Originally Posted by
Johnson85
Yeah, this isn't really coherent. You have to have a theory of liability for the university. Most of the theories that are arguably non-frivelous do not rely on alcohol. If we sale alcohol in the stadium, a person could sue the university and argue that the combination of serving people that were already heavily intoxicated and allowing cowbells in the stadium essentially contributed to the injury. But right now they could argue that by not barring visibly intoxicated people, not having enough security, and/or not taking appropriate steps to prevent alcohol from being smuggled in combined with allowing cowbells is enough to establish liability. These are all pretty thin, and even if they weren't, the way to address most of these issues is not to ban the cowbell but to address the alcohol part of the equation.
You can always sue for nuisance money, but I'm not sure nuisance suits would cause the university to ban cowbells. If you named the SEC, that might motivate them to ban it, but you don't really need alcohol sales to do that. You just have to find a lawyer willing to ignore ethical considerations (which is unfortunately not very hard to do).