(06-01-2019 11:31 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-31-2019 04:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-31-2019 04:35 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I’m very disappointed to see The SEC give in to pressure. Is nothing sacred....

Yep, just one more reason I'll be enjoying my HD big screen after over 40 years of buying season tickets. The piped in music destroyed talking to your friends that you had sat with for decades. The signage was 90% corporate. The drunks outside tailgating were obnoxious enough (ours and theirs). And when they quit letting me bring in my own stadium cushion so they could extort another $5 out of me that was pretty much it.

BTW: Beer sales at L.S.U. will not curb binge drinking, it will extend it by 3 and half hours provided there's no overtime.

And CJ, all of the AD's want to see more young families at the game so that traditions are set for the young. I bet this goes over like a lead balloon with the young families. Everyone always enjoys explaining bad language to their kids and trying to distract them when a drunk does something disgusting.

We have some friends who have occasionally given us their 50 yard line seats when they couldn't use them. My son doesn't like to sit there because of the language from a normally drunk couple of guys who sit right there.

The loudness of the music makes it really tough to talk. Just a dumb idea. If they want to get people more involved, reduce the TV timeouts. SEC Network games are the absolute worst.

Get 70k-80k fans together and there’s going to be idiots

I didn't grow up in a time or place where tailgating at football games was widespread. New York was, and is, a pro town. When the Giants played in the Polo Grounds, and later at Yankee Stadium, there just weren't many places where it was even possible. That's not to say that all the fans arrived at the stadium completely sober. But for the most part, they bought their beer at the ballpark (before prices got so outrageous).

When I moved to North Carolina, I found a mixed bag. At Carolina games, there weren't that many parking areas where tailgating was comfortable. Very few empty seats ever caused a scene in front of small children because of alcohol, and empty seats weren't all that uncommon. It was a different story at NC State games. Located by the State Fairgrounds there was a lot of space to tailgate. So much so that fans went back to the parking lot at halftime to continue their party - sometimes well into the third quarter.

I doubt $8 beers would change any of that if the ACC were to follow suit (and the PTB at Carolina and State approved). In my experience, people who want to make getting buzzed a part of their gameday experience will find a way to do it no matter what the rules are. I doubt the SEC's new policy will make a big difference for those fans.

If the schools actually wanted to decrease drinking, they would police the parking lots where they allow alumni and friends to get tanked before & after the game. I think its crazy that the schools don't sell alcohol but allow it to be abused on school property.

(06-01-2019 06:37 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  If the schools actually wanted to decrease drinking, they would police the parking lots where they allow alumni and friends to get tanked before & after the game. I think its crazy that the schools don't sell alcohol but allow it to be abused on school property.

If they stopped tailgating, attendance would go down considerably. That’s half of the appeal

I suspect the pressure for this move came from the B1G's announcement of dispersing 50 million dollars per school -the sec schools suddenly feel like they're falling behind in money.

(06-02-2019 04:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I suspect the pressure for this move came from the B1G's announcement of dispersing 50 million dollars per school -the sec schools suddenly feel like they're falling behind in money.

I've a good mind to neg rep you for this troll, and I've never given a neg rep to anyone. We still out earned them by 6 million per school in total revenue and booze sales have nothing to do with the Big 10. The SEC won't lose any sleep over what the Big 10 does or doesn't do. The only competition between us of note right now might be for the acquisition of Texas or Oklahoma. The SEC will pass them in media revenue easily enough with the new T1 deal and everyone in our leadership knows it.

Ridiculous!

I agree. This more about actually doing something for fans

There is simply not enough money in alcohol sales alone. In 2012 UofL said they made less than $500,000 from alcohol sales at basketball games and just over $785,000 from those at football games.

The money is simply not worth it. I wish we didn’t have alcohol sales at athletic events at UofL.

While Louisville fans are used to it, visiting fans are not. I can’t tell you the number of visitors to UofL football games I have seen staggering after a game the last 35 years.

The little money made from alcohol sales isn’t worth the change to your game day experience.

(06-03-2019 07:53 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  There is simply not enough money in alcohol sales alone. In 2012 UofL said they made less than $500,000 from alcohol sales at basketball games and just over $785,000 from those at football games.

The money is simply not worth it. I wish we didn’t have alcohol sales at athletic events at UofL.

While Louisville fans are used to it, visiting fans are not. I can’t tell you the number of visitors to UofL football games I have seen staggering after a game the last 35 years.

The little money made from alcohol sales isn’t worth the change to your game day experience.

How long has alcohol been allowed there?

For me, it's hard to see a real downside. Been to a ton of neutral site/bowl/NFL games over the years and honestly have not noticed any significant difference. To be honest, the drunkest/most obnoxious crowds I've ever been in have been South Carolina home games.

(06-02-2019 04:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 04:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I suspect the pressure for this move came from the B1G's announcement of dispersing 50 million dollars per school -the sec schools suddenly feel like they're falling behind in money.

I've a good mind to neg rep you for this troll, and I've never given a neg rep to anyone. We still out earned them by 6 million per school in total revenue and booze sales have nothing to do with the Big 10. The SEC won't lose any sleep over what the Big 10 does or doesn't do. The only competition between us of note right now might be for the acquisition of Texas or Oklahoma. The SEC will pass them in media revenue easily enough with the new T1 deal and everyone in our leadership knows it.

Ridiculous!

I am serious. This announcement comes pretty soon on the heels of the B1G's announcement of conference revenue that is way bigger than the SEC, and this is a change in *SEC* policy, something the conference can act on.

And you keep trotting out that tired "SEC earned $6m more per school" number when I already explained how that is not the most relevant number to school administrators. The conference disbursement number is, because that's the value of being a member of a conference.

That's why e.g. a few years ago the ACC had to mollify FSU and Clemson about ACC money compared to the B1G/SEC/Big 12 even though those schools were, when you added up the conference money and the money they generated locally, making more money than the average SEC/B1G/Big 12 school.

Because that's not what mattered to them, what mattered was what the conference paid out. They figured "our local money is portable, e.g., we will average 80,000 fans whether we are in the ACC or Big 12, but we will get $10m more in media money in the latter, so let's try to move". That's why the ACC moved quickly to get a GOR and set up the ACCN.

I don't know whether the SEC made this change in response to B1G money or not, but it seems plausible to me that they did, so i threw it out there. That's what this forum is for, discussing that kind of stuff.

(06-03-2019 07:53 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The little money made from alcohol sales isn’t worth the change to your game day experience.

Well, the good news is that the new SEC rule is not mandatory. Schools are still free to ban alcohol in their stadiums and arenas if that's the culture they want to maintain, e.g., Alabama has already said they are keeping their old ban.

And, schools have different gameday experiences. E.g., I have been going to LSU games for 24 years now, and the historical gameday experience is MASSIVE amounts of friendly drinking outside the stadium during pre-game tailgating **. So even with no alcohol sales in the stadium, thousands of people would enter the stadium very much inebriated. The tailgating at LSU is legendary and something the fans love, so they have never minded that.

So it's not just the in-stadium policy that matters, but also the culture of tailgating, etc.

** I say "friendly" because despite the drinking, I have never seen a fight, brawl, etc.

(06-03-2019 08:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 04:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 04:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I suspect the pressure for this move came from the B1G's announcement of dispersing 50 million dollars per school -the sec schools suddenly feel like they're falling behind in money.

I've a good mind to neg rep you for this troll, and I've never given a neg rep to anyone. We still out earned them by 6 million per school in total revenue and booze sales have nothing to do with the Big 10. The SEC won't lose any sleep over what the Big 10 does or doesn't do. The only competition between us of note right now might be for the acquisition of Texas or Oklahoma. The SEC will pass them in media revenue easily enough with the new T1 deal and everyone in our leadership knows it.

Ridiculous!

I am serious. This announcement comes pretty soon on the heels of the B1G's announcement of conference revenue that is way bigger than the SEC, and this is a change in *SEC* policy, something the conference can act on.

That is only in your mind. The SEC has debated alcohol sales at the last 3 Spring meetings. Each year it has gained some traction. And Auburn is keeping its ban in effect as well.

And you keep trotting out that tired "SEC earned $6m more per school" number when I already explained how that is not the most relevant number to school administrators. The conference disbursement number is, because that's the value of being a member of a conference.

It's not tired it's a fact of life and what's more Quo the cost of tickets is higher in the SEC, the travel crowds are larger, and the venues are larger, and all of that contributes to the Gross Total Revenue along with donations for tickets, so those things you claim a school would have anyway, are very much tied into the conference.

BTW: Clemson does not earn the SEC average, and aren't really even that close to earning it. F.S.U. most years does.

That's why e.g. a few years ago the ACC had to mollify FSU and Clemson about ACC money compared to the B1G/SEC/Big 12 even though those schools were, when you added up the conference money and the money they generated locally, making more money than the average SEC/B1G/Big 12 school.

Because that's not what mattered to them, what mattered was what the conference paid out. They figured "our local money is portable, e.g., we will average 80,000 fans whether we are in the ACC or Big 12, but we will get $10m more in media money in the latter, so let's try to move". That's why the ACC moved quickly to get a GOR and set up the ACCN.

I don't know whether the SEC made this change in response to B1G money or not, but it seems plausible to me that they did, so i threw it out there. That's what this forum is for, discussing that kind of stuff.

I pin the essential numbers at the top of the SEC forum every year. The numbers tell the story. There are many claims (wildly wrong and accurate) that are made on this forum daily. Those numbers separate fiction from reality. When you use the claim about Clemson's revenue you should check them out.

And for the record it was in 2011 that ESPN ran a crawler announcing Clemson and Florida State to the SEC before it was retracted 3 days later. They were talking Big 12 in 2011, but they were thinking SEC as what would then have been a move to 16. And it was in the wake of failed deal that would have taken the SEC to 16 with two other schools. But you are correct in that it was revenue that was part of the motivation to look around, but you would be partially correct. They also wanted schools that traveled well for football to help with their venues and associations that would make it easier for them to command higher donation and ticket prices.

(05-31-2019 03:48 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(05-31-2019 03:04 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  "I see no downside to selling beer at LSU home games" said no one ever.


(but seriously, this is probably NOT what will bring about the end of the world)

If anything it’ll curb some of the binge drinking

No kidding. We used to pre-game in the frat house 30 minutes before the game.

(06-03-2019 12:16 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(05-31-2019 03:48 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(05-31-2019 03:04 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  "I see no downside to selling beer at LSU home games" said no one ever.


(but seriously, this is probably NOT what will bring about the end of the world)

If anything it’ll curb some of the binge drinking

No kidding. We used to pre-game in the frat house 30 minutes before the game.

We park roughly 1/2 a mile or so away from the stadium. Whenever we're ready to head over, I always pound a beer and then take one or two for the walk over haha

(06-03-2019 08:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 04:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 04:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I suspect the pressure for this move came from the B1G's announcement of dispersing 50 million dollars per school -the sec schools suddenly feel like they're falling behind in money.

I've a good mind to neg rep you for this troll, and I've never given a neg rep to anyone. We still out earned them by 6 million per school in total revenue and booze sales have nothing to do with the Big 10. The SEC won't lose any sleep over what the Big 10 does or doesn't do. The only competition between us of note right now might be for the acquisition of Texas or Oklahoma. The SEC will pass them in media revenue easily enough with the new T1 deal and everyone in our leadership knows it.

Ridiculous!

I am serious. This announcement comes pretty soon on the heels of the B1G's announcement of conference revenue that is way bigger than the SEC, and this is a change in *SEC* policy, something the conference can act on.

And you keep trotting out that tired "SEC earned $6m more per school" number when I already explained how that is not the most relevant number to school administrators. The conference disbursement number is, because that's the value of being a member of a conference.

That's why e.g. a few years ago the ACC had to mollify FSU and Clemson about ACC money compared to the B1G/SEC/Big 12 even though those schools were, when you added up the conference money and the money they generated locally, making more money than the average SEC/B1G/Big 12 school.

Because that's not what mattered to them, what mattered was what the conference paid out. They figured "our local money is portable, e.g., we will average 80,000 fans whether we are in the ACC or Big 12, but we will get $10m more in media money in the latter, so let's try to move". That's why the ACC moved quickly to get a GOR and set up the ACCN.

I don't know whether the SEC made this change in response to B1G money or not, but it seems plausible to me that they did, so i threw it out there. That's what this forum is for, discussing that kind of stuff.

As usual an absolutely ridiculous take from you.

Alcohol sales have been discussed by the SEC for several years now.

(06-03-2019 12:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  As usual an absolutely ridiculous take from you.

Alcohol sales have been discussed by the SEC for several years now.

Do you think Clemson would ever re-evaluate selling alcohol? I have always said SC and Clemson will be the last two schools to do so.

(06-03-2019 01:12 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 12:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  As usual an absolutely ridiculous take from you.

Alcohol sales have been discussed by the SEC for several years now.

Do you think Clemson would ever re-evaluate selling alcohol? I have always said SC and Clemson will be the last two schools to do so.

It's hard to say. A decade ago I would have said no, but now I'm not so sure.

Honestly I think it would help because as you mentioned it would cut down on the binge drinking just before going into the stadium.

(06-03-2019 01:12 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 12:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  As usual an absolutely ridiculous take from you.

Alcohol sales have been discussed by the SEC for several years now.

Do you think Clemson would ever re-evaluate selling alcohol? I have always said SC and Clemson will be the last two schools to do so.

No. Not with BYU still in existence.

(06-03-2019 12:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 08:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 04:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 04:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I suspect the pressure for this move came from the B1G's announcement of dispersing 50 million dollars per school -the sec schools suddenly feel like they're falling behind in money.

I've a good mind to neg rep you for this troll, and I've never given a neg rep to anyone. We still out earned them by 6 million per school in total revenue and booze sales have nothing to do with the Big 10. The SEC won't lose any sleep over what the Big 10 does or doesn't do. The only competition between us of note right now might be for the acquisition of Texas or Oklahoma. The SEC will pass them in media revenue easily enough with the new T1 deal and everyone in our leadership knows it.

Ridiculous!

I am serious. This announcement comes pretty soon on the heels of the B1G's announcement of conference revenue that is way bigger than the SEC, and this is a change in *SEC* policy, something the conference can act on.

And you keep trotting out that tired "SEC earned $6m more per school" number when I already explained how that is not the most relevant number to school administrators. The conference disbursement number is, because that's the value of being a member of a conference.

That's why e.g. a few years ago the ACC had to mollify FSU and Clemson about ACC money compared to the B1G/SEC/Big 12 even though those schools were, when you added up the conference money and the money they generated locally, making more money than the average SEC/B1G/Big 12 school.

Because that's not what mattered to them, what mattered was what the conference paid out. They figured "our local money is portable, e.g., we will average 80,000 fans whether we are in the ACC or Big 12, but we will get $10m more in media money in the latter, so let's try to move". That's why the ACC moved quickly to get a GOR and set up the ACCN.

I don't know whether the SEC made this change in response to B1G money or not, but it seems plausible to me that they did, so i threw it out there. That's what this forum is for, discussing that kind of stuff.

As usual an absolutely ridiculous take from you.

Alcohol sales have been discussed by the SEC for several years now.

But ... they didn't act on that until NOW.

Your insertion here was dumb even by your poor standards.

(06-03-2019 03:12 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 01:12 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 12:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  As usual an absolutely ridiculous take from you.

Alcohol sales have been discussed by the SEC for several years now.

Do you think Clemson would ever re-evaluate selling alcohol? I have always said SC and Clemson will be the last two schools to do so.

No. Not with BYU still in existence.

True, I forgot about them. Probably Liberty too. Would ND I wonder?