creed

Not sure about that, but I hate walking through campus after game and feel like I've entered a slum in Mumbai.

Here's how I see it. The value of providing alcohol on game days will be measured by the consumer. The right product that engages the customer to participate in stadium alcohol consumption will generate $'s for the university, vendors, insurance companies, security and cleaning services. It all depends on the right product for the customer. Tuscaloosa = PBR, Schlitz or Boones Farm for the ladies Auburn = Heineken, Sam Adams or a nice Cali Chardonnay for the ladies LOL... Just to add. If the consumer doesn't participate, then in stadium alcohol sales will probably be eliminated from the game day experience.

Pro: I get to choose. Con: More trash, where people who don't no how to clean up after themselves will leave in the stands or throw somewhere on campus. (My big pet peeve)

There's more to the story than just increased revenue. Independent thinking suggest there's just as many pros as there are cons. How about a game of listing your pro and con.

Not leaning one way or the other and just looking for feedback, but some would say this is not what our representatives, be it federal or state, should be working on by creating legislation to make legal what the NCAA says is not legal.

Not sure why but something tells me college football is being prepared to be controlled by another organization other than the ncaa and their respective universities. My guess is this organization is already in place. If you think hard enough you can probably figure out who has the money, power, structure, and policies and procedures to manage college football not named the ncaa.

Sometimes people should leave their opinions silent when they may not know the entire story and/or haven't walked in the same shoes as the person they're opining about.

All you perfect posters on here should just leave your comments at Thank you Boobee and good luck in the future.

Imagine this. College football becomes a league of "few" enforceable NCAA rules and the Ivy league schools decide to get back into "real" college football. Facilities? No problem, just take half a billion and build something spectacular. Coaching? Hire a Nick Saban for 20 million a year. Players? Chargers...shh, how about a Bentley and an education that will get you +100k if you don't make the NFL. TV? Pay the networks to broadcast the IVY channel. Games? Pay visiting teams more than they make from a home game. and still have more endowment dollars than the richest SEC league school.

Pretty interesting super bowl so far. 2star Garoppolo against 3star Mahomes.

Probably all three. 😉

I doubt the normal student will be in the FOF, but if an athlete is getting something for free (other than what's allowed) that a normal student can't get you'll see someone raise a stink. Remember the old football only dorms back in the 90's...gone. Remember supposed inequality in athletics...gone (Title IX). What's next...who knows.

It's not and I never said it was. However, I really would liked to understand you assertion. Can you give more details?

We have a lot of money and Allen Greene is in charge of the plan. However, when I think of elite money I think about the coffers of some of the Texas schools. For instance Texas A&M has more endowment that all of the SEC schools put together. Then there is the really elite money in the Ivy schools.

I would like to understand your assersion that revenues should lead to wins. Can you expand on this thought?