y.
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.
If your theory is right, how are professional athletics teams not sued out of existence?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?
Just because you allow liquor sales ... doesnt mean liquor related incidents will rise ......
It would definitely cut down on some of the binge drinking.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.
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.
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....If your theory is right, how are professional athletics teams not sued out of existence?
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.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.
Did the Shemwell family receive a settlement from UK?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.
I don't know. The guy goes to court today.Did the Shemwell family receive a settlement from UK?
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!Interesting... Goes against many arguments on Rupp Rafters for not selling alcohol at games and that it would ruin the experience for fans
Not trying to be a smartass but having been sued doesn't make you a lawyer.I don't know. Has the suit been resolved?
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.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.
What's the profit margin when selling for $8-10.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.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
They did at Vanderbilt the day we showed upSo 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.
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.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.
Goin hard is a lot cheaper in the parking lot.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.Interesting... Goes against many arguments on Rupp Rafters for not selling alcohol at games and that it would ruin the experience for fans