OU athletic dept is not only fully self sufficient. It also gives money back to the university every year

In addition t paying for the full cost of tuition for the instate and out of state athletes OU gives 5 plus mil back to the general fund every year.

OU is one of very few schools that operate this way. And the only one in this state.

Osu for instance gets almost 5 mil from the university genera budget. Ie the tax payers of Oklahoma for their sports.

Hell ya we do.

You don't have a mortgage?

You get a motgage based on a level of income. If your tax revenues have been consistently reduced by small-minded legislators and donations have suffered due to the slowdown in that sector, sometimes cash pinches are unforseen. Boren oversaw the building of quality, architecturally proper buildings in an acedemic environment - not the most expensive building he could. A successful university isn't made of trailer homes but facilities where you can attract quality professors as well as students. My son felt comfortable there because of those structures and I am proud of him to be a 4th generation Sooner. I'm sorry if you can't see the value of a quality education, but unless you want a robot to replace your child someday at work (or you are a raving genious), a higher level quality education is a must.

thanks but i do have a mortgage and keep it a small enough % that i can handle unexpected fluctuations, my wife is self employed with an income that can vary so we prepare according. I know/work with several contractors who redid lots of $$ worth of work that was fine just because david and/or molly wanted to make changes.

I am hoping that this will influence the short sighted proposal to have the University and city of Norman build an (unnecessary) arena that neither will own !

I am hoping that this will influence the short sighted proposal to have the University and city of Norman build an (unnecessary) arena that neither will own !
Let’s see.... OU gets a new arena without spending its own money. Yes,I can see where you think this is a bad idea since they are looking for ways to save money.

^

OU will be paying rent and not keeping concession revenue.

Yes, they will get to use a new arena but it won't be close to free.

Their stadium is outdated. To stay competitive they must do something. In you guys’ scenario they can’t win. If they stay where they are and continue to struggle and lose patrons and ticket revenue you will be critical. If they spend more money on the outdated arena or build a new one themselves, you will be critical. If they go forward with the new arena arrangement, you will be critical. Hmmmm.

I wonder how countries that focus on academics and don’t have athletics mixed into their higher education while serving as a “free” developmental league for professional sports are able to hang on.

I wonder how countries that focus on academics and don’t have athletics mixed into their higher education while serving as a “free” developmental league for professional sports are able to hang on.

They value and see the importance of education for one thing. Another thing is that a lot of cultures don't see 4 years of college as an excuse for their young to party which equates to a resort so their students manage to learn with much less.

I wonder how countries that focus on academics and don’t have athletics mixed into their higher education while serving as a “free” developmental league for professional sports are able to hang on.

I wonder why so many of those countries send their best students here?

Let’s see.... OU gets a new arena without spending its own money. Yes,I can see where you think this is a bad idea since they are looking for ways to save money.

Saving money by spending money is never a sound policy. The proposed plan is for the city of Norman (of which I am a resident ) and the OU foundation ,which directs the private donations as a non profit entity to build an arena, (that may or may not be needed) and direct those funds away from other needs the university could put to better uses is a separate issue .
I don't feel the university requires a new arena as the current one meets all the needs of the school. I do not see the need to involve the university in the entertainment needs of those who have no investment in the outcome of any venture.

S.S.

And once again you all ignore that athletics at OU actually creates a profit for the university. Not to mention the donations it draws for the academics. Let’s not let facts get in the way.

Their stadium is outdated. To stay competitive they must do something. In you guys’ scenario they can’t win. If they stay where they are and continue to struggle and lose patrons and ticket revenue you will be critical. If they spend more money on the outdated arena or build a new one themselves, you will be critical. If they go forward with the new arena arrangement, you will be critical. Hmmmm.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this new stadium isn't replacing Lloyd Noble, right? OU athletics will just use it for some events and continue to use Lloyd Noble for events too. Besides, OU has recently pumped a lot of money into practice facilities connected to Lloyd Noble.

Personally, I think OU should build an on-campus arena next to the track and across the street from the football stadium.

Or, my urbanist solution for the parking lot that is Lloyd Noble is to do a public-private partnership to surround Lloyd Noble with mixed use student housing, restaurants, and more. The development would push out to the edges of the lot, thus leaving intimate outdoor spaces between Lloyd Noble and the new development. A parking garage or two could be either integrated or put nearby to address parking. That's my dream to fix that area.

And once again you all ignore that athletics at OU actually creates a profit for the university. Not to mention the donations it draws for the academics. Let’s not let facts get in the way.

100% this

The difference between making a profit and making a loss are private contributions to the athletic program.

The difference between making a profit and making a loss are private contributions to the athletic program.

are you sure? Sooner Sports TV alone brings the athletic department in just under $6 million a year, and then the shared big12 tv revenue was around $37 million. then their part on concessions, ticket sales, money for bowl appearances and other events with payouts, etc... I don't know all of the expenses... but the revenue coming in is pretty substantial without private contributions...

and can you really count required "contributions" to get season tickets as private contributions? much like PSL's in Pro Stadiums, they are just a different form of revenue.

^

OU will be paying rent and not keeping concession revenue.

Yes, they will get to use a new arena but it won't be close to free.

Actually this all would depend on the lease. Likley OU will pay rent and will receive a good portion of the concession revenue add revenue. A portion of the naming rights a portion of all the ticket sales from the suites club seating for non OU events And of course ou will get the donations for premium seating areas

And if OU wants it will get to prebuy some parking and then resell it at a higher rate


These are all standard tenet lease options. Including for the thunder with Okc

https://newsok.com/article/5555405/ou-finishes-sixth-osu-37th-in-total-athletic-revenue


The Sooners earned $150,373,216 in total revenue that year, up from $134,269,349 the previous year. OU's expenses were $127.4 million.

The biggest boost to the revenue was a large jump in contributions. From 2015 to 2016, OU gained $14.5 million in contributions, bringing the 2016 total to $46.6 million.

Without the contributions the program would have lost ~$20 million.

https://newsok.com/article/5555405/ou-finishes-sixth-osu-37th-in-total-athletic-revenue

Without the contributions the program would have lost ~$20 million.

and a large chunk of those contributions are those required for season seats. so if a minimum donation is required for a season seat... then it is still technically revenue generated for that seat. and while labeled as a "Contribution" it really isn't. again, just like how PSL's are done to "make season tickets cheaper" they really aren't any cheaper.. you are still paying for it, just labeled differently on the bill.

https://newsok.com/article/5465828/oklahoma-football-minimum-required-donations-going-up-for-some-season-ticket-holders?

Another item is the required donation related to Advertising in the program as well as at the stadiums.. These "contributions" are add-on's to other revenue streams, not truly contributions...

https://newsok.com/article/5555405/ou-finishes-sixth-osu-37th-in-total-athletic-revenue


Without the contributions the program would have lost ~$20 million.

Or they would have spent less money. And as has been said they know how much money they have coming in donations because most of them are related to buying tickets

[[/url]Without the contributions the program would have lost ~$20 million.

I think the minimum donation in the upper deck is $100 per seat. I know that some of them get into the thousands. so lets go with a very conservative estimate and say the average is $250 per seat. the stadium sits 86,000. so lets go another conservative number and say only 50,000 of the seats are season ticket holders. that alone is $12.5 Million in "Contributions" that are actually season seat ticket revenue. so we went very conservative on the numbers... and that loss is down to $7.5 Million. and that doesn't include the required advertising donations as well.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this new stadium isn't replacing Lloyd Noble, right? OU athletics will just use it for some events and continue to use Lloyd Noble for events too. Besides, OU has recently pumped a lot of money into practice facilities connected to Lloyd Noble.

Personally, I think OU should build an on-campus arena next to the track and across the street from the football stadium.

Or, my urbanist solution for the parking lot that is Lloyd Noble is to do a public-private partnership to surround Lloyd Noble with mixed use student housing, restaurants, and more. The development would push out to the edges of the lot, thus leaving intimate outdoor spaces between Lloyd Noble and the new development. A parking garage or two could be either integrated or put nearby to address parking. That's my dream to fix that area.

Soon as OU has 60,000 students that will be great.

Their stadium is outdated. To stay competitive they must do something. In you guys’ scenario they can’t win. If they stay where they are and continue to struggle and lose patrons and ticket revenue you will be critical. If they spend more money on the outdated arena or build a new one themselves, you will be critical. If they go forward with the new arena arrangement, you will be critical. Hmmmm.

You mean arena and not stadium, correct? I agree with you whole heartedly that a new arena is overdue. I also believe that the new arena should be orientated as basketball specific and not mult use, such as GIA in Stillwater.

You mean arena and not stadium, correct? I agree with you whole heartedly that a new arena is overdue. I also believe that the new arena should be orientated as basketball specific and not mult use, such as GIA in Stillwater.
Yes...arena. Stadium is great...what 100s of millions of dollars will do, with more on the way.

and a large chunk of those contributions are those required for season seats. so if a minimum donation is required for a season seat... then it is still technically revenue generated for that seat. and while labeled as a "Contribution" it really isn't. again, just like how PSL's are done to "make season tickets cheaper" they really aren't any cheaper.. you are still paying for it, just labeled differently on the bill.

https://newsok.com/article/5465828/oklahoma-football-minimum-required-donations-going-up-for-some-season-ticket-holders?

Another item is the required donation related to Advertising in the program as well as at the stadiums.. These "contributions" are add-on's to other revenue streams, not truly contributions...

An unknown in this equation is how the rewriting of the tax code impacts donations. As it stands for taxes in year 2017 contributions above the actual ticket price were deductible. It is my understanding that this will no longer be the case.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2017/12/22/gop-tax-law-could-cost-top-college-athletic-departments-millions/#3ef3e354abea

An unknown in this equation is how the rewriting of the tax code impacts donations. As it stands for taxes in year 2017 contributions above the actual ticket price were deductible. It is my understanding that this will no longer be the case.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2017/12/22/gop-tax-law-could-cost-top-college-athletic-departments-millions/#3ef3e354abea

and even depending upon how they used the tickets... a partial price of the ticket might also have been deductible (up to 33% I believe). and that is now gone as well.

It really is a big question mark... because schools probably won't stop the practice. the question is will as many people be willing to pay the donation piece if it is no longer tax deductible. My honest thought is that very few are going to actually drop the tickets just because of that change. it may mean that corporations my not purchase as many seats, and maybe someone who has 5 or 6 seats may drop to 4... but at OU there is a waiting line still for tickets, so people will buy them even if the donation isn't tax deductible. If I had to predict, I think you will see some small businesses drop theirs, and larger corporations may cut back on the number they buy... but that just means that individual families will pick them up. as long as the program is rolling like it has, I don't see attendance dropping because the donation is no longer tax deductible.

I hope you are right about families picking up any surplus. I don't know about there being a waiting line as the Athletic Office has basic tickets starting at 485 per. There is also a seating chart showing plenty of tickets available for season purchase. Keep in mind that Oklahoma is a low cost of living/low wage state and comparatively speaking OU charges some of the highest prices for NCAA football. IMHO, the jury is out on the ramifications of the tax code changes.

I hope you are right about families picking up any surplus. I don't know about there being a waiting line as the Athletic Office has basic tickets starting at 485 per. There is also a seating chart showing plenty of tickets available for season purchase. Keep in mind that Oklahoma is a low cost of living/low wage state and comparatively speaking OU charges some of the highest prices for NCAA football. IMHO, the jury is out on the ramifications of the tax code changes.

The NBA found out that while it is a low income state it had a HIGH level of discretionary money because of low cost of living. People love their sports and love their OU. They will keep coming to the games. The slowdown and future threat is from students.

Wouldn't be surprised to see OU have beer to the common folk next year at football and basketball. UT made over 1 million in selling beer last year. With Boren now gone, i see this happening very quickly.

Wouldn't be surprised to see OU have beer to the common folk next year at football and basketball. UT made over 1 million in selling beer last year. With Boren now gone, i see this happening very quickly.
Joe Castiglione was recently asked about beer sales and said he did not see it happening outside of the premium areas. He, of course, could be lying/unwilling to divulge future plans, but based on that response, it probably won't be as quickly as some hope.

Joe Castiglione was recently asked about beer sales and said he did not see it happening outside of the premium areas. He, of course, could be lying/unwilling to divulge future plans, but based on that response, it probably won't be as quickly as some hope.

you could be right. It could be one of the major selling points for the new end zone 'club seats'. Not sure if they have sold those out yet. Maybe once all of those are sold out in 2-3 year commitments, then they will start selling beer to everyone else.

https://newsok.com/article/5555405/ou-finishes-sixth-osu-37th-in-total-athletic-revenue

Without the contributions the program would have lost ~$20 million.

So the hell what? They have high levels of contribution every year. It’s a normal source of revenue for OU. And they adjust how much they spend based on how high the contributions are.

Article in OU Daily...

http://www.oudaily.com/news/james-gallogly-discusses-financial-goals-and-vision-for-the-university/article_17345da0-849d-11e8-994e-e7634467edba.html

I wonder how countries that focus on academics and don’t have athletics mixed into their higher education while serving as a “free” developmental league for professional sports are able to hang on.

Those countries probably tend to fully fund higher ed instead of relying on wealthy donors to subsidize the school in exchange for great seats to games and public honors showered upon them during athletic events.

Guys, OU has nothing to do with this arena project. This isn't at all to move Lloyd Noble events there. This is for the city of NORMAN. It's not unusual for burbs to have their own small arenas. Hell, even in Tulsa there's the Spirit Arena in Bixby. It didn't end up working out well for them there, but we also have the casino arenas around town too. Remember, the OSSAA state wrestling tournament moved to the Grand Casino arena a few years ago....i dont know if it was there more than one year or not, didnt pay attention.

Rosemont, IL is good example too. It's a way for smaller market events to come to your town or even a very small minor league something. OU Hockey already plays at the Blazer's Center on 240/35. And they far from fill the place that only holds a few hundred folks. So its not like they're gonna pay for a 5k seat place. But they could have large event scale meetings there as they have plenty of hotel capacity near the lot and it continues to expand. It's all just part of Norman's (not OU) masterplan vision for the north portion of the development. The southern half is getting full but there's not enough demand to continue that level of retail density, hence the corporate/hotel/residential/etc. Even the airport side lots haven't come to fruition yet.

Article in OU Daily...

http://www.oudaily.com/news/james-gallogly-discusses-financial-goals-and-vision-for-the-university/article_17345da0-849d-11e8-994e-e7634467edba.html

I may be pessimistic, but to me that reads like he's going to be a disaster for OU.

Article in OU Daily...

http://www.oudaily.com/news/james-gallogly-discusses-financial-goals-and-vision-for-the-university/article_17345da0-849d-11e8-994e-e7634467edba.html

It's hard to read that and not view it as him dogging out Boren in many ways.

I still wonder how the regents regarded Boren towards the end of his tenure; perhaps they felt largely the same way and specifically sought someone with a strong business background to correct what they perceived as major issues.

It just all seems strange to me. Boren served that university for a long time and few can challenge his love and dedication for the school. It all seems a bit ham-fisted to talk about Boren in this way but on the other hand it may be needed in order for Gallogly to make the change he believes is now necessary.

I may be pessimistic, but to me that reads like he's going to be a disaster for OU.

Interesting. I read it the opposite way and it made me optimistic. It is pretty well known in Norman that Boren would fill jobs with unqualified yes men who wouldn't challenge him. Jonathon Nichols is a great example, and I could point out at least three others who were fired and should have never held the job they had. Some of them rarely ever worked a full week and were getting paid very well. Getting rid of them is a good sign, in my opinion.

Also a good sign in my opinion is his refusal to gloss over intentionally opaque financial information that no one understood.

At the time it was announced, I thought it was very interesting that Boren was completely excluded from the search for a new president.

Now, I'm starting to think all this is inter-related in that the regents were anxious to move forward with new leadership and while Boren had done much for the university, it was time to bring someone with a completely different approach.

I do think Boren was guilty of being too much of a politician at times as OU President. But Gallogly sounds like he may go too far the other way. I hope he's not a disaster for OU, but I'm not optimistic about his tenure at all.

I do think Boren was guilty of being too much of a politician at times as OU President. But Gallogly sounds like he may go too far the other way. I hope he's not a disaster for OU, but I'm not optimistic about his tenure at all.

It's hard to judge any leader until some time passes after their depature.

They control the info and they don't get to these lofty positions without the ability to charm and even manipulate while at the same time having a big microphone and often being the only voice you hear.

So now that Boren is out, a clearer picture will start to take shape. It could very well be that he didn't adapt well to an ever-changing landscape (change is rapid now in almost every aspect business and organizational management) and while maybe he was great for OU for a while, that perhaps he stayed longer than he should have... Which is not an uncommon practice especially by those at the end of their overall career.

It's hard to read that and not view it as him dogging out Boren in many ways.

I still wonder how the regents regarded Boren towards the end of his tenure; perhaps they felt largely the same way and specifically sought someone with a strong business background to correct what they perceived as major issues.

It just all seems strange to me. Boren served that university for a long time and few can challenge his love and dedication for the school. It all seems a bit ham-fisted to talk about Boren in this way but on the other hand it may be needed in order for Gallogly to make the change he believes is now necessary.

Context to previous decisions is very important. The self serving rants do nothing to provide context and Boren is not going to get into a mud wrestling contest. Universities are not corporations and should not be run as such. The common right wing thread these days is that in society, the MOST important thing in society is the money. Gallogy has made NO mention of any vision for academic excelllence, free thought, diversity, etc. except in passing. While I cannot argue for fiscal irresponsibility, it seems Boren had noble dreams for a UNIVERSITY and then worked on making them happen. Gallogy is about budgets and control, and positioning himself as a "savior". He will have little power with our state legislature and will fund the UofO more and more with corporate funds. Corporations are about universities for training their work force, and not necessarily for training citizens to think for themselves, to challenge long established social norms (cough, cough, good ole boys in control).

^

Many people will have the same reaction given his comments.

Certainly Gallogy knows this so I suspect he is being somewhat strong in order to grease the skids for what he feels is needed structural change.

In other words, he has to first spell out why the change is needed before he commences a sweeping plan. And such big changes imply a fundamental disagreement with previous decisions.

Context to previous decisions is very important. The self serving rants do nothing to provide context and Boren is not going to get into a mud wrestling contest. Universities are not corporations and should not be run as such. The common right wing thread these days is that in society, the MOST important thing in society is the money. Gallogy has made NO mention of any vision for academic excelllence, free thought, diversity, etc. except in passing. While I cannot argue for fiscal irresponsibility, it seems Boren had noble dreams for a UNIVERSITY and then worked on making them happen. Gallogy is about budgets and control, and positioning himself as a "savior". He will have little power with our state legislature and will fund the UofO more and more with corporate funds. Corporations are about universities for training their work force, and not necessarily for training citizens to think for themselves, to challenge long established social norms (cough, cough, good ole boys in control).

We should probably just flip out two weeks into someone taking a different approach than his predecessor took over the last 20 years. I’m not sure why the fact that he’s conservative and a business person is making everyone trip out. Boren was a politician with no academic background before taking over at OU and did well. For the record Gallogly has made comments about his academic visions for the future of the university in previous statements but the financials are the most pressing issue right now so that appears to be what he’s handling first. I think Boren did a good job but had overstayed his welcome which from what I heard is how the regents felt and wanted to go in a different direction. Boren definitely pissed off a lot of large donors with his tendancy to get too political so I’m sure that had something to do with their decision to bring in someone with a different background given the university’s financial situation.

Other than a few offhand comments in a general way saying academics will be important (duh), he has articulated no particular vision. He is a CFO more than a university president. He didn't start off evaluating deans and professors. He didn't debunk the new colleges because they were bad for student development or academic achievement, but for rosy estimations of occupancy (like one evaluates an apartment building). He's been there two weeks (actually involved longer), but his focus is clear, and it isn't academics. It's about getting research contracts in (guess who those will benefit), and getting his administrative team in place so he can turn OU into a corporation. Doesn't take long to see what is top of mind to Gallogy.

We should probably just flip out two weeks into someone taking a different approach than his predecessor took over the last 20 years. I’m not sure why the fact that he’s conservative and a business person is making everyone trip out. Boren was a politician with no academic background before taking over at OU and did well. For the record Gallogly has made comments about his academic visions for the future of the university in previous statements but the financials are the most pressing issue right now so that appears to be what he’s handling first. I think Boren did a good job but had overstayed his welcome which from what I heard is how the regents felt and wanted to go in a different direction. Boren definitely pissed off a lot of large donors with his tendancy to get too political so I’m sure that had something to do with their decision to bring in someone with a different background given the university’s financial situation.

I know there was significant friction between some of the very big money at ou and Boren based on how he handled Joe Mixon vs. the SAE scandals. It's ultimately why he "retired".

We should probably just flip out two weeks into someone taking a different approach than his predecessor took over the last 20 years. I’m not sure why the fact that he’s conservative and a business person is making everyone trip out. Boren was a politician with no academic background before taking over at OU and did well. For the record Gallogly has made comments about his academic visions for the future of the university in previous statements but the financials are the most pressing issue right now so that appears to be what he’s handling first. I think Boren did a good job but had overstayed his welcome which from what I heard is how the regents felt and wanted to go in a different direction. Boren definitely pissed off a lot of large donors with his tendancy to get too political so I’m sure that had something to do with their decision to bring in someone with a different background given the university’s financial situation.

Some are leary of this individual based on the fact that those conservatives he aligns with in the legislature have contributed to the financial woes by slashing higher ed appropriations. Add to this he came from an industry that enjoyed massive tax cuts and tax incentives that were paid through these cuts.

Also a good sign in my opinion is his refusal to gloss over intentionally opaque financial information that no one understood.

That's part of why I'm squinting at him from the start. His big excitement about "a billion dollars of debt!" was nothing more than scaring people with a big number while failing to acknowledge that bonded debt for capital projects is completely normal for a public institution and is not the same thing as an institution simply being in debt because they're spending more than they take in. He either doesn't know what he is doing and is demonstrating that up-front, or he does and is presenting the facts deceptively to the public to exaggerate the university's financial status. Neither option is good for OU or the state.


Other than a few offhand comments in a general way saying academics will be important (duh), he has articulated no particular vision. He is a CFO more than a university president. He didn't start off evaluating deans and professors. He didn't debunk the new colleges because they were bad for student development or academic achievement, but for rosy estimations of occupancy (like one evaluates an apartment building). He's been there two weeks (actually involved longer), but his focus is clear, and it isn't academics. It's about getting research contracts in (guess who those will benefit), and getting his administrative team in place so he can turn OU into a corporation. Doesn't take long to see what is top of mind to Gallogy.

All of this.

Some are leary of this individual based on the fact that those conservatives he aligns with in the legislature have contributed to the financial woes by slashing higher ed appropriations. Add to this he came from an industry that enjoyed massive tax cuts and tax incentives that were paid through these cuts.

Post definitive proof to back this claim up. Please show that money was cut from education as a result of tax incentives and tax cuts given to the oil and gas industry. Show how any new taxes cuts or incentives are massive compared to any other industry.

Post definitive proof to back this claim up. Please show that money was cut from education as a result of tax incentives and tax cuts given to the oil and gas industry. Show how any new taxes cuts or incentives are massive compared to any other industry.

This touches on that. And the GPT is quite industry specific.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-oklahoma-bust/

From the above link:
The wind industry received tax credits and exemptions worth $306 million from 2004 to 2015, the Oklahoma Tax Commission said. State revenue data reviewed by Reuters show the horizontal-drilling tax breaks topped $1 billion between fiscal years 2012 and 2015 alone.

Then there is this: https://newsok.com/article/5553048/oklahoma-last-in-nation-in-funding-for-higher-education

...most states reported five-year increases in state support for higher education for the fiscal years 2012 to 2017 that ranged from 2.1 percent to 51.4 percent.

Seven states, however, reported five-year declines that ranged from 1.8 percent (Kansas and Arkansas) to 17.8 percent (Oklahoma).

I guess those education loses were the result of state employee pay raises, tax breaks for renewables, funding for social services, increased spending on mental health and other spending schemes.
Now show me comparable breaks for other industries such as the one that pays oil and gas credits when they are not even producing a product.

From March 2016 http://oklahomawatch.org/2016/03/30/unprofitable-wells-now-a-big-tax-break/
The Oklahoma Tax Commission estimates the state will pay out $158 million in rebates next year to operators of “economically at-risk” wells that are no longer profitable at current oil and gas prices.

Two years ago, before prices plunged, those rebates totaled just $11 million.

Now the ball is in your court friend. Show me and the rest of us how "everyone is flipping out because he is a conservative and business man".

Joe Castiglione was recently asked about beer sales and said he did not see it happening outside of the premium areas. He, of course, could be lying/unwilling to divulge future plans, but based on that response, it probably won't be as quickly as some hope.
https://pistolsfiringblog.com/oklahoma-state-will-sell-beer-at-football-games-in-2018/
OSU takes the lead in state.

Beer in the stadium was never going to happen under Boren. In fact, he banned it after one game right after the club area opened in the east upper deck. Then, in an odd attempt to persuade members they never existed, had the beer taps camouflaged. Sometime down the road beer was added back but it demonstrates how oddly uncomfortable Boren was with the whole matter.

I don't expect to see beer sales everywhere in the stadium this season, but at least now the idea can be fully considered where before there was no point for Joe C to even think through the pros and cons.

And I have to say as a beer lover and season ticket holder, it's not a big deal to me to do without it.

https://pistolsfiringblog.com/oklahoma-state-will-sell-beer-at-football-games-in-2018/
OSU takes the lead in state.

OSU has always been known to be a beer guzzling school. This is no surprise.

https://pistolsfiringblog.com/oklahoma-state-will-sell-beer-at-football-games-in-2018/
OSU takes the lead in state.

Takes the lead? There are far fewer schools selling alcohol than not selling alcohol. And it is not like it will make a difference in the garbage product they have on the field (except maybe people will stay the whole game). But financially, it is negligible, at best. UT didn't make that much money in beer sales, so you are greatly overstating the effect of this.

Beer in the stadium was never going to happen under Boren. In fact, he banned it after one game right after the club area opened in the east upper deck. Then, in an odd attempt to persuade members they never existed, had the beer taps camouflaged. Sometime down the road beer was added back but it demonstrates how oddly uncomfortable Boren was with the whole matter.

I don't expect to see beer sales everywhere in the stadium this season, but at least now the idea can be fully considered where before there was no point for Joe C to even think through the pros and cons.

And I have to say as a beer lover and season ticket holder, it's not a big deal to me to do without it.

this is spot on beer sales have slowing been creeping back into OU sports for years now (east club pregame basketball in courtside club then half time basketball in courtside club sante lounge, south club level ect)

i would expect baseball and softball to get beer sales either this season or next (as a test case) then basketball/football to be the year after those

Beer in the stadium was never going to happen under Boren. In fact, he banned it after one game right after the club area opened in the east upper deck. Then, in an odd attempt to persuade members they never existed, had the beer taps camouflaged. Sometime down the road beer was added back but it demonstrates how oddly uncomfortable Boren was with the whole matter.

I don't expect to see beer sales everywhere in the stadium this season, but at least now the idea can be fully considered where before there was no point for Joe C to even think through the pros and cons.

And I have to say as a beer lover and season ticket holder, it's not a big deal to me to do without it.

Beer was available for 1 game about 10-12 years ago.
They brought it back to the Santee Lounge several years ago. Until last year one could not bring beer outside of the santee lounge in to their seats. Last year i believed the rule changed. Also i think there is a limit of 1 per person into the seating area.

I can remember when the Santee lounge had 2 sides. The north side was smoking and the south side was smoke free.

And of course, beer and alcohol flow freely in the OU football suites.

And of course, beer and alcohol flow freely in the OU football suites.

And OU makes a pretty penny leasing those out. If beer was sold to plebs, the suites might lose some of their luster. :)

UT didn't make that much money in beer sales, so you are greatly overstating the effect of this.

Really? I guess it is all ones perspective of what is "overstating the effect of this".
https://www.chron.com/business/bizfeed/article/Alcohol-sales-spiked-at-UT-football-games-10810944.php
This was the second year that beer, wine and liquor sales were permissible at the home stadium of the Texas Longhorns. The school took in $3.1 million in revenue on alcoholic beverages sales, the newspaper reported. That compares with $1.8 million the previous season

And I have to say as a beer lover and season ticket holder, it's not a big deal to me to do without it.

No doubt Pete this issue by itself is not "a big deal" . However this is also a part of the fan experience that OU does not seem to be improving on for the great unwashed. Multiple start times of 11 am, the erosion of the tailgating areas for the average fan while enabling the "tailgate boys " to profit off this reality are certainly not fan friendly or enhancing the experience. While I have heard the reasons for the 11 am start as "out of our control, TV determines this" the school has been able to tell the networks that OU-TEXAS will not be played with a 6pm start time.