OT: Missouri State Pol proposed bill to revoke scholarships...

[RU_Planning]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...l-that-would-revoke-scholarships-for-striking

The proposed law, House Bill No. 1743 (pdf), 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.”

Seems to me that this could be viewed as the State invoking a suggestion of infringement on free speech at the very least, whereas if the University adopts a policy that a scholarship will be revoked if a student-athlete is insubordinate than the scholarship is revoked would be legitimate. However, a university (particularly those competing at the highest level) would be foolish to create such policy as it would likely hurt in their recruitment of players.

Any lawyers care to share their views on the subject matter? I know there are a number on here.

Thanks!

 

[RUMBA-JK]

foolish to create such policy - not needed - if reason to refuse to play - or simply call for a refusal to play a scheduled game turns out to be understandable what are you going to do? if you have "automatically revoke" written into law?
- situations like this are so rare that they can be dealt with on an individual basis

- the truly foolish part is prescribing automatic scholarship revocation simply for - anyone who 'calls, incites, supports' .... ... define 'supports' it could be if you simply say you agree with a boycott of a game - or even support a serious discussion of the merits of boycotting a game.

 

[brgossRU90]

how about revoking the salary of politicians that spend all of their time raising money instead of governing?

 

[MozRU]

I knew this was going to happen.

No way the puppet masters were going to let the puppets control the show.

 

[hiwater]

Besides being foolish, the legislature probably does not have any legal say.

 

[PSU_Nut]

Funny I am sure this guy like the 2nd amendment right but doesn't want student athletes to have their 1st amendment rights to assemble.

 

[mdk01]

Speech is one thing, and on that count this is a sure loser. The question I have is about refusing to play. If a player on scholarship quits a football team, what is the status of his scholarship after he quits?

 

[wicker]

Speech is one thing, and on that count this is a sure loser. The question I have is about refusing to play. If a player on scholarship quits a football team, what is the status of his scholarship after he quits?

I think all scholarship decisions are the coach's

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

That is the kind of thing that some crazy person here would make up while angry... the crazy part of that this however is a real bill.

How shortsighted can politicians be.. oh never mind.

 

[j10oreo]

Will they also introduce a bill that kicks politicians off their seat if they allow government shut down?

 

[WhichReligionIsRight]

Trying to sort out whether striking should be a right for all Americans. or not.

In the end, this pol seems to be an attention loving whore.

 

[e5fdny]

foolish to create such policy - not needed - if reason to refuse to play - or simply call for a refusal to play a scheduled game turns out to be understandable what are you going to do? if you have "automatically revoke" written into law?
- situations like this are so rare that they can be dealt with on an individual basis

- the truly foolish part is prescribing automatic scholarship revocation simply for - anyone who 'calls, incites, supports' .... ... define 'supports' it could be if you simply say you agree with a boycott of a game - or even support a serious discussion of the merits of boycotting a game.

What do you consider "understandable"?

Other than being hurt, sick or a family emergency what could it be?

 

[RUMBA-JK]

What do you consider "understandable"?

Other than being hurt, sick or a family emergency what could it be?

a hypothetical? Hypotheticals always end up seeming so lame.
But there are occasions - not frequent - but not never - where a voice of dissent / protest can serve a vital purpose - especially when there are instances of an arbitrary & capricious abuse of power by the university leadership that adversely impacted the institution or the student body.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Being a college football player isn't a surrender of constitutional rights.

Typical blowhard reaction.

 

[Caliknight]

I hope this passes. No one is taking away their free rights to assemble.

That also doesn't mean they have a right to their scholarship.

It was only a matter of time before this happened. You can't have what are essentially employees losing millions of dollars on their whim, especially when those whims are less than reasonable.

Hopefully, it passes.

 

[PhDKnight]

I think I could write the response of at least 15-20 of the posters on this board for them on this matter. Let the predictable posts begin!

 

[RU_Planning]

I hope this passes. No one is taking away their free rights to assemble.

That also doesn't mean they have a right to their scholarship.

It was only a matter of time before this happened. You can't have what are essentially employees losing millions of dollars on their whim, especially when those whims are less than reasonable.

Hopefully, it passes.

So you would be okay with a state bill that revokes the scholarship of a student-athlete who legally owns and possesses a firearm?

 

[Bleed_Scarlet]

I'm so glad that all of the more important issues in this country have been resolved so that politicians have time to focus on issues like this.

 

[derleider]

I hope this passes. No one is taking away their free rights to assemble.

That also doesn't mean they have a right to their scholarship.

It was only a matter of time before this happened. You can't have what are essentially employees losing millions of dollars on their whim, especially when those whims are less than reasonable.

Hopefully, it passes.

Im sure if they were sitting out to protest in favor of open carry or something you would be fine with it.

Im also pretty sure that when the NW ruling came down that said CFB players were employees you also disagreed with that. If you want to treat them like employees and not college students (over the top protests being a major facet in college life) then pay them and let them unionize.

And frankly - why am I not surprised that you are all in favor of expansion of government intrusion into people's lives when it fits your politics. Let the school deal with it - and frankly - let the coach or AD deal with it. Why get the state government involved at all?

 

[RU_Planning]

Im sure if they were sitting out to protest in favor of open carry or something you would be fine with it.

Im also pretty sure that when the NW ruling came down that said CFB players were employees you also disagreed with that. If you want to treat them like employees and not college students (over the top protests being a major facet in college life) then pay them and let them unionize.

And frankly - why am I not surprised that you are all in favor of expansion of government intrusion into people's lives when it fits your politics. Let the school deal with it - and frankly - let the coach or AD deal with it. Why get the state government involved at all?

Crickets, but that isn't surprising.

 

[greenknight]

I knew this was going to happen.

No way the puppet masters were going to let the puppets control the show.

100 % agree with this

 

[mildone]

In the end, this pol seems to be an attention loving whore.

I think most politicians are attention loving whores. At least those who actually have to run for office.

 

[Caliknight]

Im sure if they were sitting out to protest in favor of open carry or something you would be fine with it.

Im also pretty sure that when the NW ruling came down that said CFB players were employees you also disagreed with that. If you want to treat them like employees and not college students (over the top protests being a major facet in college life) then pay them and let them unionize.

And frankly - why am I not surprised that you are all in favor of expansion of government intrusion into people's lives when it fits your politics. Let the school deal with it - and frankly - let the coach or AD deal with it. Why get the state government involved at all?

Sure you would be wrong. They aren't intruding on anyone's lives in this instance. No one is saying they can't "assemble". Go for it. But when you are using the reason you are there as leverage to do it, when people have jobs and money on the line, then you are crossing a line.

Assemble on your own time, not using a football game as leverage. And if you do, and it is that important, you lose your scholarship. They aren't getting paid to assemble.

Simple as that.

 

[Piscataway]

Will they also introduce a bill that kicks politicians off their seat if they allow government shut down?

They should get a raise for that.

 

[Caliknight]

So you would be okay with a state bill that revokes the scholarship of a student-athlete who legally owns and possesses a firearm?

Your analogy, or attempted one, is moronic.

Come up with something better if you want me to take you serious.

 

[RU_Planning]

Your analogy, or attempted one, is moronic.

Come up with something better if you want me to take you serious.

I could give a damn if someone that no one takes seriously takes me seriously.

Read the text, "any college athlete who calls, incites, supports, or participates in any strike or concerted refusal to play a scheduled game shall have his or her scholarship revoked"

That is a clear suppression of a student-athlete's first amendment rights. The threat or even the support of others who participate in a strike or concerted refusal to play a scheduled game loses their scholarship and then the coach is fined. This is the State acting as "big government" attempting to suppress constitutional rights of students.

...which is why my analogy is reasonable...

"any college athlete who owns a firearm, whether legally or illegally, shall have his or her scholarship revoked"

That would be a clear suppression of a student-athlete's second amendment rights. Gun ownership has nothing to do with a game, but that is ultimately irrelevant given an individual's protected constitutional rights.

If the school wanted to institute a policy that revoked scholarships for that type of behavior and categorized it as insubordination or similar, then it would have a chance at being constitutional, but that is not what is happening here. No school would institute a policy like that because it would make them a less desirable location for student-athletes.

Also, as previously mentioned, this brings in the whole student-athlete vs employee angle and this political blowhard is opening up a whole other can of worms that no one in the NCAA wants to be opened.

 

[Piscataway]

I could give a damn if someone that no one takes seriously takes me seriously.

Read the text, "any college athlete who calls, incites, supports, or participates in any strike or concerted refusal to play a scheduled game shall have his or her scholarship revoked"

That is a clear suppression of a student-athlete's first amendment rights. The threat or even the support of others who participate in a strike or concerted refusal to play a scheduled game loses their scholarship and then the coach is fined. This is the State acting as "big government" attempting to suppress constitutional rights of students.

...which is why my analogy is reasonable...

"any college athlete who owns a firearm, whether legally or illegally, shall have his or her scholarship revoked"

That would be a clear suppression of a student-athlete's second amendment rights. Gun ownership has nothing to do with a game, but that is ultimately irrelevant given an individual's protected constitutional rights.

If the school wanted to institute a policy that revoked scholarships for that type of behavior and categorized it as insubordination or similar, then it would have a chance at being constitutional, but that is not what is happening here. No school would institute a policy like that because it would make them a less desirable location for student-athletes.

Also, as previously mentioned, this brings in the whole student-athlete vs employee angle and this political blowhard is opening up a whole other can of worms that no one in the NCAA wants to be opened.

This isn't a first A issue. By violating the terms of their athletic scholarship they are subject to penalties and punishments. How is this an issue? I agree the state legislature probably has better things to do and I generally abhor government intrusion where a lesser body (the school here) could make their own determination. But the state as the subsidizing authority has a right to determine how finds are appropriated.

 

[Caliknight]

I could give a damn if someone that no one takes seriously takes me seriously.

Read the text, "any college athlete who calls, incites, supports, or participates in any strike or concerted refusal to play a scheduled game shall have his or her scholarship revoked"

That is a clear suppression of a student-athlete's first amendment rights. The threat or even the support of others who participate in a strike or concerted refusal to play a scheduled game loses their scholarship and then the coach is fined. This is the State acting as "big government" attempting to suppress constitutional rights of students.

...which is why my analogy is reasonable...

"any college athlete who owns a firearm, whether legally or illegally, shall have his or her scholarship revoked"

That would be a clear suppression of a student-athlete's second amendment rights. Gun ownership has nothing to do with a game, but that is ultimately irrelevant given an individual's protected constitutional rights.

If the school wanted to institute a policy that revoked scholarships for that type of behavior and categorized it as insubordination or similar, then it would have a chance at being constitutional, but that is not what is happening here. No school would institute a policy like that because it would make them a less desirable location for student-athletes.

Also, as previously mentioned, this brings in the whole student-athlete vs employee angle and this political blowhard is opening up a whole other can of worms that no one in the NCAA wants to be opened.

You sure have a lot of thoughts and took time to respond to someone you don't take seriously, lol...

No one is taking away their rights. They would be taking away their scholarship if they decide not to play. Very simple and fair.

"....or participates in any strike or concerted refusal to play a scheduled game shall have his or her scholarship revoked."

Those are the key words. They can "assemble", and if they choose not to play because of it, then they deserve to lose their scholarship. If they want to assemble and fulfill their job duties, fine. No one is claiming they should lose their scholarship simply for assembling. It is for refusing not to play.

If you want to debate the truth, let me know.

Otherwise, carry on with your silly analogy, which is moronic. A better analogy would be, if you have a legal firearm, you will get your scholarship revoked. And if that was put forth, I would disagree. Wouldn't you?

 

[IMARUFAN]

So, a student receives a scholarship (e.g., gets paid essentially) to play football. And if he refuses to play football, everyone things he should still get paid?

Scholarships are worth thousands of dollars. A scholarship athlete can practice free speech until the cows come home as far as I'm concerned. But if you refuse to practice and/or play a game, you should still receive your scholarhip why exactly?

Refusing to participate in the athletic events that are the reason you are receiving a scholarship should result in the forfeiture of that scholarship. Period. That's not the school being greedy. That's not being mean to the poor, downtrodden, student-athlete. That's just common sense.

 

[RU_Planning]

You sure have a lot of thoughts and took time to respond to someone you don't take seriously, lol...

No one is taking away their rights. They would be taking away their scholarship if they decide not to play. Very simple and fair.

"....or participates in any strike or concerted refusal to play a scheduled game shall have his or her scholarship revoked."

Those are the key words. They can "assemble", and if they choose not to play because of it, then they deserve to lose their scholarship. If they want to assemble and fulfill their job duties, fine. No one is claiming they should lose their scholarship simply for assembling. It is for refusing not to play.

If you want to debate the truth, let me know.

Otherwise, carry on with your silly analogy, which is moronic. A better analogy would be, if you have a legal firearm, you will get your scholarship revoked. And if that was put forth, I would disagree. Wouldn't you?

You are leaving out the most egregious part of the ridiculous law, that "any college athlete who calls, incites, supports, or participates..."

That means even the support of a strike or threat of a concerted refusal to play in a scheduled game results in loss of scholarship. So if the team's QB supports his CB's decision to boycott a game the QB would lose his scholarship too. The whole purpose of this law is to suppress speech that this blowhard and his fellow conservative brethren don't agree with.

This is classic big government attack on individuals.

This should be up to the school, not the state legislature. Not sure why that is so hard to comprehend.

 

[RUhasarrived]

If Nixon doesn't sign the bill,impeach him.

 

[Caliknight]

You are leaving out the most egregious part of the ridiculous law, that "any college athlete who calls, incites, supports, or participates..."

That means even the support of a strike or threat of a concerted refusal to play in a scheduled game results in loss of scholarship. So if the team's QB supports his CB's decision to boycott a game the QB would lose his scholarship too. The whole purpose of this law is to suppress speech that this blowhard and his fellow conservative brethren don't agree with.

This is classic big government attack on individuals.

This should be up to the school, not the state legislature. Not sure why that is so hard to comprehend.

Missouri is a state school, funded by the taxpayers. Yes, if you support and refuse to play in a game, you lose your scholarship. Common sense.

You hysterics are without merit. No matter how many times you say it, it doesn't change the facts. No one is saying they can't assemble. What they can't do is not play in games. Well, they can, but they will lose their scholarship. Assemble away...on your own time.

 

[jason21psu]

From a football/recruiting perspective this will hurt Missouri.

I think the above 2nd v 1st amendment analogy only works if player is trying to wear his firearm during the game.

 

[RU_Planning]

Missouri is a state school, funded by the taxpayers. Yes, if you support and refuse to play in a game, you lose your scholarship. Common sense.

You hysterics are without merit. No matter how many times you say it, it doesn't change the facts. No one is saying they can't assemble. What they can't do is not play in games. Well, they can, but they will lose their scholarship. Assemble away...on your own time.

Do you not understand the difference between "and" and "or".

Scholarships are only funded partially by state funds. Most often it is donations, student fees and other private funds. Again, why not leave it up to the schools? Because you know they won't implement a policy like this.

The State is attempting to suppress speech here, there is no way around that. The State is threatening retaliation for exercising a student-athlete's first amendment rights.

 

[RUMBA-JK]

It is all now a Moot Point -
Sponsor withdraws Mizzou athlete strike proposal
http://www.stltoday.com/article_d3417e6d-9d01-5633-b3cc-88dcec3de3a7.html

He did not state his reason - but he had gotten huge push back from multiple sides.
- basically it is generally thought that he got a few phone calls from his own party leadership telling him to shut it down & never speak of this again.

- Apparently he was also getting some blistering words from a number of very well connected / heavy-weight supporters of:

Tiger Scholarship Fund - TSF
Currently, the University of Missouri's Athletic Scholarship Endowment is approximately $31 Million, which distributes nearly $1.5 Million annually and funds about 10% of student-athlete scholarships.
The mission of the TSF is to provide financial resources to maximize the impact of the overall Mizzou student-athlete experience and to uphold the core values of the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics:
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY / ACADEMIC INTEGRITY / COMPETITIVE EXCELLENCE

Seems that they wanted no part of this proposal - and strenuously objected to it.

 

[RU31trap]

I don't have an issue with an athlete sitting side by side with protesters regarding an issue they believe in. Unfortunately, if they are truly scholarship athletes and they don't suit up to play for reasons other than injury or a personal hardship he or she should be stripped of their scholarship, prorate the remainder of the semester and enforce payment. If they cannot pay then have the families apply for student loans. If they do not qualify for student loans request that they leave the premises ASAP.

 

[mdk01]

Being a college football player isn't a surrender of constitutional rights.

Typical blowhard reaction.

I never realized a scholarship is a constitutional right.

And doesn't Charlie Strong have a "no firearms" rule for his players (or perhaps he did at Louisville). I don't recall the 2nd amendment being invoked when that happened.

 

[Caliknight]

I never realized a scholarship is a constitutional right.

And doesn't Charlie Strong have a "no firearms" rule for his players (or perhaps he did at Louisville). I don't recall the 2nd amendment being invoked when that happened.

Great point. Strong is clearly infringing on constitutional rights. Where is the outrage?

 

[demauroj]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...l-that-would-revoke-scholarships-for-striking

The proposed law, House Bill No. 1743 (pdf), 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.”

Seems to me that this could be viewed as the State invoking a suggestion of infringement on free speech at the very least, whereas if the University adopts a policy that a scholarship will be revoked if a student-athlete is insubordinate than the scholarship is revoked would be legitimate. However, a university (particularly those competing at the highest level) would be foolish to create such policy as it would likely hurt in their recruitment of players.

Any lawyers care to share their views on the subject matter? I know there are a number on here.

Thanks!

This Might be the dumbest thing anyone can do.

Scenario 1:

70 Football Scholarship Athletes exercise their first amendment right to protest and assemble.
all 70 lose their scholarships.
NCAA regulations only allow 25 signings per season.

You essentially legislated the destruction of your program and athletic department for that matter.

 

[Caliknight]

Only problem is they wouldn't have lost their scholarships for assembling. They would have lost them for not playing.