Alcohol moving back at college ball games on state University campuses after nearly 40 years

I don’t know that it means campuses are going back to “wet” dorms anytime soon, but after a nearly 40 year drought, alcohol is coming back to the general public at the major universities’ college ball games:

With the news last month that the Board of Regents approved the sale of alcohol at public universities in the state, South Dakota State is finalizing plans to sell beer at athletic events to the general public in the upcoming 2022-23 school year. The University of South Dakota previously said it plans to do the same. Both schools had previously been serving alcohol in premium seating areas only.

Read it here.

My college experience was on campus about a year or so after they outlawed alcohol from college universities, and then the country started raising the drinking age.  (That means I’m officially middle aged.)  And I don’t think it’s as big a deal as it was made out to be all those years ago.

Every once in a while, having gone to sporting events across the country and being able to order a beer if I choose, I think 40 years later in South Dakota we’re a little less puritan than we used to be, and people are looking for things they are able to experience in more metropolitan areas. Besides our third Starbucks outlet in Brookings.

19 thoughts on “Alcohol moving back at college ball games on state University campuses after nearly 40 years”

  1. Another sign of the times. Our students don’t need this temptation that leads to more sinful behavior. But it is very profitable and money seems to be screaming in our culture. Sad.

      1. It’s not about puratanism. We know the effects of alcohol from scientific study. We know the industry uses shady tactics to increase sales. We know that elected leaders look the other way because of license sales and taxes while putting police in bad situations to handle the fallout of that greed.

        It has nothing to do with puritanism and everything to do with public safety.

        1. Good idea, lets start regulating objects for “public safety”.

          Maybe a few years later we can protect those same people from themselves after we all embrace the notion that there is an afterlife and there is only one way to live life if you want to get there. We can then ban everything not accepted by the new “notional society” and save everyone in this life; they will thank us in the eternal afterlife. John Dale, full of these good original ideas!

    1. It’s going to mean less house parties for all of the dangerous behaviors during the football game. SDSU spends thousands per game on security. I’m confident it will be a safe environment.

  2. Alcohol is a poison and is not to be taken lightly.

    With this move, we’ll see an up-tick in sexual assaults, property damage, and car accidents.

    That is unless they plan to use 5G to zap people who get out of line.

    In which case, we’ll see an up-tick in brain and heart cancer, heart attacks, strokes, aneurisms, and psychosis.


    1. Actually this policy was implemented at several universities before here and studies find that alcohol related incidents go down. The no alcohol policy causes a mentality of having to get drunk at tailgate for the whole 4 hour game but now they can have one at half time instead of 15 before. These studies were at several universities and the main one would be West Virginia.

    2. Heart cancer induced by high bowel pressure, happens all the time, nobody talks about it. Last I heard Soros paid everyone off to not talk about it (not me).

      1. I used to suffer from that, but over time I trained my muscles to automatically disengage when they sensed that pressure getting too high. I think the medical term for the exercise is the Fast-Acting Relief Technique. (Side effects may include loss of friends and elevator riding privileges.)

  3. I may be wrong, but I can envision many, many underage students drinking illegally at the games.

  4. Based off of my experiences going to events outside of South Dakota – If it was my decision, I probably would NOT have set this policy, but I don’t honestly know that this will have much impact one way or another on underage student drinking.
    So long as they are (like every other venue I’ve ever been at) ID’ing people and giving them wrist bands or some other “OBVIOUS” means of identifying people who have been carded AND have ushers/security/etc. enforcing the policy it should be controllable.
    The underage kids who are going to try to sneak a beer inside the venue (i.e. the ones dumb enough to try it) are already drinking before or after the game and they may be sneaking in hard liquor to drink during the game.
    Again – If it was my call I’d say don’t sell beer at the games – less for the students and more for the supposedly “Responsible” adults who tailgate before the game, get hammered and are now using the game as a time to sober up before they’re driving home. Now they’ll be drinking AT the games too….

    1. Surprisingly most people don’t get hammered when drinking $8 beers. My bank account can’t afford getting hammered at any price but that is way too much for me.

      1. We can discuss principles or we can debate pragmatics. If you believe drinking alcohol is sinful and/or you feel alcohol should be illegal for health reasons, nothing will convince you it’s wise to sell beer at football games. I’m not saying your opinion is wrong, just that your opinion is rare.

        We have mountains of evidence from other states revealing the most likely outcomes of this policy change. Several universities have tried this idea and tracked its social consequences. After legalizing stadium sales, states see neither a dramatic improvement nor a dramatic worsening of alcohol-related accidents, arrests, injuries, or deaths. Instead, selling alcohol at college football games correlates with a small but measurable IMPROVEMENT – meaning fewer auto accidents & hospitalizations as well as less property damage (incl. alcohol-related vandalism). Experts speculate this positive trend stems from less pre-game or halftime binge drinking, but no one knows for certain.

        One might ask: “if there’s no dramatic benefit, why do it?” Aside from the small-but-welcome safety improvement, the primary gain is financial. Excluding the first year, when implementation costs tend to exceed profits, colleges make hundreds of thousands of dollars allowing stadium alcohol sales. Some big schools earn millions per season. Those dollars can be re-directed to lower student tuition and fees – far better (imho) than raising taxes. From a pragmatic perspective, it seems a beneficial move. But if drinking violates your principles, I certainly respect your opinion. And if our state’s long-term goal is to stop people from drinking alcohol, we should seek other solutions.

  5. “I think 40 years later in South Dakota we’re a little less puritan than we used to be”

    But not marijuana. God forbid not that.

  6. A little off topic, but I was a student at SDSU in 1976. At that time you could have beer in your dorm room bottle or canned no keg. Not only beer but guns as well. There was hardly a room on first floor Young Hall that did not have at least one firearm during hunting season. No one got shot, no sexual assaults everyone was responsible.

Comments are closed.