Do you know the inside story on that game and removal? One has nothing to do with the other so I dont understand your point.Same guy that removed from a high school game a few years ago? Save me the high horse stuff.
Do you know the inside story on that game and removal? One has nothing to do with the other so I dont understand your point.Same guy that removed from a high school game a few years ago? Save me the high horse stuff.
Print money? How much revenue do you think we’d make off alcohol sales?
I understand being focused on revenue but then why keep hammering away at a topic that 1) we don’t know will even generate positive revenue compared to our current situation and 2) if it does generate revenue, how much are we looking at?
And it isn't Campbell's job to make gambling more attractive.The gambling genie isn't going back in the bottle, and it isn't ISU athletics' job to take a moral stand against something that is perfectly legal. I'd advise taking your beef with gambling up with the government.
Plenty of reasons to do this that have nothing to do with gambling.And it isn't Campbell's job to make gambling more attractive.
By the way, I don't have any real beef with gambling. I just don't think it helps college football and I don't understand why Campbell should be forced to do something that only encourages more gambling.
Should have clarified- it should have counted the whole time, and should retroactively account for something. This is what I get for trying to type and run an auger at the same time
Of course it is, but why should our coach (and all college coaches) be required to do something whose only purpose is to make it easier for gamblers?That horse jumped the fence long ago, my friend. Gambling is already absolutely entwined into college sports. That dam done broke years ago.
I'd love to see a list of those reasons.Plenty of reasons to do this that have nothing to do with gambling.
Plenty of reasons to do this that have nothing to do with gambling.
I'd love to see a list of those reasons.
You’re lucky to get 30% of sales, not 50%.It's a good exercise and I'm sure one the AD has already gone through but, in my experience, when people have an idea of how they want the outcome to come out (ie. Pollard doesn't want to sell alcohol at ISU sporting events), you can create the scenarios to achieve that outcome.
I'll take a stab. If Iowa brought it $4.2 million in alcohol sales, let's assume ISU can bring in $3.5 million. Let's assume 50% of that goes towards insurance, vendors, product, etc. (which is what is reported by many other schools). That leaves $1.75 million to ISU. Your argument that we lose SEZ club people because they only buy those tickets to buy beer is probably sound. But how many? The SEZ holds, what, 2,000? 2,500? Let's say 20% of those people get pissed, don't renew, and buy regular season tickets now that they can buy beer anywhere (I don't think it would be near that high), that means that ISU loses 400 people that were paying $999 per ticket which will now pay $650. That is a difference of $139,000. Even if they bought the cheat seats at $450, its only $220,000. Even if those numbers are way off, its a LONG way to go to say it would not be revenue-positive for Iowa State.
Iowa give 30% for alcohol substance control. Like casinos putting part to gambling abuse prevention. Is that 30% in the 50%?It's a good exercise and I'm sure one the AD has already gone through but, in my experience, when people have an idea of how they want the outcome to come out (ie. Pollard doesn't want to sell alcohol at ISU sporting events), you can create the scenarios to achieve that outcome.
I'll take a stab. If Iowa brought it $4.2 million in alcohol sales, let's assume ISU can bring in $3.5 million. Let's assume 50% of that goes towards insurance, vendors, product, etc. (which is what is reported by many other schools). That leaves $1.75 million to ISU. Your argument that we lose SEZ club people because they only buy those tickets to buy beer is probably sound. But how many? The SEZ holds, what, 2,000? 2,500? Let's say 20% of those people get pissed, don't renew, and buy regular season tickets now that they can buy beer anywhere (I don't think it would be near that high), that means that ISU loses 400 people that were paying $999 per ticket which will now pay $650. That is a difference of $139,000. Even if they bought the cheat seats at $450, its only $220,000. Even if those numbers are way off, its a LONG way to go to say it would not be revenue-positive for Iowa State.
Why do you think that?
Well the research they’ve done said it would be a net loss in revenue.Why wouldn't it? Even if all you net is a million, that could = a couple of stud lineman every season.
Profit would be good, not just revenue.According to this survey, 80% of P5 schools sell alchohol and I haven't heard of one school stopping it because profit wasn't being generated.
![]()
Most Power 5 schools sell alcohol inside stadiums
A survey by The Associated Press of Power 5 conference schools and Notre Dame shows that 80% -- 55 of 69 schools -- now sell alcohol in public areas of their stadiums on game days.www.espn.com
I also have a hard time believing the 1 million argument from JP.
The University of North Carolina, meanwhile, is in its fifth season of selling alcohol, which has helped the bottom line with about $4 million in sales.
In the landscape that currently exists, ANY revenue is GOOD revenue to survive.
You’re lucky to get 30% of sales, not 50%.
Sukup is 2,800 seats and the research they’ve done tells them they would need to lower Sukup ticket prices pretty dramatically if they sell alcohol to the public
If you're making 4 million in revenue; vendor, product and insurance costs are not going eat all of that up.Profit would be good, not just revenue.
4MM sounds a lot better than the 1MM profit though. Still profit, but way smaller.If you're making 4 million in revenue; vendor, product and insurance costs are not going eat all of that up.