re: All that needs to be said about that bill

The only problem with the bill (other than the guy who initiated it being a completely unaware moron) is that it was MISSOURI specific.

We don't want that, but something from the NCAA that would be applied to ALL schools would be great.

they are student-athletes because they agree to a mutual contract (scholarship) that dubs them so.

Not all contracts are employee-employer related, despite what it may appear. College athletics are mutual benefit contracts, despite one party being way more wealthy and powerful. But the student-athlete provides something the university itself cannot, athletic talent. So both are providing services to each other.

That is how the NCAA has based its model...and will likely continue for a very very long time.

Certainly didn't help, but it's over now and really never got past the local media.

I'll be glad when we can finally move on from all this shite.

Scholarships are given in one-year increments, and there is a procedure in place for not renewing for a number of reasons...even if the scholarships were funded by the State, imho there is a process in place for not renewing and this was a serious attempt at an overreach.

Let's imagine Mizzou has a player who is Mormon, and a game gets rescheduled for whatever reason to a Sunday and he refuses to play. Mizzou HAS to take away his scholarship based on this law. It makes no sense.

quote:

---

Your wording provided your answer. These are student athletes we are talking about here, not workers or employees. Student athlete maybe has become a hypocritical joke of a title, but it is still the legal, official designation today.

---

I understand what you're saying. The worker analogy may have been abit off if you look at the defenitions of the parties involved. Each circumstance is a little different. I get it. I was just linking the two from a concept point of view. Two parties enter into agreements and one party breaches the agreement. What usually happens? There have to be consequences for breaching agreements. That's what I was saying with the.last part of my post. I think it's something that really the state shouldn't be involved with, but should be controlled through the university. Is it the states business in the first place whether they fund the TSF or not, I beleive they still fund public universities and is that enough to make it their business?

As far as the designation of student athelete, I understand that the arguement made outside of this discussion and not on this forum was that the NCAA gave them that designation so they wouldn't be classified basically as a worker and the University wouldn't be liable to pay them money for playing a sport at their school. I know it goes much deeper than that. But at the surface that's my understanding.

I understand the purpose of the bill and agree to a certain extent. If you look at schools as an academic institution first and foremost, then it makes complete sense. Just goes to show how powerful the large spectator sports are.

Just playing Devil's advocate

Stupid arse bill filed by a stupid arse representative elected by a stupid arse inbred electorate that was filed mainly for the publicity and will never make it to the floor for a vote.

Now let's talk about sum futball!