“… 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.

Several times in his interview on @KTGRBigShow Rep. Brattin referred to Mizzou's black football players as "acting out."

— Dave Matter (@Dave_Matter) December 16, 2015

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.

https://twitter.com/aaronjreiss/status/677177294222307328

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

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.