Shut up and play.

A bill has been introduced in the Missouri legislature that “Provides that any college athlete on scholarship who refuses to play for a reason unrelated to health shall have his or her scholarship revoked”.

Because, freedom.

(h/t Bill Connelly)

***********************************************************************

UPDATE:

***********************************************************************

UPDATE #2:  The bill’s author has it in for Gary Pinkel, too.

The bill, which as of Monday night had yet to be posted in full, would also fine a head coach for siding with the players in such a situation. Brattin criticized Pinkel for aligning with his players. Shortly after doing so, Pinkel retired due to health reasons.

“Whenever they go and refuse to play and hold our school and our organization hostage by refusal, it’s completely ridiculous,” Brattin said. “I shouldn’t even have to be sponsoring a bill like this.

“What a disgrace to Missouri.”

He continued: “I think it falls squarely upon the coach who gave the anointed blessing to this type of behavior. If they want to engage in this type of behavior, do it on their own time.”

60 Comments

Filed under Look For The Union Label, Political Wankery

60 responses to “Shut up and play.

  1. Biggus Rickus

    I don’t understand why this needs a law. Shouldn’t it go without saying that if you are on scholarship to play a sport and then refuse to play you lose said scholarship?

    Like

    • That would be at the discretion of the head coach.

      This bill, if enacted, would take that judgment call away. On its face, that’s pretty much a recipe to gut a football program.

      Like

      • Biggus Rickus

        I’m with you. It’s an overreach.

        Like

        • Bazooka Joe

          While I agree making a law is a bit of a stretch (takes any and all judgment away – look what it has done for our criminal justice system…) I do not disagree with the the point they are trying to make. Like Biggus states above they are on scholarship to play ball.

          Like

          • gastr1

            If one of the roles for college athletics is for athletes to also be students this should never become law. They should be required to consider their rights and responsibilities as they relate to personal conscience and position, and to make their own decisions accordingly. Reducing their control makes them even less of a student-athlete and more of a staff member, IMO.

            Like

      • Having the legislature involved in pretty much any decisions, that reek of political benefit to the sponsors, at an university can have some really bad effects. Eventually, goes into items much deeper than revoking scholarships. Then you are not only gutting a sports program, but parts of the university.

        Like

    • PTC DAWG

      Agree…simple as that,

      Like

  2. Bright Idea

    Nothing like a politician to make a mess an even bigger mess.

    Like

  3. Mark

    Shut up and play? Was there anything in the law about what they could and could not say? I mean, if you are on scholarship to play and you refuse to play for political reasons, why should you retain your scholarship?

    Like

    • If you think the threat of a boycott, as opposed to the politics behind the players’ decision, is what’s motivated the filing of this bill, well… hokay.

      Like

      • Mark

        Of course it’s politics. But if you are on scholarship to play, and you choose not to play for political reasons, then you aren’t holding up your end of the agreement. Say all you want about politics, but refuse to honor your scholarship and you could lose it.

        Like

        • How do you know what the agreement is? Pinkel didn’t cut any of his players, did he?

          Like

          • Mark

            You get a scholarship for playing ball. If you refuse to play, that’s not honoring the agreement. Hey, protest all you want, but practice and play if you want to keep your scholly. Of course, the sooner these colleges start paying them, the more of this we’ll see and rightfully so, IMO. Everyone but the NCAA knows they are employees. Oh, and the agreement is between the school and the athlete not the head coach. The coach just gets to pick who plays but the players have to be ready. They don’t have the right to keep a scholarship and refuse to play for political reasons, IMO.

            Like

            • Then why do you need this law? And why did Pinkel and the AD act like it was their call to not suspend the players?

              Like

              • Mark

                Don’t know if you need the law or not. But if Missouri is taking taxpayer money, then maybe the taxpayer has a right to pass a law about it. I don’t have a problem with the players protesting and not playing games. I don’t have a problem with the state yanking schollies from a player that refused to play at a state run institution either. If the scholly is for playing, then you play. If you don’t play, you don’t get to keep the scholly. I don’t even know why that would be controversial.

                Like

                • Derek

                  Does the student-athlete have any rights here? Just wondering.

                  I can see several GOOD reasons why someone on scholarship might not play and should suffer no consequences:

                  a) injury
                  b) contest conflicts with exam that prof. won’t move
                  c) illness
                  d) observance of a religious holiday
                  e) the coach called me a white trash loser whose best part of me ran down the crack of my momma’s ass and I’m as worthless as every other potato eating Irish son of a bitch papist he ever met and also 72 different words that generally mean “homosexual.”
                  f) my coach told me that I needed to blow him if I wanted to play this week
                  g) my school president attended a “white power” rally dressed as Adolph Hitler.

                  Of course these examples are extreme. I doubt anybody would think that a refusal play under these circumstances should result in punishment. Who are we to decide in advance what some lesser stimuli does or does not trigger rights on the part of a student-athlete to refuse to play?

                  As far as whose paying can the state make a bathroom at the Capitol “white’s only?” Paying for it may mean something, but its far from everything, under the law.

                  Like

                • Mark

                  Sure they have rights. So does the taxpayer. Personally, I don’t like the law. However, I certainly understand why the taxpayers would want to make sure that the students protest on their own dime. When you stop working for political reasons, you shouldn’t expect to get paid. I go on strike against my company, the company doesn’t continue to pay me. If I am injured, on the job, I get paid. If I have PTO, I get paid. If I strike because I don’t like the company, I don’t get paid. I don’t see why scholarships should be any different. You want to protest, fine. Do it. You want to protest by not playing, then don’t expect your scholarship that was provided for you for the explicit purpose to play, to be there the next day.

                  That said, the law is a publicity stunt and a stupid law. The students played and they got their way with the resignations of people in power. Whether that was good or not, I don’t know. I didn’t follow it that close.

                  Like

    • Ant123

      I agree with you Mark. It is no different from a debate team Scholarship holder refusing to participate in a debate. There is usually a lot of “noise” on here simply because football produces a lot of revenue. More revenue does not or should not mean more right or more rights.

      Like

      • Derek

        Does the debate team student have any rights here?

        I can see several GOOD reasons why someone on scholarship might not want to debate and should suffer no consequences:

        a) injury to vocal chords or other condition making speech painful
        b) debate conflicts with exam that prof. won’t move
        c) illness
        d) observance of a religious holiday
        e) the debate team coach called me a white trash loser whose best part of me ran down the crack of my momma’s ass and I’m as worthless as every other potato eating Irish son of a bitch papist he ever met and also 72 different words that generally mean “homosexual.”
        f) my debate team coach told me that my remaining on scholarship was conditioned on blowing him
        g) my school president attended a “white power” rally dressed as Adolph Hitler.

        Of course these examples are extreme. I doubt anybody would think that a refusal debate under these circumstances should result in punishment. Who are we to decide in advance what some lesser stimuli does or does not trigger rights on the part of a debate team member to refuse to debate?

        As far as revenue, what the hell does revenue have to do with anything except leverage and power? All a protest from a revenue sport does is give it a better chance of working. It changes nothing with respect to whether the student on scholarship has rights.

        Like

        • “Who are we to decide in advance what some lesser stimuli does or does not trigger rights on the part of a debate team member to refuse to debate?”
          The only we that should decide is the we that is providing the benefit.

          “As far as revenue, what the hell does revenue have to do with anything except leverage and power? All a protest from a revenue sport does is give it a better chance of working. It changes nothing with respect to whether the student on scholarship has rights.”
          It has nothing to do with it as far as I’m concerned. I was just making the point that is does to some people on here.

          Like

          • Derek

            So your are for a dictatorship. We benefit from the government ergo it gets to do whatever it wants and we have no rights against it. I think we got rid of that, of at least started the process, on 7/4/76. The extension and acceptance of benefits in no way creates a master/slave relationship. Both parties have rights. This play or you’re out is patently short-sighted and non-sensible. Had the players at penn state refused to play until the university terminated its relationship with Sandusky would you really feel the same? Really?

            Jerry may be raping a child in the stall next door but you need to suit up and play. Come on man! The agreement or disagreement with the cause or your lack of sympathy for the protest is a seperate matter.

            Like

            • Ant123

              I am for honoring one’s obligations and facing the consequences of not doing so. As for your example yes I would still be far them losing their scholarship. Someone being accused of wrong is not cause for someone else to stop fulfilling their responsibility.
              You said “Jerry may be raping a child in the stall next door but you need to suit up and play”. Obviously you don’t have to miss a game to stop a rape in the stall next door.
              As for “The agreement or disagreement with the cause or your lack of sympathy for the protest is a seperate matter”. That is of no matter whatsoever to me.
              However, you can’t have a functioning society where everyone thinks they can do whatever they want whenever they want even if it effects others negatively.

              Like

              • Derek

                Read this slowly:

                If you want to stop the rape that you are not a witness to AND no one will listen, why not use your leverage as a football player, individually or collectively, to bring attention to the matter? What this stupid law does is take away any judgment. If the ONLY way is boycott, you’re out without anybody having to make a judgment as to your actions. It’s a gross abuse of state power supposedly to prevent gross abuse of private power. Nobody says that the scholly isn’t in the balance every time there is a protest. It is. And should be. That’s a risk. But that trigger will be pulled on a case by case basis, not automatically as the dumbass politician wants.

                Like

                • Ant123

                  Students on scholarship should not have the prerogative to decide when they should fulfill their obligations and when they shouldn’t. That is one of the prices of being there on the taxpayers dime. Boycott, is never the ONLY way especially, for athletes. In this time of high media coverage they can get their message out and the public can decide its validity.

                  Like

                • Derek

                  Of course they should. It’s a free country. The school can decide their recourse. The student accepts the risk. The problem with the law is that it says that free people should be deprived thier respective choices because neither the school or the student has the wherewithal to make the right choices. Just trust the politician. Good luck with that.

                  Like

                • Ant123

                  That’s really the point. I trust the people to replace bad state legislators more than I have faith bad school administrators will be replaced. I really don’t trust school administrators to do any thing but cave as they did in Missouri. Frankly as a taxpayer I don’t even want them in that position. The law is not perfect but preferable to the alternative.

                  Like

    • Sam Johnson

      Er…maybe because the refusal to play is a form of political speech protected by the 1st Amendment – which applies to public universities. Could a school revoke an academic based scholarship if the student protested university policies?

      Like

      • It depends on if that protest is a refusal to perform the purpose of that scholarship. If so then yes. Someone has a right (as in they can not be forced) to protest but they must be willing to except the consequences.

        Like

      • Napoleon BonerFart

        Of course! College students thinking for themselves will just result in anarchy. Without our all-powerful, benevolent overlords to make the hard decisions for us, we would all be lost!

        Like

  4. Doug

    Not hard at all to see unscrupulous coaches of the Danny Kanell “concussions are a librul conspiracy” school using this as a weapon. Player gets hurt; coach wants him to keep playing; player says he won’t; coach cuts him from the team and leaks to the media that the kid wasn’t really hurt, he was a “discipline problem” who was throwing a tantrum. Only takes one example to make the rest of the roster think twice about reporting concussion-like symptoms.

    Like

    • I’m shocked you’d think a head coach would do something like that. Shocked, I tell you.

      Like

    • Mark

      And that is a real potential problem with the law. Yet, it seems aimed at those that would do it as a protest and if a kid lost a scholly in such a fashion as you outlined, I would imagine a huge lawsuit would be coming. It would be a no-win situation for the coach and the school. Doesn’t mean a coach and school wouldn’t do it though. They are certainly doing stupid things with students already.

      Like

  5. Well, when a school receives money from Government, it is at the mercy of that government.

    This is why I HATE Federal and state funding of higher education. We have separation of church and State, but not separation of Indoctrination and State.

    just sayin….

    Like

    • Dolly Llama

      I think my eyes rolled so hard that they may never line back up just right.

      Like

    • Derek

      All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, public order, courts, roads, prisons, the fresh water system, safe work environments safe drug, safe food, safe transportation, public health, a pension and the right to choose by popular will whatever we like, what has Government ever done for us?

      Like

      • Napoleon BonerFart

        And it’s done such a great job with those things, it should take over all the other “free market” areas of our lives. Freedom of choice just means that some of us will make the wrong decisions. The government shouldn’t allow that.

        Like

  6. tbia

    Sandy Koufax says this law sucks

    Like

  7. DawgPhan

    Yeah, it’s a bad law. Probably not that enforceable. And just red meat for the all the folks who want the government to make their dreams come true.

    Like

  8. Go Dawgs!

    I certainly hope none of the legislators supporting this bill are graduates of or fans of the University of Missouri or any other state school affected by the proposed law because it does nothing to encourage a prospective student athlete to attend those schools and might do plenty to discourage them. As much as Mizzou earned points with athletes around the country with how Gary Pinkel handled the boycott situation, this will do plenty to swing things in the other direction, if enacted. Like it or not, we live in an era where student athletes have realized that all of the money and media coverage dumped into their sport has given them a stage and spotlight and many of them intend to use it. Instead of muzzling them, perhaps institutions should work hard to make sure their positions are educated and informed (because no matter what, the muzzles won’t stay in place long).

    Like

  9. Macallanlover

    I am not in favor of additional legislation of things that can be handled locally (coach/admin) but those who feel this is some sort of “free speech” issue had better ask, where do you draw the line? There are literally thousands of “causes” for young folks to get fired up about, some large, some small. How they spend their free time speaking as an individual, or how they donate their money, should be up to them, but when it is time to practice, or play, they should be on time and represent the school.

    The Mizzou situation was the 2nd time in about 13 months where players made demands and put them ahead of the responsibility they had agreed to. They chose to speak as a team on their issues, what if individual players made those determinations on their won and you never knew who would show up? There is no end to where this could lead and you basically have a teenager extorting your games, if they choose. As a coach, I would draw the line at physically incapable, or tragedy in the family. And if you choose to attend protests or speak out on issues, do so as an individual student, and do not wear any team issued gear.

    Like

  10. 83dawg

    Dog bless the Senator Blutarsky!

    I never, EVER, thought I would see a NASCAR reference in a title here *-)

    For those not into it, it was “shut up and drive” from track management when the drivers found the new track substandard.

    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1998-04-05/sports/9804050266_1_drivers-track-nascar

    Like

  11. TnDawg

    Excellent legislation.

    This keeps Astro-turf protest movements from holding the season ticket holders hostage.

    It further keeps those same Astro-turners from operating as a de facto Board of Regents deciding who is hired and who is fired based on poop smears that they likely made themselves.

    I’d probably clear house in the history department though if none of the football team was aware that the Nazi’s did not round up all the 250 lb black linebackers in Germany to send off to work camps and death chambers.

    Like

  12. W Cobb Dawg

    Who’s gonna be the first (and probably last) dope to pull a scholly because a kid protested? I’m reminded of Wile E. Coyote standing in the shadow of a 10,000 lb weight about to make its presence felt.

    Like

  13. Lrgk9

    Asking for a 10% effort beatdown.

    Like

  14. ASEF

    It’s a toothless and gutless attempt to make intimidate young men. Toothless because gutting your roster to protect your state from Godless Collective Action by football players is cutting off your head to spite your face. Gutless because if his position is truly worthy of law then he could sit down with the Play rs and Pinkel and clearly articulate it. But he can’t, so he won’t. Standard incompletent state lawmaker-leach.

    Like

    • Macallanlover

      And yours is the standard, libtard BS where every institution is worth tearing down for any cause you approve of. It is brainless to think any action taken should be without consequences, and another lesson young men should learn. Life is tough and comes with obligations, thinking your opinion trumps any damage caused by your actions is childish.

      If you wish to act independently, be prepared to stand on your own and swallow the consequences. If you want to have opinions and protest, have at it, if you put those above your scholarship by not participating in all team activities, pay your own way and make room for a team player. College is often the first taste of adulthood young people face, so I like drawing the line although not sure about the role state legislatures should play.

      Like

      • And yours is the standard, libtard BS where every institution is worth tearing down for any cause you approve of.

        Oh, for fuck’s sake…tell me how you feel about Ted Cruz’s crusade to tear down the IRS? Is that his own “libtard” BS because it’s a cause he, and many of his supporters, approve of? I swear, folks that skew to whatever side of the political aisle they choose act like they should wouldn’t act in the same ways they accuse the other side of the political aisle when it’s a cause they support. Get the fuck out of here with that nonsense. It also shows me how shallow your thinking is that you need to equate a political philosophy with a mental issue and think it’s clever. I know six year olds that can pull off that insult as well.

        If you wish to act independently, be prepared to stand on your own and swallow the consequences. If you want to have opinions and protest, have at it, if you put those above your scholarship by not participating in all team activities, pay your own way and make room for a team player.

        The schools have argued in court, FOR YEARS, that players are not providing athletic services in exchange for scholarship compensation. They have argued that athletes are students first that participate in an extracurricular activity. If scholarships revocation became state mandate, HOO BOY, I know of a few laywers coughKesslercough that would have a field day with that in court and would do far more damage to the system than one football team at Missouri ever could. You can take whatever stance on this issue you want, but a state mandate that you can take revoke a scholarship for non-performance flies in the face of the bullshit facade the schools have been selling us for years about these guys not being basically employees. Good luck winning that battle in court.

        Like

        • Macallanlover

          I won’t argue with fools, your reply shows your inability to think, comprehend, and stay on point, it deserves no debate. But I am curious how you libs breathe with your head.under the sand? Reality is coming, if you folks weren’t taking everyone down with you I would thoroughly enjoy your much deserved misery.

          Like

          • Arguing with fools, indeed. Way to get so pissed off b/c you see some key words that you miss my point. Hint: I didn’t take any sides (btw – if you think I’m a liberal, all the LULZ; I get it, it’s easier to insult me b/c I challenged your POV and you don’t have a reasoned response for me.) I merely pointed out the absurdity of accusing one political philosophy of being willing to tear down institutions (you’re words) because they support a cause when either political philosophy does the exact same thing. I mean – unless you consider Ted Cruz to not be conservative or something. Also – smart people can make their arguments persuasively without resorting to childish insults. I assure you that’s not a political stance, more of a “why would you expect people to come to your side if you’re going to insult them” stance. There’s not a lot of superior intellectualism in that type of arguing, friend.

            Like

          • Dog in Fla

            “Reality is coming,”

            So are shrimp boats

            Like

        • Dog in Fla

          “Get the fuck out of here with that nonsense”

          How can we miss Mac when he won’t go away

          Like

      • ASEF

        Oh, libtard BS! Good to know Rush removed your brain, crapped in your cranium, and stitched you back up.

        Word of advice: I grew up in a town dedicated to blowing things up 8,000 miles away and 400 feet underground. I’m center right. If that looks like libtard BS to you, then that’s a you problem. Then again, Republican have spent the fall labelling the Pope, Boehner, and others as too liberal (!), so you’re not alone.

        Like

  15. Go Dawgs!

    Gee, after reading the second update there, it’s really hard to see why football players feel like they might need to unionize.

    Like

  16. DawgPhan

    Seems to me like this law would create a situation where a state was punishing people for exercising their constitutional rights.

    Also according the the NCAA the students are not given scholarships to play football. That football and the money that comes from it is just a happy bi-product of them being students on scholarship.

    So again, the state is punishing american citizens for exercising their 1st amendment right to protest while they are fulfilling their obligations for their scholarship(that is to say that being a protester and a student are not mutually exclusive)

    But I do agree with MacLover and Mayor, we should shred the constitution and start over.

    Like

  17. Anybody have an opinion on how this law would stand up from a constitutional standpoint?

    Like

  18. Pingback: “… Some guys are upset about it, but it’s above our pay grade…” | Get The Picture