David Joles, AP
Trouble’s brewing, as universities seeking additional revenues are turning to public beer sales at college football stadiums. This year, 32 universities fielding Division I football teams will sell beer to the general public at their home games.
Consider the factors at hand:
- A good share of the college crowd includes many younger college students and their peers who often are below the legal drinking age.
- Games draw tens of thousands of spectators, meaning ultra-high volumes of traffic on the roads and in parking locations around the stadiums, with the flow of alcohol starting well before the actual game in tailgate gatherings.
- And a sense of both power in numbers and personal anonymity when in large groups — especially when combined with decision-making that is impaired by alcohol — could result in disorderly conduct at best and dangerous situations at worst.
But the buzz in the stands at college football stadiums seems to be the fans want a sustained buzz in the stands. Or maybe a revised cheer from one side of fans to another: “We’ve got spirits, yes, we do! We’ve got spirits. How ’bout you?”
The NCAA doesn’t sell alcohol at its championship events, including the daddy-of-all men’s basketball tournaments. But it doesn't regulate alcohol sales, nor do nearly all of the collegiate conferences, leaving the decision up to individual schools.
The majority of universities ban beer and alcohol sales in general seating areas at football games — including both the Southeastern Conference and the 23-school California state university system — for philosophical or religious reasons as well as worries about crowd control, the appearance of embracing binge drinking or the perception of profiting off alcohol. If they allow it at all, most colleges have kept alcohol restricted to premium-seating areas — more evidence of schools linking alcohol availability and sales to revenue streams with the big-bucks fans.
And big bucks are what universities need — to pay for athletic programs and facilities, not to mention increased costs now that a recent court ruling favoring college athletes will lead to the providing of full-cost attendance scholarships, long-term health care coverage and expanded meal benefits. Many — but not all — of the universities selling beer to the public are institutions with limited athletic revenues (see accompanying box).
“I know why the question is relevant for some,” said Nebraska athletics director Shawn Eichorst in an Associated Press report. “For me, the bottom line does matter. But at what point does it outweigh what you’re trying to do, trying to keep the civility?”
Pittsburgh athletics director Steve Pederson agreed, telling USA Today: “With students and families, that’s just not the environment we want to create.”
Mothers Against Drunk Driving opposes alcohol in general in a college setting because of the large numbers of under-21 students. “Kids are watching adults all the time,” national president Jan Withers told the Associated Press. “If they see the only way to have fun is to drink a lot, then they’re going to model after that. That’s not the message we want to be sending to them.”
To say nothing of MADD’s worry of having traffic streaming away from stadiums and out of parking lots after a night college football game with plenty of inebriated drivers.
Proponents of public beer sales at college football games will point to pre-game tailgating and all of its extensive and unsupervised alcohol drinking, to professional sporting events where beer and alcohol sales and consumption, and to the little-by-little encroachment in other sports, such as Arizona selling beer at its home baseball games and Texas selling beer and wine at selected home sporting events, including men’s and women’s basketball.
- Mike Lee: Change is coming to Washington
- Letter: Patriots or sheep?
- Greg Bell: Socialism vs. the safety net
- John Florez: Utah's prison relocation is like...
- Reconnecting with Cuba is a good move —...
- Carmen Rasmusen Herbert: New Christmas...
- Charles Krauthammer: Battle must be fought...
- Dan Liljenquist: Being good for goodness sake
- Letter: Patriots or sheep? 61
- Mike Lee: Change is coming to Washington 44
- Greg Bell: Socialism vs. the safety net 41
- Susan Roylance: Definition of the... 35
- My view: Chaffetz named... 34
- Jay Evensen: Cuba not likely to change... 34
- Letter: Patriots or serfs? 33
- My view: Torture, morality and the laws... 30