This presumes that these type licensing agreements increase sales to those under-age students or conversely, not having a licensing agreement fixes the issues already in existance.
The licensing agreement is designed to increase beer sales, not necessarily to underage students. Not having a licensing agreement in no way fixes the high freshman failure rate.
I also fail to see how such a licensing agreement exacerbates existing problems.
The licensing agreement is bad for the university because it inherently creates inconsistent messaging from the University. To students, "Don't drink too much." To everybody else, "Enjoy our beer." The licensing agreement makes it harder to believe that LSU's efforts to curb underage drinking are sincere while simultaneously lending their brand to a beer label. It's easy to see this contradiction becoming a problem. Imagine a front-page article of an LSU student's binge-drinking death with a picture of a trashed front lawn strewn with LSU-branded beer cans. It's not a good look.
The problem with co-branding is that you lose control over what your brand represents. This is Marketing 101. LSU, while attempting to steer its brand to resemble a respectable institute of higher learning, has to counterbalance the opposing message that says, "Hire an LSU grad, they like beer."
Cedric is probably a fool, and we all know he'll be ridiculed. I'm not in his corner for the same reasons, but as a two-time LSU grad, I am opposed to the licensing agreement. It pulls the brand toward lowbrow party school and away from "molder of mankind".