Official M Water Bottle Response
I just received a response from the M athletic department concerning water bottles. I had written:
"Hello, I recently received my football season tickets and was very disappointed to see that sealed water bottles will no longer be allowed into the stadium. I realize that there are free small cups of water and drinking fountains available. However using these sources will cause me to have to leave my seat during the game (I normally never leave my seat so I don't miss any of the great action). I'd like to ask that you reconsider this ban. At the least, perhaps you might allow entirely empty bottles so that individuals can fill up their bottle at the water fountains prior to going to there seat and then not miss any of the game.
Thank you for your consideration."
The response from the M athletic department:
"Thanks for the email. We appreciate your input. The water bottle policy was instituted for several reasons including to help the flow of traffic through the gates. Bottles have not been checked in the past, or at least not thoroughly. With new security procedures planned for this year, a tighter checking procedure is planned to be in place. If water bottles were allowed in, we would be forced to thoroughly check all bottles as they come through which would cause enormous back-ups at the exterior gates. As we found out last year after restricting all bags, the ticket taking process at the gates flows a lot easier if items are not brought in. This policy would not have been put in place without ensuring that our guests would have access to free water. In past years, we only had 4 water fountains and 3 "free water stations". This year, we will now have 28 water fountains and 40 concession stands that will give out free cups upon request. These cups will be 9 oz. size. In addition, every other concession stand will offer bottles of water for sale with the exception of Dippin Dots and Lemon Chill locations. While we knew this would be an unpopular policy, we felt that it was the best move to help with the overall logistics of bringing 109,000 plus fans into Michigan Stadium. Thanks again for the email and please do not hesitate to contact me with further questions.
Rob Rademacher
Associate Athletic Director
University of Michigan
734-647-9763"
This is a follow-up to a prior board post. For those that plan to continue asking for this policy to be rescinded, perhaps you can refute some of these points in your email to the department. I submitted my comments via the mgoblue.com feedback section.
... I think Michigan fans forget what sort of target the Big House could be.
Considering what the "All In" cost of game day is, I can't believe buying a bottle of water is going to break anyone.
I hope there is never a serious security incident at the Big House. If there ever is, this sort of modest security policy will seem trivial.
Are you f*#cking happy now Bin Laden?
Did everyone else here miss the portion of the e-mail which says one can purchase water in bottles if one needs it so badly?
This is no different than going to a movie or flying an airplane. The whining on this thread is unbelievable. Wait, actually, it is believable.
I didn't miss it. I refuse to and cannot afford to pay $4 for a bottle of water at the stadium. This is complete bullshit when even TSA allows individuals to walk past security with empty nalgene and aluminum bottles.
The average Michigan ticket for non-students is $57. For a family of four this would be $228. Add in $30 for parking, $40 in food and BBQ supplies, $30 for gas to the game, well you see the price to attend a game skyrockets.
If you want to stay in your seat the entire game, then a 12 oz bottle of water is not going to cut it. Be ready to leave your seat a few times to fill it at one of the many water fountains that will be covered in bacteria and viruses after the first pregame of the UCONN game.
So just to be clear, your options at this point are to drink bacteria and virus filled water, get up from your seat to get free water, ot die of heat stroke and dehydration?
wrong, my opinion is this water bottle ban is extremely short-sighted and is nothing but a money grab. I won't be happy unless they repeal the ban.
Free water in little dixie cups is not going to solve the issue.
Where did I say anyone is going to die? Please point that out.
Then your never going to be happy and bitching about it is not going to get you anywhere. If you can't leave your seat for the free cups of water or drinking fountains then I guess your out of luck.
It is obvious you never attended a game sitting in row 8 of the student section (which is packed beyond the legal capacity) in the 90 degree heat where it feels like it is 110 degrees and try to get to get up to the concession stands and back without missing more than half of a quarter.
Sorry, bud bitching does work. Especially in an election year with the regents. I have already emailed the regents with my concerns. Judging from the AnnArbor.com article, I am far from the only that has emailed the regents. At the moment I am already considering voting out some of the regents from their decisions about graduate tuition.
Given the number of nonresident graduate students (many of whom leave the state, never to vote in MI again), and the length of Regent terms, I don't think graduate tuition is going to be the "constituent issue" over which Regents are going to fret.
they also raised undergraduate tuition, which I am fine with. Raising undergraduate tuition saved my department and many others in LSA from laying off non-faculty staff members. Secondly, graduate students on average take 6 years to complete a doctorate. That is 3 elections we vote in, in which regents seats will be up for reelection. Finally, the university departments basically makes us take residency in the state in order to save on tuition they pay for in terms of GSI tuition waivers.
I'm intrigued--how does your department get around the residency requirements? Which department is this?
I got my PhD in Michigan too, and it didn't matter whether you owned property or anything else--the U stance was, if you moved to MI primarily to go to school at U-M, then you were a non-resident, no matter what you did once you settled in, no matter how much that sucks for you or the people paying your tuition waiver.
My department is biophysics. I actually came in with Michigan residency (actually had to apply for it, since Michigan considered me out of state even though I am from Muskegon, MI but graduated from Purdue in West Lafayette). Many LSA departments push for their students to apply for residency after living hear for a year and establishing a permanant residence. They use GSI/GSR appointments as evidence of the student establishing an employment relationship with the state of Michigan (ie the students are now paying state of Michigan income taxes and are therefore considered a Michigan resident).
August 2nd, 2010 at 11:11 PM ^
Dude the way you're constructing arguments in this thread is ridiculously irrational.
All you're doing is taking your own personal preference and universalizing it by in one way or another stating that it's objectively good. That's called emotivism, and it's a shitty way of constructing arguments. It's the reason why political discourse in America is nothing but people yelling past each other.
You did it with the water bottle thing and with your claim that raising tuition for undergrads is good, yet, doing so for grad. students is bad because - surprise! - you're a grad. student. Your arguments are nothing but your self-interested wishes under the guise of utilitarian rhetoric.
You can put lipstick on a pig, but....
Nothing against you personally, but to rational people, arguments made in that manner are like nails on a chalkboard.
Please stop.
Yes, Heaven forbid someone needing to drink water when it's 90 degrees out. Paying $4 for a bottle is ridiculous.
Based on the last three characters of his username, I can tell he knows what he is talking about in regards to this subject.
Go blue!!!
How about they just sell big bottles of water for the same price you can get them anywhere else? If it IS ONLY about security and NOT about profits, they shouldn't have any issues selling these water bottles for $1 apiece instead of some rediculous amout like $3 to $4 a bottle. Sounds like a WIN / WIN for the "Security" concerns and the fans to me......
August 2nd, 2010 at 10:24 AM ^
We have a winner folks! I totally agree with JD_UofM_90!
August 2nd, 2010 at 11:10 AM ^
Bingo, we have a winner
Flying on most airlines you still get free drinks brought to your seat and can get them at nearly anytime it is safe for flight attendants to be up if you just ask. For those airlines that now make you pay, they used to give free drinks. The changes instituted by the airlines were done because their businesses are/were in the red. As we all know Michigan Athletics are solidly in the black (for which I am very grateful).
As for movies, those places are air conditioned (not 90 in September) and I'm normally not screaming my head off during the movie as I am during a football game.
So I really don't think either of your comparisons is appropriate. On top of that, just because two other businesses charge you an arm and a leg for concessions, doesn't make it right. In fact, those are two big complaints about those industries.
To be honest, you're right, for many of us, spending the $4 isn't that big of a stretch (though I admit for students, which I'm not that far removed from being, it can be a more significant stretch). For me, it is more a matter of the bottleneck in lines faced getting out of my seat, through concessions lines, and back to my seat without missing any of the action. That's the reason I'm upset about this policy.
If you walk down Hoover street on your way to the game. We, No.9 as well as other vendors, sell cold water for one dollar. The same bottle of water is going to cost you $3.00 in the stadium. Hey, I am all for making money but I dont believe you should rob people blind!.. come'on...$3.00 for a bottle of water!!!!
The only security issue here is the security of their dollars. s
If they were so concerned about you, they would GIVE you a bottle of cold water for FREE if you asked for it, not a @!%# cup. Especally with the price of a ticket these days!, Also, where is all of this "free" water comming from, is it filtered. I have lived in Ann Arbor for MANY years, Ann arbor does not have the best dringing water from tap.
Foldable sports bottles. I think the bottle ban is a crappy idea and a money grab (otherwise sell water bottles at closer to cost).
Don't forget Burple!
help anyone who needs to get rid of tickets based on this new policy, specifically UConn, MSU, and Illinois.
My back up plan to this is to win the Lotto and pick up one of the remaining suites. I think right now I have an equal chance of both.
August 2nd, 2010 at 10:06 AM ^
If the water bottle policy is a security issue then the University must do a pretty extensive background check on the delivery guys from the water distributor. Or maybe they have a guy that checks every single bottle that gets delivered to the stadium. If it is a security thing, how can I be sure the water in cups is safe to drink?
August 2nd, 2010 at 11:13 AM ^
screaming IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE and PEOPLE SHOULD SUE! ...come on. It's a money issue. (The collective) You are bitching about paying for something at an inflated price. No one is seriously worried about safety here. Would you pay $4 or leave your seat for 10 minutes to prevent death? Yes? Then stop with the safety issue ridiculousness. Free water is being offered at numerous locations and bottled water is available for a fee (surprise!). Any sort of lawsuit would be laughed out of court.
I will bet on the complaintent in terms of any litigation that may arise.
(counsel for UM approaches the plaintiff on cross examination)
Counsel: Isn't it true that Michigan Stadium sells bottled water and other refreshments in its numerous concession stands, 2 of which were within 100 feet of your seats?
Plaintiff: Yes, but I-
Counsel: And isn't it true that Michigan Stadium also maintains free water stations that would provide free 9 ounce cups of water to patrons at no charge, in unlimited quantities? And a station was located right outside your section?
Plaintiff: Sure, but in order to-
Counsel: A yes or no answer will suffice. Are you aware that Michigan stadium recently installed a number of new water fountains that would also provide you with water, free of charge? There were 4 within easy walking distance from your seats.
Plaintiff: Yeah but the germs-
Counsel: Mr. Plaintiff, how many alcoholic beverages did you consume before entering Michigan Stadium?
Plaintiff: ...
Counsel: The defense rests.
August 2nd, 2010 at 12:21 PM ^
With 70 or so responses to this string most of the points have been covered. But a couple of items:
Free water - 20 drinking fountains and 48 concession stands is not enough for 109,000 people. That's 68 locations, or 1,600 people per location. No matter what assumptions you make about the number of people needing water and how long it takes for them to get their 9 oz. glass, there is simply not enough time from gates open till end of the game to take care of everyone who needs water on a 90 degree day.
Security - If anyone ever decides to do something horrible at a major sporting event, it will not be on a hot day when the fans are wearing shorts, t-shirts and not much else. Instead, it will be on a cold, rainy, windy day when everyone is dressed for the weather, including ponchoes and heavy coats. Never mind a water bottle, on a rainy day in October you could bring in an AK-47 without anyone noticing. Banning water bottles in the name of security is nonsense.
Done Deal? - Remember when Michigan and Ohio State announced naming rights for the game? That decision was changed after a major outpouring of rage from fans and alums. The same thing can happen here if we keep up the pressure. Never mind complaining to the athletic department, they've made their decision. The complaints need to go to Mary Sue Colemen and the regents. Don't give up, it's not over yet!
Earlier someone estimated that only 15% of fans even bothered bringing in water bottles, with plenty of bitching that the number was too high.
So that means at least 92,650 fans were getting their fluid needs met under the previous system, when they had a mere four fountains and three free water stations in addition to concessions.
So I'm guessing a lot of people just (a) were wealthy enough to cough up $4 for a water bottle at the stadium; (b) bought other soft drinks to meet their needs; or (c) managed without any fluid intake at all. Won't some of those same resourceful people will be showing up on gamedays this year? I just don't think the "load" on those free drink stations are going to be as heavy as your math suggests.
Less water = less trips to the bathroom = more Tate/Denard touchdowns witnessed from your seat
less water in 90 degree weather with 80% humidity after 4 or 5 beers = dehydration = passing out = heat exhuastion = liver and kidney damage
This is such a non-issue.
My main problem with this is that I really didn't notice getting into the stadium being that bad, or different than before, when they instituted the total ban on bags. And I doubt the water ban would really make that big of a difference if we were still allowed to bring it sealed bottles. I feel like they're worrying about an issue that isn't really there. It seems like every year the security policies are slightly changed and yet, after the first game (there do seem to be minor hiccups that first game) our waiting time in line is never really that bad. If checking water bottles really will add five minutes to my wait, I can live with that.