“… Some guys are upset about it, but it’s above our pay grade…”

I think many of you missed the point I was trying to make when I posted something about the Missouri legislative proposal that’s a knee jerk reaction to the threat of a players’ strike.

First off, as Dennis Dodd noted, it’s not about taxpayer money.

It should be noted scholarships at Missouri are paid for by donors and other sources. Public money is not used.

#ConcernedStudent1950 pitched tents in the middle of campus to bring awareness to their issue. They were joined at times by faculty who supported their cause.

Of course, you could always try to argue they weren’t serious about what they were doing.  I mean, you could.

Nobody would accuse Brattin of acting out, right?

More importantly, think about what one of Brattin’s cohorts is implying when he says,

“Those football players were way out of line,” Basye said. “They had a responsibility to the university and to the football program to play.”

Can you say J-O-B?  I thought you could.  Put it this way:

We here at the blog were curious what this sort of legislation — were it to pass — would mean for the structure of the NCAA as we know it.

If athletes are truly “student-athletes” as the NCAA stresses, would they not also have the right to protest without having their funds revoked, just like any other student?

Missouri’s athletic department has not responded to requests for comment. The NCAA, through a spokesperson, said it “will not have a comment.”

I’m sure the NCAA is thrilled.

Even more bluntly,

“… This is a public institution. We continually say that college athletes are students when, in fact, we treat them like employees. The reason why athletes may eventually be defined as employees is by situations like this. No other student at the University of Missouri — I can guarantee it — would have lost any type of financial aid had they stood up and protested this. Whether somebody agrees with it or not, that’s not a rule in America. People have a constitutional right. You have that right as a student.

“I was just stunned that, as a veteran and a congressman in a leadership position, it was not a smart move to do. I just found it one of the more ridiculous thing, that you’d actually take away a school reward — because that’s what it is. It’s supposed to be about education — and you’re essentially saying ‘you’re an employee and, if you don’t do what we say, we’re going to take away your pay.’ Congratulations to this buffoon. He has now just, again, put another nail in the ‘student-athlete’ coffin by trying to do this…”

Eh, I have faith in Rep. Brattin’s ability to propose a law for that, too.  Smaller government, for the win!

(h/t Bill Connelly)

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

UPDATE:  A quote from the other sponsor of the bill may do an even better job of getting my point across.

According to the Kansas City Star, Bahr said: “If they have a contract to perform certain duties, and they violate that contract … then it’s not an issue of the First Amendment. It’s an issue of contract law. They failed to uphold that contract.”

Contract, eh?  If it walks like a job and talks like a job, then…

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

UPDATE #2:  Minor details are a bitch, y’all.

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

UPDATE #3:  Per the AP,

A Missouri lawmaker has withdrawn a bill that sought to strip scholarships from college athletes who go on strike or refuse to play for reasons unrelated to health.

Republican state Rep. Rick Brattin dropped the 5-day-old legislation Wednesday. He says he introduced the measure last Friday merely to entice dialogue about what he considers “an extremely important topic.”

Uh huh.

105 Comments

Filed under Political Wankery

105 responses to ““… Some guys are upset about it, but it’s above our pay grade…”

  1. Dawgaholic

    We think the “Georgia Way” makes it hard to compete in the SEC. The “Missouri Way” is likely to make it impossible. Those people may set back the program worse than what Jan Kemp did to us. It is going to be very difficult for them to recruit if they stay on this path.

    Like

  2. Dolly Llama

    Senator, I hate to be so presumptuous as to advise, but you realize we haven’t had a dedicated Eason thread since that dropped, right?

    Like

    • Senator usually doesn’t cover stuff like that, but you never know. Occasionally someone forces him to comment on recruiting 😉

      Like

      • Dolly Llama

        I understand that the Senator doesn’t want to get into the recruiting weeds — that way lies madness, after all — Eason really has been THE KEY to the future for a couple of years, seems like. Is he a dead-nuts-certain starter next year? Certainly seems like he deserves more than some tail-end comments on a dead thread.

        Like

        • I have to admit, as a 40+ year old adult, I have invested a little too much emotional energy in following this 18 year old kids recruitment. That being said, I totally agree how crazy important it was to land this kid. So happy Smart sealed the deal, and very grateful Richt and co. were able to go get a recruit from all the way across the country. Things are looking good in bulldog territory. Now lets load up in the trenches.

          Like

        • Now when the kid is spotted at a bar in Remerton drinking or pics of him and Ramsey spooning at Talladega surface we’ll get a post.

          Like

    • Bulldog Joe

      Erehay, eway ontday alktay aboutyay ecruitingray.

      Like

  3. paul

    Interesting that the same guy proposing this bill “sponsored a law that took effect in August making public college campuses forums where non-commercial speech could not be restricted.”

    Like

    • Dolly Llama

      Probably in response to some religious issue on campus.

      Like

    • Rp

      You guys are missing half of the boat on this. the bill doesn’t preclude the players from protesting. They are free to join any moronic, reality-challenged protest they want. Just show up and play football when you are finished being ignorant and gullible. And for the record I tend to disagree with the legislature getting involved. It just chapped a lot of asses that they threatened the walk out over something so baseless.

      Like

  4. DawgPhan

    this guy is also one of these rape truthers, who believe in “legitimate rape” and I guess consequently, “illegitimate rape”.

    People of the 55th in good ole Mizzou must be very proud.

    Like

  5. Sam johnson

    All consistent with a certain contemporary worldview. No abortions without wriitten consent of father, no free speech for students, no cookies with food stamps -all messures Brattin has spinsored to make America great ahain again. Of course black football players should keep their mouths shut, too.

    Like

  6. Bright Idea

    I have difficulty placing a boycott on equal footing with a protest.

    Like

  7. Biggus Rickus

    The legislature passing a law is stupid. However, the whole situation was a clusterfuck and essentially established that the football team (at least at the University of Missouri) can dictate whether or not a University President can remain in his job. I understand the desire to push back. It just isn’t a particularly effective method and will only cause more problems.

    Like

    • gastr1

      Seems like it was not only effective but that and hunger striking were pretty much the options they had left, though, right? There were several opportunities for the president to communicate with students who approached him, I believe I read, and he blew them off?

      Like

      • Biggus Rickus

        You assume the protester’s “grievances” were legitimate. I don’t. The whole thing was blown way out of proportion, and the President didn’t do anything deserving of dismissal. It was a temper tantrum thrown by some students and a few professors on campus, and it should have been ignored. On the other hand, University administrators have made their beds by celebrating this kind of nonsense for a while, so there’s a certain amount of poetic justice to it.

        Like

        • gastr1

          You assume that such a distinction can be clearly made on a college campus. Those of us on one do not deny the legitimacy of the claims of a big chunk of students if we want to keep our jobs. Once they are heard, there are processes in place to sort out whether they are right or not. But giving them a voice with university officials to start with is expected protocol.

          Like

        • gastr1

          Moreover, we all know that there are student and faculty claims that are, I would call them, “tempests in a teacup” (“temper tantrum” suggests children and the fact is that most adults have, at one time or another, gotten upset over something that was not a big issue to everyone else). But again, the fair approach–expected at the majority of universities I am familiar with, and certainly at my own– is to listen to them to determine what is legit and what isn’t. And there is absolutely no way to be able to tell what was what from your distance–or from mine. So, despite that your mind is made up based who-knows-what, university administrators are (fortunately) not typically allowed to be so A. dismissive in their language; B. dismissive in their actions.

          The MIzzou issue caused a ripple effect around other college campuses, including my own. Minority students similarly made their voices heard about whatever has gone on in their place. I bet you didn’t hear about those…because they were handled more effectively, starting with not dismissing their claims out of pocket.

          Like

        • Dawgwalker07

          Part of the job of someone is leadership is taking care of the people you’re responsible for. Whether the claim is legitimate or not, if you don’t listen to people when they think it’s legitimate they’ll eventually make you listen because it’s important to them. I don’t have any sympathy for him because he brought this on himself in how he handled it. Whether the students had a legitimate complaint or not is irrelevant. This guy did a crappy job handling it and certainly (to me) displayed he wasn’t worth the $450,000 Missouri was paying him.

          Like

    • Scorpio Jones, III

      I don’t know, Rick…If you could talk to Fred Davison, he might tell you it is not uncommon for a football team to impact a university president. 😀

      Like

    • 83dawg

      Remember, when Pinkel got the entire team behind the boycott, the team also narrowed their criteria to maintaining it to one–that the student on the hunger strike resume eating.

      There was nothing about the University President having to resign.

      Like

      • Scorpio Jones, III

        Exactly.

        Like

      • Biggus Rickus

        Unless they were planning to force feed him, that’s a distinction without a difference.

        Like

        • Scorpio Jones, III

          Rick, the pres resigned because he lost control of the situation, did not do a good job responding to student body…not cause the football team took part in the protest.

          Like

        • 83dawg

          I know what you are saying and why (I think), but I do not believe that to be the case.

          If the Missouri Board of Regents (or whatever they call it there) had announced that, regrettably, the current University President seems to have lost the trust of the students, so we are appointing a special ombudsman with the authority to make policy changes, who will be advised by a council made up of 50% students chosen by the protest movement, 25% faculty chosen in an election by all students at the university, and 25% faculty and University Police officials appointed by the ombudsman. The election is to be held in 2 days. TODAY, the ombudsman will go meet with the protesters on the quad, and she/he will stay there until he/she has heard every last student that wants to voice an opinion.

          In that case, might not the student on the hunger strike have agreed to eat?

          Without firing the University President?

          **slightly off topic–if Mizzou had Dean Tate none of this ever would have happened…

          Like

  8. Voice of Reason 1776

    I think the analysis here is way off. This Brattin guy is probably a complete tool and this does not require a legislative response. However, the greater point is this: If a drama student on a drama scholarship refuses to act or a student on a scholarship to study chemistry refuses to study chemistry that scholarship would be revoked and rightly so. It doesn’t make a drama or chemistry student an employee but if you are given a scholarship because of a special skill or talent you can’t then say I refuse to use my special gift or talent but I want to keep the scholarship anyway. People can protest any way they want within the law but you don’t have a right to protest without being willing to take responsibility for your actions.

    Like

    • gastr1

      Do you know for certain that such a scholarship would be revoked? Automatically, like that?

      Like

      • Dolly Llama

        OK, so let’s say the student athletes just boycott class but continue to play ball. They keep the schollies?

        Like

        • gastr1

          It’s at the discretion of the coaches/faculty/academic department in many, I’d venture to say most, cases. At my own school a basketball player was found to have a heart defect before he ever played in a game as a freshman, and couldn’t play for the team, and they honored his scholarship for the full time he is here. There are no “medically unable to perform” clauses. The coaches elected to leave him on scholarship.

          More directly to your point, perhaps, academic failure is the quickest way to lose one, yes, but even then it typically takes failing more than one class. There may be a GPA threshold but even that is often massaged if it’s believed the student will get it together.

          Like

        • gastr1

          –If they boycotted classes as some kind of protest–like, let’s say, the crap that happened at UNC, where they were being shuttled into this or that major and some students had paper written for them–I think they would get the attention of the university admin and not lose their scholarships, no.

          If they just stopped going to class because, hey, we are here to play ball, though, yeah, that duck would not fly.

          Like

    • Sam johnson

      A public institution may not punish people for political speech. This is bedrock con law. If the action of the student can ressonably be characterized as political speech, it cannot be punished. The boycott was a form of speech.

      Like

    • Dawgwalker07

      “People can protest any way they want within the law”

      It’s a good thing political speech is protected by law in this country then.

      But really, if a chemistry or drama student said, “I don’t feel like my place of study is a safe environment and I’m not going to study or perform until these things have been addressed” there’s no way their scholarship would get pulled. If it did, you’d have one giant lawsuit on your hands. That’s not a meaningless protest, and just because you think it was doesn’t make it less legitimate. The kids have the right to air their grievances without “getting fired” or having their financial assistance pulled out from under them.

      Like

  9. John Denver is full of shit...

    It’s a sturdy soap box, but it is still a soap box.

    Like

  10. Mark

    If you are on academic scholarship, and you refuse to take a test for political reasons, and get a failing grade because of it, you will likely lose your scholarship. The issue wasn’t that they protested. Rather, it was that they threatened to not play as part of the protest.

    As a business man, count me among those that don’t believe accounting gimmicks matter much when it comes to money being designated. Government supports the school and without that support, there would likely be no football scholarships at all. Taxpayers can have a say, right or wrong just as any other donor does.

    Like

    • gastr1

      I work for a university and have some experience with the scholarship process. If you refuse because you are protesting an issue on campus you may fail an exam or course, but that in itself would not cause you to lose your scholarship. I venture to say you would almost certainly not lose it, as long as the protest did not result in harm to others.

      Scholarships are much more at the discretion of faculty (and by extension, coaches) than most here seem to think. It is not a cut-and-dry “perform or die” situation. We’re talking college students, here, remember. Unless we’re talking about something else.

      Like

      • Voice of Reason 1776

        A university can only give 85 football scholarships. If 10 guys decided to protest and not play would you try to give those scholarships to someone else? How about 30 or 60? Obviously a reasonable person would, and nothing about that means the football player is an employee.

        Like

        • gastr1

          No. That’s not how scholarships work, because they are not jobs.

          Like

        • The Nelson Puppet

          Yes, but if all 85 hang together and have their scholarships revoked, NCAA rules only allow an institution to grant an additional 25 scholarships in such a case. Good luck trying to compete with 25 scholarship players!

          As said before, this is basic Con Law: it violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

          Like

    • Derek

      I don’t know if you are aware but you’ve just justified the expansion of the commerce clause beyond the most liberal interpretation ever. Government can regulate everything and anything under your construction. Right now it’s “almost everything” but if any tangential taxpayer funding means full right to regulate then the commerce clause would become would be all encompassing. Why can the government prohibit all public protesting that it disagrees with? Because we paid for the street! Why can’t I protest at home? If it weren’t for the marines you wouldn’t have a damn home!

      Why don’t you all just admit that the successful expression of political power by people who don’t look like you scares you? There is NO rational, justifiable, logical support for your positions, you are just timid and afraid and want to do anything to put THOSE people in their places. It’s patently obvious. If some dumbass prof at cal Berkeley gave a speech backing ISIL and players protested and refused to play until the guy was fired you’d be calling them patriots.

      Like

      • Mark

        Hey, protest away. But if you have an agreement to play for a scholarship, keep your agreement and play. Want to set up a tent city in the middle of campus and protest, do so for as long as you wish. Doesn’t matter what color, what politics, what religion, or anything else you belong to. But if you want to get a scholarship for playing football, then play football. Feel free to protest along the way but you should honor the agreement. Thing is, its way past time to start giving these kids the full benefit of employment along with the restrictions and costs.

        Like

        • mp

          The whole point is their scholarships do not say they are there to play football. They are sponsored (paid for) by the Athletic Department (and are granted by the Athletic Dept. as they see fit and may be revoked annually (at least the 1-year scholarships are)), but are not explicitly tied to athletic performance. If they were, the NCAA would have a much harder time saying the SA’s are not employees. Obviously if a player decided to quit playing, the coach would revoke the scholarship, but it is not a breach of the scholarship terms.

          Like

          • Mark

            Sure it’s tied to football. Try playing basketball and walking on to the football team, and you’ll count against the number of schollies the football team can hand out. It’s all about football. It may not be tied to their performance on the field, but it most certainly is tied to their sport, and to playing that sport.

            Like

        • Derek

          Their union to be might have something to say about your interpretation of the player’s contractual obligations.

          Don’t you think we’d be better off without player strikes on things like money? If you can’t deal with the ONE political strike how do you think you’d like a collective bargaining agreement, agents, etc…? Does Jacob Eason with Jimmy Sexton really sound attractive to you? Really? REALLY?!?

          Like

          • Mark

            No reason why they should be able to forgo their agreement with a publicly funded university in the name of a political protests. And yes, I think the players would be better off if they could negotiate in good faith.

            As for the union not agreeing, when the union calls for a strike, they know the employer won’t pay them when they don’t work.

            Would we the fan be better off without a players union? Sure, but the players won’t be. Many people are better off when they can get cheap labor, but the cheap labor certainly isn’t better off.

            Like

            • Derek

              Why don’t we elect politicians to ban collective bargaining then? If there is one thing that fascists know its that the people don’t have any idea what’s good for them. Its where the right wing nuts and the left wing nuts meet way out on the fringe, shake hands and agree: the people suck!

              Yep, my forefathers from the western pa. coal mines were so much worse off when they went to union auto shops in Cleveland. Fucking high wages. Fucking pensions. Fucking health benefits. It’s just been awful on of them. Terrible! Hell, they’d have to go to college nowadays to suffer like they did with just a HS education.

              What they wouldn’t have given to have gone back to living ten in a shack and earning tokens only good at their boss’ co. store? Makes you wonder why they fought and died to get unions and haven’t fought and died to get out of them. I know, they’re just too dumb to know what’s good for them. Luckily there is always a kind, benevolent oligarch to look out for the poor ignorant bastards.

              Like

              • Mark

                Let them unionize. I don’t care. But if you don’t work, you don’t get paid. Simple. If you refuse to play football for political reasons, you don’t get to keep the scholarship you were offered for football.

                Like

              • Normaltown Mike

                Confused by your reference to fascists. Fascists draw their power from reflecting the will of “the people”. When they are out of step with “the people” they find themselves strung up from bridges and phone poles.

                Like

                • Derek

                  Of course they do, but they don’t actually have the people’s interests in mind which is why the inevitable stringing up occurs. The flawed arrogance of the extreme right and left is that the people are stupid and should not be told the truth and never given free choices. The people are to be lied to, manipulated, scared senseless, etc… in a game designed to shift political and economic power from one sphere to another.

                  Broadly speaking the societal balance of power is a triad of business interests, government interests and the people’s interests. Fascists use the people’s ignorance, fears, paranoia, prejudices to increase the power of government and that of business interests and to lessen the economic and political power of the people. The Castro/Lenin/Chavez model does similar things but the victim is the business interests and it tries to create the perception that they are moving economic and political power from the moneyed to the masses, but usually they are just busy giving themselves more political power as economic power becomes essentially non-existent anyway.

                  Of course in the end they both are due to fail and collapse because their conceit is that the people can’t or should not be able to decide things for themselves. Balancing those 3 interests relatively equally has always been key to success in any democratic society.

                  Like

  11. Jared S.

    Thanks for posting about NCAA news/issues, Senator. Great reads!

    Like

  12. I see both sides here.

    If athletes are truly “student-athletes” as the NCAA stresses, would they not also have the right to protest without having their funds revoked, just like any other student?

    This is a valid point, however, most academic scholarships do have at least a GPA requirement that you must maintain in order to keep that scholarship. And if you refuse to participate in your classes, whether out of protest or whatever, then yes you will lose that scholarship for not holding up your end of the bargain.

    Not a perfect apples-to-apples comparison though because the athletes also have to maintain a certain GPA/academic progress to stay eligible. So their scholarship isn’t strictly contingent on participating in football activities.

    Like

  13. DawgPhan

    So hard the lulz that some of you still dont get the point the senator is making.

    The point is that the NCAA has been arguing that they are not getting scholarships for football. They get them to be students. Not playing football is not refusing to be a student, it is refusing to play football. So they are meeting their obligations to the school set forth in their scholarship, by being students and maintaining their grades.

    Student Athletes get scholarships to be students. The football part is a happy accident. So boycotting football does not change their status as students. Protesting is also a constitutionally protected activity.

    Like

    • Biggus Rickus

      Whatever bullshit line the NCAA is running in court doesn’t have any bearing on this.

      Like

    • Voice of Reason 1776

      Protesting is constitutionally protected but you are not protected from all ramifications of that protesting. If an employee of mine decided he didn’t like my products and protested in front of my business, he would have a right to do so and I would fire him. He would have no right to get his job back.

      Like

      • DawgPhan

        except that is actually the government enacting a law limiting that protesting ability. Your example is of a private business punishing an employee for something against policy.

        Like

      • Derek

        This is where we REALLY miss the point. Missouri could have taken that route and chose not to. Presumably it was in their interest not to. The players took the risk that they might. The problem with the proposed law is that it MANDATES termination of the scholly. This is the difference. No one is saying that a school CAN’T take action. No one is saying that the student athlete should be able to get a scholly and refuse to play for four years because of a polical snit. The point is that the law should allow both parties to work through these things and not mandate an outcome.

        If a prof at UGA said: death to America and viva la ISIS would you want UGA football players to be free to say: we ain’t playing until that asshole is out? Or are they friggin’ slaves?

        Like

      • Dawgwalker07

        “If an employee of mine decided he didn’t like my products and protested in front of my business, he would have a right to do so and I would fire him.”

        Yeah but that’s because your business is a PRIVATE business and a university is a PUBLIC (read: government) institution.

        The government has to allow you to protest, and can’t punish you for it. That means there are no government based ramifications for you protesting. You can’t lose your government job, the ability to vote, or any other civic right because you decided to protest government rules, policy, regulations, or something else the government is doing.

        It’s a completely different scenario from a private job. So much so, that your analogy actually doesn’t help your argument at all.

        And the whole ironic thing here is that you just equated firing an employee to pulling a scholarship from a student-athlete for refusing to participate in a sport, which was the whole point of the original argument; that STUDENT athletes shouldn’t be able to have their scholarship pulled for refusing to participate in their sport because of political speech because their “job” is to be a student, they were still performing that “job” function, their “job” is NOT to play football, and the fact that Missouri’s legislature is proposing a bill like this is a nuclear bomb to the NCAA’s entire legal defense of the amateur system.

        Like

        • @Dawgwa;ler: Agree.The reason the NCAA will stay so far away from this as possible. There goes their argument of Student Athlete and over to employee status. A lot of people are missing the Senator’s point and you did a great job of nailing it. Too much jumping on the football and protest part like the legislator did, ie did not fit what he thought they are there for. I wonder sometimes if these legislators actually think their positions through . Can you imagine pulling 35 scholarships and then saying, oh yeah the NCAA is going to grant a waiver so we can sign 60 players this year. dream on representative. Then imagine some one wanting to play there.

          Like

  14. Dog in Fla

    Missouri Legislative Black Caucus Chairman Brandon Ellington, D-Kansas City, expanded on that explanation.

    “House Bill 1743 seeks to further solidify and legalize institutional racism by targeting black athletes for exercising their constitutional rights to free speech and reducing them to the status of subjugated livestock,” he said in a strongly worded statement. “The bill’s sponsors, Republicans Rick Brattin and Kurt Bahr, demonstrate a mentality toward racism that unfortunately is shared by too many Missourians. It is a mentality under which racism and institutionalized injustice are ignored and black Missourians who shatter that blissful ignorance by forcefully speaking out must be silenced.”

    http://themissouritimes.com/25164/brattin-looks-to-revoke-scholarships-for-athletes-that-do-not-play/

    No matter how much they want to subjugate the livestock, they also want to save the fish:

    “[I]t is because Rick Brattin and his Republican cohorts actually do not care about whether the food is healthy, this is just Republicans being fucking dicks. Conservatives really do believe their own garbage about how poor people are just living high on the hog, calling everybody on their Obamaphones to brag about all the free shit the government gave them that day, while Real Americans (read: white, middle-class, conservative) are having to work so hard just to get by.”

    http://wonkette.com/580720/missouri-dckhead-rep-will-stop-poors-from-depleting-states-sushi-supply

    Like

  15. Did Brattin introduce a bill that would fire the football coach if he supported the players in a boycott where they didn’t play? Where is that bill? It seems to me that he is cherry-picking the group to force feed his political views.

    Like

  16. Debby Balcer

    The NCAA does not like that update. Seems like people want to treat them like students when it suits them and paid athletes when it suits them. It can’t be both and students are losing every time a choice is made.

    Like

    • Exactly.

      The reason the student-athletes had leverage at Missouri is because of the money that was at stake.

      Like

      • gastr1

        I’d say it was more than money, though. If the whole volleyball team did the same, and the coach supported them, it might not cause as big of a reaction, but it would definitely cause a reaction–outside the university as well as inside it. The power all of the athletes have is that they are public figures, even those who are less so, who do what they do in front of the public. The football team happens to be the single largest team/group of athletes, with the most public of performances, and the most money at stake–a perfect storm of student leverage.

        Like

    • @Debby: And believe it or not(sarcasm) the student athlete is getting tired of it and trying to do something about it. Scares the crap out of the NCAA, universities and some legislators. Will be interesting to see how it all turns out.

      Like

  17. DawgPhan

    I really can’t wait for the day when SAs become employees and everyone is complaining that it isnt fair that they dont have a collective bargaining agreement with a players union, you know like the NFL.

    Like

  18. Ant123

    All of this misses the point to me because no one has suggested that the players can’t protest. Only that their protest can not keep them from fulfilling their responsibilities that comes with the scholarship. For example a debate team member could not protest by missing debates without putting their scholarship at risk. But any other forms of protest that did not negatively impact others or the institution they represent is ok. When I say negatively impact others I am not talking about hurting their feelings but actual harm.

    Like

    • DawgPhan

      scholarship is for being a student not for playing football.

      Like

      • Ant123

        That is not true. It is an ATHLETIC scholarship which means for doing something athletically just like an academic scholarship is for doing something academically. They are both students on scholarship just for different things. It makes no difference if your good at lacrosse or math except in the type of scholarship not its value.

        Like

  19. ChunkyA

    I have not read all the comments above, so forgive me if I am repeating what someone else said….but when I was in college, I had an academic scholarship that required I maintain a certain GPA in order to keep it. If I had chosen to “walk-out” of a test or failed to take a final based on a protest that I really believed in and that dropped my GPA for the semester, I still would have lost my scholarship. I might have been willing to accept my low grade based on principle, but the scholarship would have still been revoked.

    If a player who is receiving a scholarship to play on the football team refuses to participate in that (for whatever reason), it makes sense to me that they would be subject to the same potential outcome.

    I am not saying that would be the right decision, just saying that seems to make logical sense to me. I also happened to be a college athlete, and understand the rigors of balancing academic and athletic responsibilities. I was not employed due to lack of time available, had a budget of $25 a week to spend as I saw fit (in the mid-90’s)….was on a meal plan at the cafeteria, etc….so I get it.

    If that means someone wants to call the sport a job, fine. But the students who chose to protest by breaking part of their academic contract would be subject to losing their scholarship. I just bet they chose to protest in ways that did not affect their grades directly.

    Do I think the Missouri Legislature should be proposing or supporting a bill to mandate this? No…I think that is a bad PR move. But I do think that if you sign a contract, job…athletic…or academic, and you break that contract, there should be consequences. If your priorities and philosophies and desires to stand up for something require that you break that contract, fine…I just hope those same principles keep you warm at night.

    Like

  20. ChunkyA

    However you want to claim that….

    I signed a scholarship (very small one) to play baseball in addition to my academic scholarship. So did several of my teammates. Some of my teammates chose to stop playing on the baseball team for a variety of reasons. They did not get to keep their scholarship.

    psst….See how that works?

    Like

    • The problem with that is the schools claim the scholarship is not a contract for athletic services to avoid calling them employees. They argue that they are offering academic scholarships and the students are participating in an extracurricular athletic activity. Of course we all know they are there to play sports, but the schools have long argued that is not the case to keep the bullshit facade of amateurism around. Why is this difficult for y’all to get?

      Like

      • DawgPhan

        I love that these guys keep demanding that it is a football scholarship and it doesnt matter what the NCAA or the schools call it. Its a football scholarship because dammit they say it is.

        Like

        • @DawhPhan. If you say it enough it must be true.

          Like

        • The most amusing part of this whole discussion to me is that the same guys that have been arguing for years that they are students when the idea of “pay for play” is discussed are now the same people right now arguing that it’s an athletic scholarship and not an academic one. I guess in their world, you can be kinda pregnant. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

          Like

          • ChunkyA

            Audit- if you’re including me on that…strike one. I think the players in revenue sports should get paid. Yes, they are students too…but if their sports is making money…pay them. I lived on $25 a week in college that I had saved…my team lost money for the school, guaranteed….I didn’t deserve to get paid for what I did. But the millions that are being earned by the schools who find the right kids to get them enough wins for enough payouts should cut the kids in on it. How to do that? That had a thousand answers…but they do deserve to get paid.

            Like

        • ChunkyA

          I’m not calling it that because “dammit, I say it is”…I’m calling it that because that’s how it ACTUALLY WORKS. I lived it….I still watch it happen with my own athletes who’ve gone on to play in college. You’re telling me that because the NCAA or the school calls it something, it’s gold? Ha. Now THAT’S funny!!!! Do you work for the NCAA?

          Please give me an example of a kid who did not participate in their teams activities and still got to keep their scholarship (with medical reasons and coach approved temporary family issues understood as exceptions). Please…just 1.

          Like

          • DawgPhan

            I know you must have grown up with lots of participation trophies and always being told that you are a precious little star, but in the real world if the organization issuing the scholarship says that the scholarship is not for playing football, then the scholarship is not for playing football.

            I dont know what else to tell you, the people who get to decide, decided, If they didnt consult you, then well, just bless your little heart I am sure they will next time.

            Like

            • ChunkyA

              Guess you must think I am much younger than I am for some reason, with the whole participation trophy crap. That’s a hoot. My guess is that you are not even reading what I am writing, just recycling the cute little quips you use on others and patting yourself on the back. I was actually told that I sucked many more times than I was ever told I was great…or even good, which is probably why I kept striving to achieve, even though I might should have given it up earlier. But enough about me, you are not reading this anyway.

              But to try to make my point one last time since you apparently fail to realize what I am saying in response to you…..it does not matter what the NCAA or colleges CALL the scholarship, its in how the scholarship FUNCTIONS. If the school/coach/etc takes the scholly away when you stop doing your part….it is a football scholarship. As has been stated above, the higher ups might CALL it something different to guard their own butts against the amateurism/employment issue….that doesn’t change the way it works.

              Like

              • it does not matter what the NCAA or colleges CALL the scholarship, its in how the scholarship FUNCTIONS.

                But that does matter in the context of the point the Senator has been making with his posts which a lot of folks are missing. Everybody agrees that substance over form in this relationship is that football players are on scholarship to play football, but that’s completely inverse to the defense that schools have used when arguing for amateurism.

                The icing on the cake is that we have state legislators getting all butt hurt because some football players got too uppity for them (using their celebrity and high value to Mizzou to protest for a cause they believed in. THE NERVE!) and are now trying to take a decision that belongs to the school’s admins (as you’ve pointed out) and turning it into an unconstitutional state mandate.

                Like

                • ChunkyA

                  Agreed. If the Mizzou gov’t went through with that…all hell would break loose. I agree with the Senator’s point about this guy being a baffoon (sp?)….its just that the choice of HOW one chooses to make your points (protest, etc) can have consequences. We certainly have a constitutional right to protest…but the form of that protest might have negative consequences. A guy that decides to throw rocks might get arrested, a guy that protests against his company might get fired (as seen in Voice of Reason above), a guy who walked out on his philosophy final exam because he thought the question was unfair might fail the class, and a guy who decides not to play football might not get to keep his scholarship.

                  Want to call him an employee? Fine by me. That is what I believe the Senator’s point is leading to…which has been one of his soapboxes for some time. No one is forcing an employee to come to work every day, unless he wants to keep getting his paycheck. No one is forcing a football player to show up to practices and games unless he wants to keep getting his education for free. Seems reasonable enough to me.

                  The day this whole thing happened I told my classes to watch this case carefully, because it was going to be a big deal. The fact that the president resigned once the football team boycotted playing will likely encourage other teams to do the same at some point. Will it work again? Guess we will see….but the big money folks are going to try to keep it from happening again…which is what this poor attempt in Mizzou obviously is. I am just saying that if a coach or school decides to pull a scholarship for such a stance, I think they should be able to do so…..as is (should be) understood by both parties upon signing the agreement. The government should stay out of it. They just cause more problems than they solve.

                  Like

    • gastr1

      ChunkyA, the decision to stop funding a student is not automatically enacted by the factors you list. It is a decision made by faculty and/or coaches based largely on the future implications, i.e., if it is known the student will return the scholarship can be held. In academics, the scholarship is not always automatically removed for poor performance–even when there are conditions such as GPA thresholds at stake. In addition, there are intermediate steps for those situations too: academic probation and suspensions, for example. In short, one size does not fit all.

      Like

      • ChunkyA

        Sure…and I never said it was a one size fits all, but just that is actually logical that players could lose their Scholls for not playing, just like a academic kid could lose it for not performing in the classroom. Not that it SHOULD happen, just that it’s logical that it COULD

        Like

  21. I missed the part in the first read of the black players “acting out”. Good lord man what are they going to be next—uppity.

    Like

  22. W Cobb Dawg

    I fail to see how the Koch brothers profit from this legislation, but they probably have their fingerprints on it somewhere.

    Like

  23. Dolly Llama

    If this has been posted previously, my apologies, but dude has abruptly, summarily and without comment withdrawn the bill.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/missouri-athletes-striking-bill-withdrawal

    Who got to him, you reckon? The NCAA? The Mizzou administration?

    Like