Selective amnesia ;) Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen that article, or caught how many schools had tried it already or what their success rate was beyond the mention of WVU application of it and ATM's intent to try it. Your OP only links to a short article indicating Texas is considering it, not that other schools had success already. Not discounting your comments on WVU's success, but I read them as your opinion as it didn't have any facts to support it. I apologize (note to self, take NV statements as fact ;) ).
Solid link on bloomberg in that it addresses my concerns as tested at WVU (been going since 2011)
- Additional $700k revenue (knowing WVU fans drink as much, or more, than our fans do at games)
- "Pass Outs" (ability to leave at halftime to drink, then re-enter the stadium) were cancelled, which UF has already done I think
- Calls to police dropped 15%, Arrests dropped 20%
What is also mentioned, without depth, is licensing at all venues (WVU only did home football games). I'm not sure how much of the $700k was strictly counter sales versus sponsorship (Budweiser in-stadium advertising, for example), or what the possible upside would be financially for the sponsorship aspect, or multiple stadium sales (basketball, baseball, softball, etc).
The link, for those that hadn't seen it, also refers to Univ. of Louisiana also gained $150k revenue but doesn't say anything else about their experience.
NV - any other schools beyond WVU (success!), Texas (considering it), and U of LA (Financial gain, no word on arrests) that you know of having done this or their experience?
I can't imagine WVU fans drinking less than us, but I don't have a feel for how 'angry' they may be towards rivals leading to more fights. Still, the police aspects of it speak volumes. Personally, I don't know if this sways me to try it at UF before other schools get on board and prove it out. By my opinion doesn't carry that much weight. I doubt Foley will get on board, being as conservative as it is.