KFAN's "Common Man" Dan Cole was ripping the "all or nothing" alcohol whiners today

Donate To GopherHole
Bronko Nagurski Gopher

Bronko Nagurski Gopher

Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2008
Messages
2,478
Reaction score
1
Points
36
KFAN's "Common Man" Dan Cole was ripping the "all or nothing" alcohol whiners today

he spent a good portion of his air-time on this topic. he basically laid out every reason why the U of M should not be forced to sell alcohol in general admission/student seating and why the whole debate is such a farce: 1.) the gophers are not going to be the only big ten team that sells alcohol in general admission/student seating, so that is a non-starter 2.) if you can't go to any type of sporting event without drinking for 3 hours you have greater issues to deal with personally 3.) alcohol is not sold in general admission seating at other amateur sporting events such as high-school games. 4.) if you only are willing to buy a seat if you can drink for 3 hours then perhaps you should give up your ticket and take something else up. 4.) those whose only response is "well i just like to have one or two beers while watching a college game" are kidding themselves. this may be true for some, but a good portion who use that as there only reason to push this farce onto the U of M are often the ones who actually drink 2 or 3 beers at sally's; 4 or 5 beers at the metrodome/tcf stadium; 3 or 4 beers after the game at sally's; then often get in their cars and drive home drunk. when you limit the "game" part of drinking to the smallest number possible it drives down some of the extreme drinking and driving and also limits the U of M's liability, which is understandable and is within their right. 5.) several of his own reasons.

i thought it was quite hilarious. his mocking of them was top-notch today! ;)
 

I heard a part of his rant when I went to a late lunch. Common is a love/hate figure and I literally have gone from the 'hate' camp to the 'love' camp over the last couple years. I enjoy his show when I get the chance. Personally, I'd like to get a beer or two at the Gopher games if I could but I'll be there either way so it is no big deal for me.
 

Bronko Nagurski Gopher said:
he spent a good portion of his air-time on this topic. he basically laid out every reason why the U of M should not be forced to sell alcohol in general admission/student seating and why the whole debate is such a farce: 1.) the gophers are not going to be the only big ten team that sells alcohol in general admission/student seating, so that is a non-starter 2.) if you can't go to any type of sporting event without drinking for 3 hours you have greater issues to deal with personally 3.) alcohol is not sold in general admission seating at other amateur sporting events such as high-school games. 4.) if you only are willing to buy a seat if you can drink for 3 hours then perhaps you should give up your ticket and take something else up. 4.) those whose only response is "well i just like to have one or two beers while watching a college game" are kidding themselves. this may be true for some, but a good portion who use that as there only reason to push this farce onto the U of M are often the ones who actually drink 2 or 3 beers at sally's; 4 or 5 beers at the metrodome/tcf stadium; 3 or 4 beers after the game at sally's; then often get in their cars and drive home drunk. when you limit the "game" part of drinking to the smallest number possible it drives down some of the extreme drinking and driving and also limits the U of M's liability, which is understandable and is within their right. 5.) several of his own reasons.

i thought it was quite hilarious. his mocking of them was top-notch today! ;)
Click to expand...

I usually don't like listening to him, but seems liked I would have loved it today.
 

 

He doesn't get it. He thinks it's about people who are alcoholics and can't go 3 hours without a drink. It's about whether the legislature should be telling the U how to handle its business. Generally a huge common fan, but he missed it here.
 


He doesn't get it. He thinks it's about people who are alcoholics and can't go 3 hours without a drink. It's about whether the legislature should be telling the U how to handle its business. Generally a huge common fan, but he missed it here.
Click to expand...

True, it is about the legislature. However, they would have had no real business getting into this in the first place if these same people wouldn't have started writing and calling their legislators arguing that they should be able to drink at the games. This argument didn't start out of smoke, it came from the people he's ranting about. And in that respect, he's right.
 

Well Common was a three time loser until he got off the hair. Common is a legend in his own mind especially at golf which he is a nortorius cheat. He rants about what a great golfer he is. He has played in some outings up here in Brainerd and I know some guys he played with. He loves the 5ft giveme and roll the ball even in the fairway. He's a complete tool
 

ruppertflywheel said:
Well Common was a three time loser until he got off the hair. Common is a legend in his own mind especially at golf which he is a nortorius cheat. He rants about what a great golfer he is. He has played in some outings up here in Brainerd and I know some guys he played with. He loves the 5ft giveme and roll the ball even in the fairway. He's a complete tool
Click to expand...

and he fully admitted that during the show and sounds like he has been sober for quite a while. if anyone can speak on the topic of alcohol it sounds like he has the credentials to do so fairly and he isn't just some random puritan who has never had a drink in his/her life that can be preceived as "talking down to" to those who schedule their days around alcohol.

i have a sibling that i am very close to who has been in alcohol/drug recovery, so i know first hand that for some of these people whining loudest to their pandering legislators about not being able to drink for 3 hours while watching a sporting event that it is more about their NEED for alcohol to function in public as opposed to it truly being an issue of "fairness" for them. not all, but that is definitely the case for some. i can guarantee it.
 

I didnt think people actually listen to him still. I cannot stand him and I listen to KFAN from 6am to noon. The rest of the day is junk.
 



Bronko Nagurski Gopher said:
he spent a good portion of his air-time on this topic. he basically laid out every reason why the U of M should not be forced to sell alcohol in general admission/student seating and why the whole debate is such a farce: 1.) the gophers are not going to be the only big ten team that sells alcohol in general admission/student seating, so that is a non-starter 2.) if you can't go to any type of sporting event without drinking for 3 hours you have greater issues to deal with personally 3.) alcohol is not sold in general admission seating at other amateur sporting events such as high-school games. 4.) if you only are willing to buy a seat if you can drink for 3 hours then perhaps you should give up your ticket and take something else up. 4.) those whose only response is "well i just like to have one or two beers while watching a college game" are kidding themselves. this may be true for some, but a good portion who use that as there only reason to push this farce onto the U of M are often the ones who actually drink 2 or 3 beers at sally's; 4 or 5 beers at the metrodome/tcf stadium; 3 or 4 beers after the game at sally's; then often get in their cars and drive home drunk. when you limit the "game" part of drinking to the smallest number possible it drives down some of the extreme drinking and driving and also limits the U of M's liability, which is understandable and is within their right. 5.) several of his own reasons.

i thought it was quite hilarious. his mocking of them was top-notch today! ;)
Click to expand...

I couldnt agree more!!!
 

KSPAM was, is and always will be the station of last resort for me to listen to. They have pounded on the U with no mercy for so long they are hardly
credible in offering an opinion on anything U related. The Common Man is so dry and disjointed that the points he makes take so long it's ridiculous.
Sorry, he just doesn't cut it.
 

...about the Legislature

I don't understand the comments about the Legislature and it's involvement. Many have stated that the Legislature should stay out of this. Isn't that a double standard? They played a MAJOR role in the U of M being allowed to build a stadium. If it wasn't for the legislature, the stadium would not be here. People have spoken about alcohol at the stadium. I think it's consistent with the U of M and the rest of the Big 10 and NCAA.
Me? I enjoy a beer or two at most games. Personally, I'll gladly substitute a Diet Coke.
 

There is a difference between the Legislature's role in the construction of the stadium and their ham-handed attempt to force the U to sell beer to everyone.

The construction of the stadium is a capital expenditure, and that is the sort of thing the Legislature is supposed to fund.

Alcohol sales are a University internal policy matter that is under the jurisdiction of the Regents.
 



The legislature should have stayed out

Nick Coleman wrote a column on December 12, 2008 which led to all of this. Rukavina & Zellars (a bipartisan set of panderers) ran with it and said unfair.

Unfortunately, 120 reps & 55 senators couldn't see through the smoke and listen to the administration.

Nick's Column
 

goldygoon said:
I didnt think people actually listen to him still. I cannot stand him and I listen to KFAN from 6am to noon. The rest of the day is junk.
Click to expand...

6 to noon.....LMAO

morris, that sludge baby and that gawd awful chris howkey voice is the worst radio in all of america

common was ranting on mauer the other night .......that it was mauers fault for letting the ball get by him and blackburn then threw it into left field to lose to the brewers

this is a summation of common......MY NAME IS DAN COLE AND I AM A MAJOR TOOL!
 

Ski U Mah Gopher said:
Nick Coleman wrote a column on December 12, 2008 which led to all of this. Rukavina & Zellars (a bipartisan set of panderers) ran with it and said unfair.

Unfortunately, 120 reps & 55 senators couldn't see through the smoke and listen to the administration.

Nick's Column
Click to expand...
I never made it over to Memorial, so I have no idea, but were there suites in Memorial Stadium and did they serve beer there? I don't understand why it's suddenly "unfair" at TCF, but nobody's given a hoot about how "unfair" the practices were at Williams and Mariucci.
 

PlayHosea said:
I never made it over to Memorial, so I have no idea, but were there suites in Memorial Stadium and did they serve beer there? I don't understand why it's suddenly "unfair" at TCF, but nobody's given a hoot about how "unfair" the practices were at Williams and Mariucci.
Click to expand...

People were used to not being able to have a beer at Williams or Mariucci, but they've been able to have a beer at the Metrodome for Gophers games for a very long time. They don't feel like something has been taken away from them at Williams or Mariucci, but they do feel like something has been taken away from them at Gopher football games.

If alcohol had not been served at the Dome for Gophers games, this wouldn't be an issue today. The U could have insisted on that as a condition for signing a lease, but we were really over a barrel, Memorial needed rennovation, and the money was not going to be coming for this, as there was too much pressure to get the Gophers in the Dome as a revenue stream for the Vikings.

I'm neutral on beer in TCF, it doesn't matter too much to me one way or the other. It might take a couple years for people to get used to not having a beer at TCF before you could slip in a provision allowing beer in the suites.
 

RodentRampage said:
People were used to not being able to have a beer at Williams or Mariucci, but they've been able to have a beer at the Metrodome for Gophers games for a very long time. They don't feel like something has been taken away from them at Williams or Mariucci, but they do feel like something has been taken away from them at Gopher football games.

If alcohol had not been served at the Dome for Gophers games, this wouldn't be an issue today. The U could have insisted on that as a condition for signing a lease, but we were really over a barrel, Memorial needed rennovation, and the money was not going to be coming for this, as there was too much pressure to get the Gophers in the Dome as a revenue stream for the Vikings.

I'm neutral on beer in TCF, it doesn't matter too much to me one way or the other. It might take a couple years for people to get used to not having a beer at TCF before you could slip in a provision allowing beer in the suites.
Click to expand...

Plus C. Pete McGrath was a monumental jackbag.
 

GopherRock said:
There is a difference between the Legislature's role in the construction of the stadium and their ham-handed attempt to force the U to sell beer to everyone.

The construction of the stadium is a capital expenditure, and that is the sort of thing the Legislature is supposed to fund.

Alcohol sales are a University internal policy matter that is under the jurisdiction of the Regents.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There is a good argument to be made that the legislation violates the U's Constitutional Autonomy (the PDF in this link is a nice summary). The legislature is supposed to have power over funding only, not internal policies like where the U is allowed to sell alcohol.
 

GoAUpher said:
Exactly. There is a good argument to be made that the legislation violates the U's Constitutional Autonomy (the PDF in this link is a nice summary). The legislature is supposed to have power over funding only, not internal policies like where the U is allowed to sell alcohol.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, then the U could take this to court and win. Problem solved.

But it is more complicated than that, even if "Constitutional Autonomy" applies in this case. Anytime public money -- especially a lot of it -- is involved, the public body that appropriates it will feel a responsibility to the public to keep an eye on it (at least), and have a say over what is going on (at worst). If you think they're going to hand over millions of dollars to anybody and simply turn their backs, you need to read the paper more often.

Even if that weren't the case, the Board of Regents isn't going to challenge this, because they will need more of that money from the Legislature next year. And the year after. This is a partnership.

Common was off when he ranted against the fans who can't go without a drink. Similarly, it's not about whether the Legislature should stay out of the U's business. In my opinion, the problem is that after several years of working with the U on their plans, the Legislature reacted quickly to a few voices in the wind without any real thought. Nothing new there.
 

Hates Monikers said:
If that's the case, then the U could take this to court and win. Problem solved.

But it is more complicated than that, even if "Constitutional Autonomy" applies in this case. Anytime public money -- especially a lot of it -- is involved, the public body that appropriates it will feel a responsibility to the public to keep an eye on it (at least), and have a say over what is going on (at worst). If you think they're going to hand over millions of dollars to anybody and simply turn their backs, you need to read the paper more often.

Even if that weren't the case, the Board of Regents isn't going to challenge this, because they will need more of that money from the Legislature next year. And the year after. This is a partnership.
Click to expand...

I'd agree that this is part of it. I'm sure the money aspect of a legal case is another. But I agree that the U probably doesn't see this issue as "big" enough to go to the mats over. But I wouldn't be surprised to see them find a way to point out that the legislature has overreached and is infringing on the U's ability to govern themselves (at least 1 Regent has already cited autonomy in an interview) as they craft their response to this bill.

Hates Monikers said:
Similarly, it's not about whether the Legislature should stay out of the U's business. In my opinion, the problem is that after several years of working with the U on their plans, the Legislature reacted quickly to a few voices in the wind without any real thought. Nothing new there.
Click to expand...

I think the main problem in this specific case is the overreaction and pandering of the legislature. But in the big picture I'm interested to see if the overreach continues. I'm not well versed in U/Legislature relations, so its quite possible that small examples of overreach happen on a regular basis and the U just deals with it. But if that's not the case I can see some at the U paying attention to see if the legislature tries to overstep its role in other areas and continues to infringe on the U's autonomy.
 

GoAUpher said:
I'd agree that this is part of it. I'm sure the money aspect of a legal case is another. But I agree that the U probably doesn't see this issue as "big" enough to go to the mats over. But I wouldn't be surprised to see them find a way to point out that the legislature has overreached and is infringing on the U's ability to govern themselves (at least 1 Regent has already cited autonomy in an interview) as they craft their response to this bill.



I think the main problem in this specific case is the overreaction and pandering of the legislature. But in the big picture I'm interested to see if the overreach continues. I'm not well versed in U/Legislature relations, so its quite possible that small examples of overreach happen on a regular basis and the U just deals with it. But if that's not the case I can see some at the U paying attention to see if the legislature tries to overstep its role in other areas and continues to infringe on the U's autonomy.
Click to expand...

It sounds as though the legislature is just getting warmed up:

http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=818268&catid=2

The next move is to force the U to sell alcohol in the new stadium. Not sure common man was really that far off.
 

harrys ghost said:
It sounds as though the legislature is just getting warmed up:

http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=818268&catid=2

The next move is to force the U to sell alcohol in the new stadium. Not sure common man was really that far off.
Click to expand...

If the legislature keeps on this path and passes a bill like this (rather then just blow smoke) I can see the U going to court. Eventually the U has to set the precedent that while they respect the legislature's right to appropriate money, the Regents are the ones who get to set school policies/procedures.
 

GoAUpher said:
If the legislature keeps on this path and passes a bill like this (rather then just blow smoke) I can see the U going to court. Eventually the U has to set the precedent that while they respect the legislature's right to appropriate money, the Regents are the ones who get to set school policies/procedures.
Click to expand...

Perhaps passing this bill would be for the best. After all, the U would then have no choice but to take it to court. Overturning this proposed bill on the grounds that the legislature overstepped its authority would also overturn the other bill, leaving the U free to provide alcohol in the luxury boxes.

Can anyone else besides the U challenge this in court?
 

Common's air time has moved to mid day for a reason. He's a likes to muck it up for painters and landscapers on siesta. He's probably been to 2 Gopher football games in 20 years...

Short the common man's stock. He's going to be a fill in for barreiro (while on vacation) in 2 years.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom