7th inning stretch?
If you haven’t heard, the Cubbies have a pretty good team this year. They’ve clinched a birth to the playoffs, and are predicted to do some damage in the playoffs.
(Or wait – is that the fans that are predicted to do some damage? I’m getting ahead of myself.)
Read this article from the Chicago Sun-Times.
It seems some local political types are worried that, gasp, should the cubs win their first world series in 100 years (seriously, it would have been 100 years), that the numerous bars around Wrigley Field should stop serving beer after the 7th inning of any game in which they could clinch the series. They are worried about some unruly behavior.
The thought process is, that because the cubbies fan will stop drinking for an hour (beer will be served after the game ends), there will be less unruly behavior.
I find it a bit of a stretch…
We’ve talked about what happens to current demand when there is an increase in the expected future price of a product. Current demand increases when the price is expected to rise.
If the bar can’t sell you beers after the 7th inning, then you can think of the price becoming very very high after the 7th inning ends. As such, we’d expect a big spike in alcohol purchases just before the 7th inning.
But two more questions to consider. If people just buy an extra hour’s worth of beer before the 7th inning and drink at the normal pace, there is no effect of the regulation. A useless government intervention.
But could it be worse? Could people guzzle the last one, or guzzle the next one, or buy some Jaeger-bombs (they still taste ok warm), and become more unruly than they would have if there hadn’t been the ban? Could the rule induce substitution from beer to liquor?
Granted, there might be some people who just stop drinking for an hour.
However, the article says that policy is voluntary. How many bars do you think are going to volunteer to follow this policy?
Would you be in favor of this rule if you owned a bar near Wrigley? If you owned a bar just outisde of the covered area?
In the end, what does the rule accomplish?
Or does it really not matter at all because the cubs have no hope of clinching anything? Sadly, I worry about this option the most.
A hat tip to the folks over at sportseconomist.com for pointing out the article and writing a post similar in spirit.
–CT