Lawmaker Proposes Bill To Punish Mizzou Strikers:

originally posted by: Bluntone22
If a person missed their finals to go to a protest, then maybe they should lose the scholarship.

I think if they failed their finals they would lose their scholarships regardless of whether they attended a protest or not.

I would think they have to maintain certain grade point standards to keep the scholarship.

This is a given, but the point I was making is a recipient of an academic scholarship going to be held to the same standard? They want to expel the athletic scholarship students for not playing, do you also want to expel the academic students for not learning?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus



Life's not fair or equal.
An academic scholarship isn't equal to an athletic one.
One kid fails, oh well.
The star quarterback misses a game and that might cost the university millions.
Just as in everyday life, not everyone is judged the same.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Life's not fair or equal.

No, but your rights are supposed to be.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Life's not fair or equal.

No, but your rights are supposed to be.

Should it matter if the Uni set it's rules or the state set the laws governing the Uni on such matters.

originally posted by: Spider879
Should it matter if the Uni set it's rules or the state set the laws governing the Uni on such matters.

Neither one has any say when it comes to the Constitution since it is a public university.

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: seaswine
Free speech is a right.

Free money for education is not.

It ain't free they are making the Unis millions if not billions by participating in sports, it's actually big business.

That is the real point. If a player is on strike he is not holding up his end on the agreement therefore the reward can be rightfully taken away.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

They don't want to expel them. They do want to take away the athletic grant.

And again, it's all an academic discussion. The bill was withdrawn.

However, remember, had the players not played MU would have had to pay out $1 million for forfeiture of the game the players threatened to miss. So you have players being given a scholarship to play threatening to abandon the team they agreed to play for and the university they signed on to represent and cost it $1 million as part of their protest. That could also be viewed as extortion.

So it isn't as if they simply did some hands up don't shoot gesture as they went on the field to show solidarity or something.

originally posted by: ketsuko
They don't want to expel them. They do want to take away the athletic grant.

Semantics. If they are there on an athletic scholarship which is withdrawn how do they attend and pay for class?

However, remember, had the players not played MU would have had to pay out $1 million for forfeiture of the game the players threatened to miss. So you have players being given a scholarship to play threatening to abandon the team they agreed to play for and the university they signed on to represent and cost it $1 million as part of their protest. That could also be viewed as extortion.

So it isn't as if they simply did some hands up don't shoot gesture as they went on the field to show solidarity or something.

Tough crap for the university then.

I think many of them acted like big babies, but guess what? They are Constitutionally permitted to act like big babies. A public university does not have the right to stifle protest.

originally posted by: JohnthePhilistine

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: seaswine
Free speech is a right.

Free money for education is not.

It ain't free they are making the Unis millions if not billions by participating in sports, it's actually big business.

That is the real point. If a player is on strike he is not holding up his end on the agreement therefore the reward can be rightfully taken away.

Then Ok so lets do away with the so-called amateur status and stop pretending it's anything but business then they should be able to go out and unionize like other ball players.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ketsuko
They don't want to expel them. They do want to take away the athletic grant.

Semantics. If they are there on an athletic scholarship which is withdrawn how do they attend and pay for class?

However, remember, had the players not played MU would have had to pay out $1 million for forfeiture of the game the players threatened to miss. So you have players being given a scholarship to play threatening to abandon the team they agreed to play for and the university they signed on to represent and cost it $1 million as part of their protest. That could also be viewed as extortion.

So it isn't as if they simply did some hands up don't shoot gesture as they went on the field to show solidarity or something.

Tough crap for the university then.

I think many of them acted like big babies, but guess what? They are Constitutionally permitted to act like big babies. A public university does not have the right to stifle protest.

Again, I don't think you are taking into consideration the athletic grant agreement.

We all sign one when we sign our letter of intent. Now, I freely admit that as I did not compete for MU, I don't know what all stipulations and conditions are part of their athletic grant agreement, but quite aside from the NCAA rules you have to follow, each university has its own set.

The one I went to made it quite clear that we were to be ambassadors of the university during our tenure as student athletes. I would imagine that doing something to create a negative impression of the university in the public eye could be considered a violation of that part of the agreement.

Unlike many states, Missouri only has the one flagship institution. So maybe it is looser with its athletes, but I doubt it.

originally posted by: ketsuko
We all sign one when we sign our letter of intent. Now, I freely admit that as I did not compete for MU, I don't know what all stipulations and conditions are part of their athletic grant agreement, but quite aside from the NCAA rules you have to follow, each university has its own set.

Who cares what it may or may not say? None of that supersedes the Constitution.

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: JohnthePhilistine

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: seaswine
Free speech is a right.

Free money for education is not.

It ain't free they are making the Unis millions if not billions by participating in sports, it's actually big business.

That is the real point. If a player is on strike he is not holding up his end on the agreement therefore the reward can be rightfully taken away.

Then Ok so lets do away with the so-called amateur status and stop pretending it's anything but business then they should be able to go out and unionize like other ball players.

Why? If you are on academic grant, then they can strip that if you refuse to perform in the classroom just as much as they ought to be able to strip your athletic grant for not competing on the athletic field.

An F is an L in the classroom.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ketsuko
We all sign one when we sign our letter of intent. Now, I freely admit that as I did not compete for MU, I don't know what all stipulations and conditions are part of their athletic grant agreement, but quite aside from the NCAA rules you have to follow, each university has its own set.

Who cares what it may or may not say? None of that supersedes the Constitution.

The Constitution upholds contract law. The agreement is a contract.

originally posted by: ketsuko
The Constitution upholds contract law. The agreement is a contract.

The Bill of Rights supersedes contract law. A public entity cannot contractually remove your rights.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The military does it all the time.

However I digress.

No one is removing their rights. Isn't this the argument we always make with business and work? No one is saying they couldn't protest, but by refusing the play, they violated two conditions of their agreement and put those agreements in jeopardy.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: JohnthePhilistine

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: seaswine
Free speech is a right.

Free money for education is not.

It ain't free they are making the Unis millions if not billions by participating in sports, it's actually big business.

That is the real point. If a player is on strike he is not holding up his end on the agreement therefore the reward can be rightfully taken away.

Then Ok so lets do away with the so-called amateur status and stop pretending it's anything but business then they should be able to go out and unionize like other ball players.

Why? If you are on academic grant, then they can strip that if you refuse to perform in the classroom just as much as they ought to be able to strip your athletic grant for not competing on the athletic field.

An F is an L in the classroom.

But I hold academic scholarships separate from athletic scholarship, one carries the weight of big money behind it the other does not.

originally posted by: ketsuko
The military does it all the time.

Do I really need to point out the difference between the United States military and a public university?

No one is removing their rights. Isn't this the argument we always make with business and work? No one is saying they couldn't protest, but by refusing the play, they violated two conditions of their agreement and put those agreements in jeopardy.

What conditions? Have you linked something to those conditions and I missed it? Public protest is a Constitutional right, even when it hurts poor old Mizzou's football standings.

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: JohnthePhilistine

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: seaswine
Free speech is a right.

Free money for education is not.

It ain't free they are making the Unis millions if not billions by participating in sports, it's actually big business.

That is the real point. If a player is on strike he is not holding up his end on the agreement therefore the reward can be rightfully taken away.

Then Ok so lets do away with the so-called amateur status and stop pretending it's anything but business then they should be able to go out and unionize like other ball players.

Why? If you are on academic grant, then they can strip that if you refuse to perform in the classroom just as much as they ought to be able to strip your athletic grant for not competing on the athletic field.

An F is an L in the classroom.

But I hold academic scholarships separate from athletic scholarship, one carries the weight of big money behind it the other does not.

I held both too. I also lived in a scholarship house. I had to uphold certain conditions to keep living in the house, collecting the scholarship, and getting my athletic grant.

Not keeping up with any of the three meant losing that one.

In fact, I did lose my place in the scholarship house because I couldn't keep up with all the house duties in addition to competitions.

But I'm not sure what you actual point is here. The fact that one carries big money behind it is immaterial. You don't hold up your end of the agreement means you lose that money for someone who will.

a reply to: Spider879
I think it has to do with having a Government Grant or Federally funded student loan. If you get it you have to do what the Govt says not making the grade disqualifies you from having the grant. I think it is part of that they wish to add too so they can't strike and not go to school but still get the grant and loan moneys.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ketsuko
The military does it all the time.

Do I really need to point out the difference between the United States military and a public university?

No one is removing their rights. Isn't this the argument we always make with business and work? No one is saying they couldn't protest, but by refusing the play, they violated two conditions of their agreement and put those agreements in jeopardy.

What conditions? Have you linked something to those conditions and I missed it? Public protest is a Constitutional right, even when it hurts poor old Mizzou's football standings.

I could care less about Mizzou's football standings. I hate them and still do.

BUT, as a former student athlete, I am appalled at the way others were allowed to turn their backs on their agreements. You sign a contract that says you represent the university and then you proceed to extort them for $1 million unless they fire the president and apologize for being racist all while they basically treat you like a celebrity?

Yeeeaahhhh ... It's one thing to attend a protest. It's another to ask coach for permission to wear an emblem of solidarity, but to openly extort your university? You should expect to be tossed out for that. It hurts your university, especially when there is no egregious racism to protest against. You made your school look bad and you hurt your recruiting and your campus image for likely years to come.