If you agree then Big Government is okay?[/quote]
This isn’t left/right, but if you insist…“big Government” in this started long ago when public schools started shelling out for athletics anyways. ADs, coaches, facilities, etc. All covered partially/fully by public dollars.
Creating laws that introduce oversight/stewardship of those funds isn’t “Big Government”. I want more oversight of funds, not less. That doesn’t make me a Big Government liberal, it makes me want responsibility.
If you agree then Big Government is okay?[/quote]
This isn’t left/right, but if you insist…“big Government” in this started long ago when public schools started shelling out for athletics anyways. ADs, coaches, facilities, etc. All covered partially/fully by public dollars.
Creating laws that introduce oversight/stewardship of those funds isn’t “Big Government”. I want more oversight of funds, not less. That doesn’t make me a Big Government liberal, it makes me want responsibility.[/quote]
The key is partially funded. Why should some state pol dictate a booster’s donation or a corporate advertising payment to athletics to fund scholarships? Why not let it be up to the individual schools to decide the consequences of going on strike?
If you agree then Big Government is okay?[/quote]
This isn’t left/right, but if you insist…“big Government” in this started long ago when public schools started shelling out for athletics anyways. ADs, coaches, facilities, etc. All covered partially/fully by public dollars.
Creating laws that introduce oversight/stewardship of those funds isn’t “Big Government”. I want more oversight of funds, not less. That doesn’t make me a Big Government liberal, it makes me want responsibility.[/quote]
The key is partially funded. Why should some state pol dictate a booster’s donation or a corporate advertising payment to athletics to fund scholarships? Why not let it be up to the individual schools to decide the consequences of going on strike?[/quote]
in NC taxes don’t go to athletics (so they say)
whats Mizzou law?
either way- football tentacles reach across entire universtiy and state. It doesn’t stand alone 100% private. State taxes probably pay for facility, lights, infrastructure, cops, traffic costs, etc. And a good football team (which they have had) help fund all that.
If you agree then Big Government is okay?[/quote]
This isn’t left/right, but if you insist…“big Government” in this started long ago when public schools started shelling out for athletics anyways. ADs, coaches, facilities, etc. All covered partially/fully by public dollars.
Creating laws that introduce oversight/stewardship of those funds isn’t “Big Government”. I want more oversight of funds, not less. That doesn’t make me a Big Government liberal, it makes me want responsibility.[/quote]
The key is partially funded. Why should some state pol dictate a booster’s donation or a corporate advertising payment to athletics to fund scholarships? Why not let it be up to the individual schools to decide the consequences of going on strike?[/quote]
Why don’t we leave it up to the individual schools to decide whether or not they want to integrate?
If you agree then Big Government is okay?[/quote]
This isn’t left/right, but if you insist…“big Government” in this started long ago when public schools started shelling out for athletics anyways. ADs, coaches, facilities, etc. All covered partially/fully by public dollars.
Creating laws that introduce oversight/stewardship of those funds isn’t “Big Government”. I want more oversight of funds, not less. That doesn’t make me a Big Government liberal, it makes me want responsibility.[/quote]
The key is partially funded. Why should some state pol dictate a booster’s donation or a corporate advertising payment to athletics to fund scholarships? Why not let it be up to the individual schools to decide the consequences of going on strike?[/quote]
Why don’t we leave it up to the individual schools to decide whether or not they want to integrate?[/quote]
Revoking a scholarship based on a school policy is not an infringement on a person/student’s Civil Rights.
but if you miss a game, you lose your paycheck.[/quote]
Well, actually -
The proposed law, House Bill No. 1743, would automatically revoke the athletic scholarship of “any college athlete who calls, incites, supports, or participates in any strike or concerted refusal to play a scheduled game.”
but if you miss a game, you lose your paycheck.[/quote]
Well, actually -
The proposed law, House Bill No. 1743, would automatically revoke the athletic scholarship of “any college athlete who calls, incites, supports, or participates in any strike or concerted refusal to play a scheduled game.”[/quote]
They can still speak, they will just need to pay for college… Its called a dose of real life
but if you miss a game, you lose your paycheck.[/quote]
Well, actually -
The proposed law, House Bill No. 1743, would automatically revoke the athletic scholarship of “any college athlete who calls, incites, supports, or participates in any strike or concerted refusal to play a scheduled game.”[/quote]
correct. Doesn’t make it illegal to speak out. Just takes away your benefit
but if you miss a game, you lose your paycheck.[/quote]
Well, actually -
The proposed law, House Bill No. 1743, would automatically revoke the athletic scholarship of “any college athlete who calls, incites, supports, or participates in any strike or concerted refusal to play a scheduled game.”[/quote]
correct. Doesn’t make it illegal to speak out. Just takes away your benefit[/quote]
Oo, just like China or Cuba! You don’t actually have to attend a government protest to get fired or thrown in jail! All you have to do is call or support the government protest!
but if you miss a game, you lose your paycheck.[/quote]
Well, actually -
The proposed law, House Bill No. 1743, would automatically revoke the athletic scholarship of “any college athlete who calls, incites, supports, or participates in any strike or concerted refusal to play a scheduled game.”[/quote]
correct. Doesn’t make it illegal to speak out. Just takes away your benefit[/quote]
Oo, just like China or Cuba! You don’t actually have to attend a government protest to get fired or thrown in jail! All you have to do is call or support the government protest![/quote]
People post stuff on FB and Twitter and get fired. As mentioned you always have the right to say what you want, but you don’t have the right to escape the ramifications of doing so.
but if you miss a game, you lose your paycheck.[/quote]
Well, actually -
The proposed law, House Bill No. 1743, would automatically revoke the athletic scholarship of “any college athlete who calls, incites, supports, or participates in any strike or concerted refusal to play a scheduled game.”[/quote]
correct. Doesn’t make it illegal to speak out. Just takes away your benefit[/quote]
Oo, just like China or Cuba! You don’t actually have to attend a government protest to get fired or thrown in jail! All you have to do is call or support the government protest![/quote]
You’ve gone off the rail. But ok
but if you miss a game, you lose your paycheck.[/quote]
Well, actually -
The proposed law, House Bill No. 1743, would automatically revoke the athletic scholarship of “any college athlete who calls, incites, supports, or participates in any strike or concerted refusal to play a scheduled game.”[/quote]
correct. Doesn’t make it illegal to speak out. Just takes away your benefit[/quote]
Oo, just like China or Cuba! You don’t actually have to attend a government protest to get fired or thrown in jail! All you have to do is call or support the government protest![/quote]
You have the right to say what you want, but do not have the right to avoid consequence for what you say.
To be fair, many of us want the resignation of our Athletic Director for sh&t she didn’t do.
As for this bill itself, I’m not a fan simply because of the wording of it.
If the bill was worded in a way that protects athletic departments from lawsuits should they decide to revoke a scholarship for participation in a protest, I’d be okay with it.
The way that it is worded, though, seems to take that out of the athletic department’s hands, making it an automatic revocation regardless of the circumstances.
Regardless, I think the passage of this bill will do more harm than good for Mizzou sports. Whether justified or not, I’d think some recruits may thing twice about going to Mizzou if there is this type of law hanging over their heads.
I think the point of a bill instead of the University implementing a policy is the backlash to the University. Easier for them to fight it when they say it is not up to us, it is the law.
I tend to agree with what some are saying about consequences for actions. Since they are not “employees” of the University, the scholarship athletes don’t have much to stand on here. A school could pull the schollie for “actions detrimental to the University.” The University is just trying to avoid the lawsuits and publicity.
I think the athletes and the coaches were wrong in this case. You can state your dislikes, but as a scholarship athlete and a paid coach you have the responsibility to uphold your commitment.
An easier approach for the University is to put in the scholarship contract that every player must attend and participate in the games and practices unless excused by the coach and/or medical staff. If you protest by not fulfilling these duties, you should lose the benefits because you are in breach of contract. If the coach excuses player to participate in a protest then the coach is now on the hook.
[quote=“Dowless, post:37, topic:30042”]I think the point of a bill instead of the University implementing a policy is the backlash to the University. Easier for them to fight it when they say it is not up to us, it is the law.
I tend to agree with what some are saying about consequences for actions. Since they are not “employees” of the University, the scholarship athletes don’t have much to stand on here. A school could pull the schollie for “actions detrimental to the University.” The University is just trying to avoid the lawsuits and publicity.
I think the athletes and the coaches were wrong in this case. You can state your dislikes, but as a scholarship athlete and a paid coach you have the responsibility to uphold your commitment.
An easier approach for the University is to put in the scholarship contract that every player must attend and participate in the games and practices unless excused by the coach and/or medical staff. If you protest by not fulfilling these duties, you should lose the benefits because you are in breach of contract. If the coach excuses player to participate in a protest then the coach is now on the hook.[/quote]
The part I in bold is on point. Let the Universities decide if they want to put this type of control on the student-athlete, not some blow hard politician. The problem for those that agree with the revoke scholarship line of thinking is that no University that tries to compete at the highest level would implement such policy.
Whether you agree with the Mizzou players or not, they demonstrated to the University and the NCAA that the “student-athlete” has significantly more power than they are given credit for, and I say kudos to them for leveraging that power.
[quote=“Charlotte2002, post:38, topic:30042”][quote=“Dowless, post:37, topic:30042”]I think the point of a bill instead of the University implementing a policy is the backlash to the University. Easier for them to fight it when they say it is not up to us, it is the law.
I tend to agree with what some are saying about consequences for actions. Since they are not “employees” of the University, the scholarship athletes don’t have much to stand on here. A school could pull the schollie for “actions detrimental to the University.” The University is just trying to avoid the lawsuits and publicity.
I think the athletes and the coaches were wrong in this case. You can state your dislikes, but as a scholarship athlete and a paid coach you have the responsibility to uphold your commitment.
An easier approach for the University is to put in the scholarship contract that every player must attend and participate in the games and practices unless excused by the coach and/or medical staff. If you protest by not fulfilling these duties, you should lose the benefits because you are in breach of contract. If the coach excuses player to participate in a protest then the coach is now on the hook.[/quote]
The part I in bold is on point. Let the Universities decide if they want to put this type of control on the student-athlete, not some blow hard politician. The problem for those that agree with the revoke scholarship line of thinking is that no University that tries to compete at the highest level would implement such policy.
Whether you agree with the Mizzou players or not, they demonstrated to the University and the NCAA that the “student-athlete” has significantly more power than they are given credit for, and I say kudos to them for leveraging that power.[/quote]
That’s why you have to put it in the politicians’ hands to revoke the scholarships. University officials will never go that route because it would hurt the athletics programs too much. I think scholarships shouldn’t be one year affairs as they are now, but no one is forcing these athletes to go to school there either. The best form of protest is to take your talents elsewhere.
[quote=“49RFootballNow, post:39, topic:30042”][quote=“Charlotte2002, post:38, topic:30042”][quote=“Dowless, post:37, topic:30042”]I think the point of a bill instead of the University implementing a policy is the backlash to the University. Easier for them to fight it when they say it is not up to us, it is the law.
I tend to agree with what some are saying about consequences for actions. Since they are not “employees” of the University, the scholarship athletes don’t have much to stand on here. A school could pull the schollie for “actions detrimental to the University.” The University is just trying to avoid the lawsuits and publicity.
I think the athletes and the coaches were wrong in this case. You can state your dislikes, but as a scholarship athlete and a paid coach you have the responsibility to uphold your commitment.
An easier approach for the University is to put in the scholarship contract that every player must attend and participate in the games and practices unless excused by the coach and/or medical staff. If you protest by not fulfilling these duties, you should lose the benefits because you are in breach of contract. If the coach excuses player to participate in a protest then the coach is now on the hook.[/quote]
The part I in bold is on point. Let the Universities decide if they want to put this type of control on the student-athlete, not some blow hard politician. The problem for those that agree with the revoke scholarship line of thinking is that no University that tries to compete at the highest level would implement such policy.
Whether you agree with the Mizzou players or not, they demonstrated to the University and the NCAA that the “student-athlete” has significantly more power than they are given credit for, and I say kudos to them for leveraging that power.[/quote]
That’s why you have to put it in the politicians’ hands to revoke the scholarships. University officials will never go that route because it would hurt the athletics programs too much. I think scholarships shouldn’t be one year affairs as they are now, but no one is forcing these athletes to go to school there either. The best form of protest is to take your talents elsewhere.[/quote]
Why do the politicians have any right to revoke these scholarships? Because they didn’t agree with the position of the student-athletes?