No Beer Here - TCF Bank Stadium to be Dry Thanks to Misguided Law

(Note: Despite the above banner calling this site a source of fake news, this is an all-too-real opinion column. That being said, this topic sure is ripe for some satire. Stay tuned.)

The relatively big news out of Dinkytown this week is centered on U of M President Bob Bruininks' decision to make the new TCF Bank Stadium a dry venue for all fans during football games. In addition, Bruininks is pulling alcohol from the club rooms/suites at Mariucci Arena and Williams Arena.

Fans, donors and many others are rightfully fired up over this decision, but the vitriol aimed at Bruininks and Athletic Director Joel Maturi is misguided. Anyone who knows the facts about Bruininks' decision knows that this was the only path he could take once the legislature/governor passed this misguided law.

Beer was never going to be served in the cheap seats, regardless of this law being passed or not. The original plan was for alcohol to be sold only in the premium seating areas of the stadium (suites, loges, club seats). Then the Minnesota legislature, in all its wisdom (sarcasm anyone?), decided to pass a law saying that if alcohol was sold/served in one part of the stadium, it had to be sold/served in the entire stadium (this law also now applies to other U venues that serve booze).

So in response to this law, Bruininks issued a press release yesterday afternoon that told of his recommendation "to make TCF Bank Stadium, Williams Arena and Mariucci Arena alcohol-free during athletic events as a result of recent legislation enacted by the Minnesota legislature and signed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty."

Many critics of the U are now calling Bruininks "out of touch" for making this decision, saying he's naïve to think that banning alcohol at athletic events is going to prevent underage drinking and/or alcohol-related problems in the stands. They're partly correct in that students and fans are going to find a way to drink whether or not alcohol is sold in the stadium, but they're missing the point and their criticism is aimed at the wrong institution/person.

It was the legislature and Pawlenty, not the U and Bruininks, that brought about this turn of events. Sure, Bruininks made the final decision, but the legislature forced the U's hand on this and now the athletic department is losing a significant revenue source that has been in the department's budget plans for some time.

While using a lame "it's only fair" logic (more on that later) to pass this law, our lawmakers undercut the University and its athletic department. And what do we have to show for it? A dry stadium (that's not the end of the world), a loss of alcohol revenue and a possible loss in premium seating sales - all helping to hinder the athletic department's ability to be self-sufficient and bringing about the very real possibility of the cutting of a sport or sports in the near future. Nice work, St. Paul.

Not that we should expect it out of our lawmakers in this state, but was there any forethought put into this law before it got passed? Did the legislature really think the U was going to become the first Big Ten school (and one of the few in the entire country) to sell alcohol to the entire stadium?

What was St. Paul's objective in passing this legislation? The answer is simple, really: pandering and populism. Our lawmakers decided to cave in to a handful of whiners who complained that they wouldn't be able to have a drink during a football game, while the "pretty people" were offered beer and wine in the premium seats. Our wise public servants decided to pander to voters in a purely political effort.

And their logic? Well, let's go right to the words of Pawlenty:
"My view is we don't have a two-class society, so you can't just have a situation where you have a beer up in the skyboxes and then nobody else gets the beer."

And Rep. Tom Rukavina, DFL-Virginia, who wrote the preliminary legislation that became the omnibus liquor bill:
“There was an overwhelming feeling in the Legislature that what the Board of Regents did was elitist. If you can afford to sit in the premium seats, you can drink chardonnay, and if you sit in the cheap seats, you get water or pop … We didn’t think that was right.”

So there you have it. The legislature passed this law on the logic of "fairness." Pawlenty, Rukavina and the others who voted for this law used the ridiculous notion that "it's only fair" that if the suite-holders get beer, then all should get beer. As long as we're using that logic, we should to demand wider, cushioned seats, better sightlines from our bleacher seats, access to the DQ Club Room, an expanded food menu, HDTVs at our seats and all the other amenities that premium seat-holders are getting.

No one has been able to explain to me how the notion of "fairness" applies to beer, but not to padded seats or better sightlines.

The lawmakers and those who support this law who say we don't live in a "two-class society" certainly don't get out much, and must never have stepped foot in the Xcel Energy Center or Target Center. You pay more, you get more services (i.e., alcohol). Is that such a foreign concept here?

As a regular season ticket holder, I don’t expect to get the same services that a premium season ticket holder (who is paying a lot more for his/her seat) gets. If a ticket holder in the premium seats get access to a free DQ Blizzard machine in the DQ Club Room, does that mean all should get access to a free DQ Blizzard machine in the DQ Club Room? Fairness, schmairness. Life isn’t fair. The rich get richer. That’s just the way it is. It sucks, sure, that the rich get more, but again, is that such a foreign concept?

Nevertheless, I don’t really care if I’ll have the opportunity to buy a beer or not. If it’s there, I may have a beer during the game. If it's not there, I'll enjoy the game just as much. And if it’s only in the premium areas, it won’t bother me one bit.

A bar in the DQ Club Room at TCF Bank Stadium