clt blames millennials. always complaining.
[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]
That’s why you have to put it in the politicians’ hands to revoke the scholarships save the environment. University officials Corporations will never go that route because it would hurt the athletics programs their business interests too much.
You wouldn’t agree with that statement would you? And I bet you the Missouri state politician wouldn’t either.
However, it may not even be fair to compare the two because the environment is a public good and it can be argued that a clean environment is a benefit to the greater good and backed by the police power of the government, whereas regulating a scholarship of a student-athlete based on their support of a protest or strike does nothing to benefit the greater good and I don’t believe is backed by any case law.
Is it a privilege to be a student-athlete on scholarship, sure, but that doesn’t mean the State should have the ability to revoke said privilege based on the exercise of the first amendment.
[quote=“Charlotte2002, post:42, topic:30042”][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]
That’s why you have to put it in the politicians’ hands to revoke the scholarships save the environment. University officials Corporations will never go that route because it would hurt the athletics programs their business interests too much.
You wouldn’t agree with that statement would you? And I bet you the Missouri state politician wouldn’t either.[/quote]
Mizzou is private?
What about the 2nd?
[quote=“ninerID, post:43, topic:30042”][quote=“Charlotte2002, post:42, topic:30042”][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]
That’s why you have to put it in the politicians’ hands to revoke the scholarships save the environment. University officials Corporations will never go that route because it would hurt the athletics programs their business interests too much.
You wouldn’t agree with that statement would you? And I bet you the Missouri state politician wouldn’t either.[/quote]
Mizzou is private?[/quote]
I think the counter to this line of thinking is that the environment is owned by the public, and the domain of the citizenry, and private corporations don’t have the right to destroy it.
[quote=“ninerID, post:43, topic:30042”][quote=“Charlotte2002, post:42, topic:30042”][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]
That’s why you have to put it in the politicians’ hands to revoke the scholarships save the environment. University officials Corporations will never go that route because it would hurt the athletics programs their business interests too much.
You wouldn’t agree with that statement would you? And I bet you the Missouri state politician wouldn’t either.[/quote]
Mizzou is private?
What about the 2nd?[/quote]
No, but that isn’t relevant to the issue. The State is imposing regulations on another entity, this being a state university that has scholarships funded from public and private sources. If there is case law that allows the State to restrict the first amendment on student-athletes, then that is a different story. Environmental conservation has that case law support.
If a State Pol passed a law revoking scholarships of student-athletes that legally possessed a gun, you wouldn’t have an issue with it?
[quote=“Charlotte2002, post:45, topic:30042”][quote=“ninerID, post:43, topic:30042”][quote=“Charlotte2002, post:42, topic:30042”][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]
That’s why you have to put it in the politicians’ hands to revoke the scholarships save the environment. University officials Corporations will never go that route because it would hurt the athletics programs their business interests too much.
You wouldn’t agree with that statement would you? And I bet you the Missouri state politician wouldn’t either.[/quote]
Mizzou is private?
What about the 2nd?[/quote]
No, but that isn’t relevant to the issue. The State is imposing regulations on another entity, this being a state university that has scholarships funded from public and private sources. If there is case law that allows the State to restrict the first amendment on student-athletes, then that is a different story. Environmental conservation has that case law support.
If a State Pol passed a law revoking scholarships of student-athletes that legally possessed a gun, you wouldn’t have an issue with it?[/quote]
I think this is getting too far off base, and I’m partially to blame for that. This environment/gun addition isn’t needed. Bringing up amendments isn’t needed as no rights are being infringed.
They signed a contract to play. They don’t play, they don’t get their scholarship. It’s really that simple. I’m not sure why this law is even needed, seems like the scholarship would have that and probably already does.
[quote=“ninerID, post:46, topic:30042”][quote=“Charlotte2002, post:45, topic:30042”][quote=“ninerID, post:43, topic:30042”][quote=“Charlotte2002, post:42, topic:30042”][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]
That’s why you have to put it in the politicians’ hands to revoke the scholarships save the environment. University officials Corporations will never go that route because it would hurt the athletics programs their business interests too much.
You wouldn’t agree with that statement would you? And I bet you the Missouri state politician wouldn’t either.[/quote]
Mizzou is private?
What about the 2nd?[/quote]
No, but that isn’t relevant to the issue. The State is imposing regulations on another entity, this being a state university that has scholarships funded from public and private sources. If there is case law that allows the State to restrict the first amendment on student-athletes, then that is a different story. Environmental conservation has that case law support.
If a State Pol passed a law revoking scholarships of student-athletes that legally possessed a gun, you wouldn’t have an issue with it?[/quote]
I think this is getting too far off base, and I’m partially to blame for that. This environment/gun addition isn’t needed. Bringing up amendments isn’t needed as no rights are being infringed.
They signed a contract to play. They don’t play, they don’t get their scholarship. It’s really that simple. I’m not sure why this law is even needed, seems like the scholarship would have that and probably already does.[/quote]
The student-athlete signs a contract with the University, not the State. Let the University make the policy, why does the politician have to do it? The politician getting involved invokes at least a suggestion of the infringement on a person’s 1st Amendment rights. That is the State restricting speech and that is unconstitutional.
[quote=“Charlotte2002, post:47, topic:30042”][quote=“ninerID, post:46, topic:30042”]I think this is getting too far off base, and I’m partially to blame for that. This environment/gun addition isn’t needed. Bringing up amendments isn’t needed as no rights are being infringed.
They signed a contract to play. They don’t play, they don’t get their scholarship. It’s really that simple. I’m not sure why this law is even needed, seems like the scholarship would have that and probably already does.[/quote]
The student-athlete signs a contract with the University, not the State. Let the University make the policy, why does the politician have to do it? The politician getting involved invokes at least a suggestion of the infringement on a person’s 1st Amendment rights. That is the State restricting speech and that is unconstitutional.[/quote]
In this case the University is a State Institution. It is taxpayer funded and must answer to the state government directly. No one is restricting their speech, since no one is forcing these athletes to play or attend class. It’s not a prison, they can leave any time they choose.
The NLI is signed by the prospective athlete and the athletics director, who is a state employee.
Nobody is restricting their free speech. They can protest whenever they want, there just may be consequences when those times don’t line up with commitments to others. It’s pretty typical with most the rights we have.
The NLI is signed by the prospective athlete and the athletics director, who is a state employee.
Nobody is restricting their free speech. They can protest whenever they want, there just may be consequences when those times don’t line up with commitments to others. It’s pretty typical with most the rights we have.[/quote]
Again, IMO, and maybe one of the attorneys that we have the pleasure of having on NNN can opine, but it seems as written that the law’s intent is to restrict the first amendment of a student-athlete by the State. The University, while state-sponsored is not the State in the way as the law, thus could make policy requirements that rule certain behavior such as strikes or protests as insubordination with the result being a loss of scholarship. I don’t see how it could come from the State. Certainly a bit of a gray area here.
I would trust the NCGA to not spend my money on athletes who go on strike before I trust the AD Office that is handling my $49 a year.
Why should FB players have the right to fire a Chancellor?
[quote=“stonecoldken, post:51, topic:30042”]I would trust the NCGA to not spend my money on athletes who go on strike before I trust the AD Office that is handling my $49 a year.
Why should FB players have the right to fire a Chancellor?[/quote]
The school has the right to do what it wants, including not replacing the chancellor, but the school does not have the right to avoid the consequences of their decision(s) … like FB players going on strike 
What you seem to fail to understand is that there are consequences for your actions. I know that you think that you can have everything handed to you, but when you’re my age you’ll understand that there are consequences to your actions and everyone earns what they get.
When we were pushing for football the point was repeatedly made that “sports is the front porch” of the University. It, we said, drives the connection that alums and fans feel towards the school, and increases financial support–both athletic and academic. If we continue to believe this then the converse must also be true. Doing things to purposefully present the University in a negative light “on the front porch”, or not showing up to perform so the University can leverage fan’s interest in sports, would have a financial and reputational impact–both athletic and academic. The state funds the University and relies on fans to vote for bond referenda, and make contributions, so I think they do have an interest in not having players go on strike. At the very least they should not be compelled to pay for this behavior. Strike if you want, but do it on your own dime.
Good take
Ben the players didn’t suffer the consequences of firing a Chancellor who was innocent. The Chancellor didn’t call someone the N word.
Also big donors are preoccupied by the next FB game, so they won’t say they think the Chancellor should have stayed because they want to win. The Legislature is saving MO donors from their own greed next time by not making them be the ones who cut the purse strings.
This is all a moot point because the bill will not pass.
It will not pass, because even representatives who would want to support it know that this would be a death sentence to Mizzou sports and there would be a mass exodus of talent. All because the players have way more power than the state and university want to admit.
When an athletes scholarship is taken away is he free to transfer and play right away?
Don’t know, but what coach would want a potential striker at their school or on their team? ???
[quote=“NinerAdvocate, post:31, topic:30042”]Grants in Aid, IIRC are renewable on an annual basis already…
I think the Northwestern attorneys would love for something like this to pass.[/quote]
This proposed legislation opens up a lot of questions.
Since grants in aid are renewable on a yearly basis, why is this even necessary? Why not just get rid of the troublemakers at the end of the year?
So if they strike, or call for a strike in September, are they going to pull them out of class the next day? The grant in aid presumably had already paid for the entire semester (if not the year) so are they going to slap a bill in front of the student and say “pay this within 7 days or your out of school”? I can just see the lawyers lined up to take that case!
In the current way of doing things, don’t they allow even athletes who are suspended from competition for some infraction or legal trouble to keep their scholarship while it’s being worked out? For example when one of our players got in trouble for having a gun on campus (or something like that sorry I don’t remember remember the details so if I got that wrong I apologize) and was suspended for a game, he was allowed to miss a game then he’s back. So this would allow accused criminals or rule breakers to keep their scholarship but not someone who wants to strike for something they believe in? That is going to play really good in the press an with the public, and again the line of lawyers are there.
This country had a long history of students protesting in various ways. Including sit ins, shutting down buildings, all kinds of stuff. If you say that your effectively going to take away the traditional rights and options available to a student just because he protests and refuses to play, aren’t you removing the “student” from student athlete? Doesn’t that move them even closer to being an employee of the university? For example a university employee can be fired for not doing their job, or protesting, or whatever is in defiance of authority. Students do not immediately face those same consequences for skipping class, protesting in various ways. This legislation would move them dangerously away from being a student athlete with the emphasis on student, which is integral to the NCAA positions on compensation and revenue sharing!!!
This legislation will kill Missouri college sports as the best recruits will be advised to avoid this hostile environment.
This bill is obviously not going to pass, but it opens up an interesting discussion. To me this is an extreme overreaction to a very rare situation.
This would cause a lot of problems and probably backfire on Missouri and the NCAA big time.
[quote=“Gassman, post:59, topic:30042”][quote=“NinerAdvocate, post:31, topic:30042”]Grants in Aid, IIRC are renewable on an annual basis already…
I think the Northwestern attorneys would love for something like this to pass.[/quote]
This proposed legislation opens up a lot of questions.
Since grants in aid are renewable on a yearly basis, why is this even necessary? Why not just get rid of the troublemakers at the end of the year?
So if they strike, or call for a strike in September, are they going to pull them out of class the next day? The grant in aid presumably had already paid for the entire semester (if not the year) so are they going to slap a bill in front of the student and say “pay this within 7 days or your out of school”? I can just see the lawyers lined up to take that case!
In the current way of doing things, don’t they allow even athletes who are suspended from competition for some infraction or legal trouble to keep their scholarship while it’s being worked out? For example when one of our players got in trouble for having a gun on campus (or something like that sorry I don’t remember remember the details so if I got that wrong I apologize) and was suspended for a game, he was allowed to miss a game then he’s back. So this would allow accused criminals or rule breakers to keep their scholarship but not someone who wants to strike for something they believe in? That is going to play really good in the press an with the public, and again the line of lawyers are there.
This country had a long history of students protesting in various ways. Including sit ins, shutting down buildings, all kinds of stuff. If you say that your effectively going to take away the traditional rights and options available to a student just because he protests and refuses to play, aren’t you removing the “student” from student athlete? Doesn’t that move them even closer to being an employee of the university? For example a university employee can be fired for not doing their job, or protesting, or whatever is in defiance of authority. Students do not immediately face those same consequences for skipping class, protesting in various ways. This legislation would move them dangerously away from being a student athlete with the emphasis on student, which is integral to the NCAA positions on compensation and revenue sharing!!!
This legislation will kill Missouri college sports as the best recruits will be advised to avoid this hostile environment.
This bill is obviously not going to pass, but it opens up an interesting discussion. To me this is an extreme overreaction to a very rare situation.
This would cause a lot of problems and probably backfire on Missouri and the NCAA big time.[/quote]
True, but students on academic scholarships that do not perform well as a result of not going to class have those scholarships pulled. Imagine the same thing with an athlete. It is ok if you protest or whatever, but when you do not perform then the result is having your scholarship pulled. I would like to see a student with a Duke Energy scholarship protesting that the Duke Energy CEO should be fired for the coal ash spill. I would be willing to bet that student would have a letter within a week announcing the cancellation of the scholarship. I don’t care what Amendment rights you have. It is just wrong to take money from some organization and then piss in their front yard.