Started By
Message
re: Bill introduced in MO legislature that would void scholarships
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:19 pm to HottyToddy7
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:19 pm to HottyToddy7
They don't NEED a law obviously. Mizzou could have revoked the scholarships if they wanted to completely tank the football program.
2
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:20 pm to Feral
quote:
University that operates as a state entity
Yes,but it can be argued that funds used (at least for CFB scholarships ) do not come from the state and therefore have little if any say so on where and how the funds are allocated.
This post was edited on 12/14/15 at 12:23 pm
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:20 pm to JesusQuintana
quote:
It doesn't tell us anything other than we have a good ole boy republican state rep pandering to his target audience. Reactive, not proactive.
You would expect him to have known in advance that a group of football players would go on strike in support of a kid performing a hunger strike on campus to oust a school system's president?
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:20 pm to JesusQuintana
The scholarships are only good for 1 year, so MU can still pull them at the end of May if they want.
ETA:
Cheshire what was MSU wearing last week on the basketball court? Were they throwbacks? I just saw a picture in the New-Leader today.
ETA:
Cheshire what was MSU wearing last week on the basketball court? Were they throwbacks? I just saw a picture in the New-Leader today.
This post was edited on 12/14/15 at 12:23 pm
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:21 pm to HottyToddy7
quote:
Why do they need a law when they could just pull scholarships.
If such a law existed, players would never go as far as striking.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:22 pm to RD Dawg
quote:
quote: University the operates as a state entity Yes,but it can be argued that funds used (at least for CFB scholarships ) do not come from the state and therefore have little if any say so on where and how the funds are allocated.
This was partially my point. Wouldn't it need to be proven that the state subsidized the scholarships for them to have any power to revoke them?
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:23 pm to JesusQuintana
quote:
They don't NEED a law obviously. Mizzou could have revoked the scholarships if they wanted to completely tank the football program.
I don't know. If you have administrators who use the football program as a wedge (like the poopsticka scandal) to push an agenda, it is much more detrimental to the program than having a work-around in place. Third-party agencies or the legislator can specifically threaten individual players and hold that threat over their heads to keep the team from uniting.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:23 pm to KaiserSoze99
quote:
BINGO
The goose-stepping pinko academic commies can't just sit back and let it happen to force their revolutionary agenda.
Missouri is thinking ahead of the commie academics.
If you need legislation for that, then they probably need to take a long, hard look at how the University is run as a whole before they even attempt to create this kind of legislation.
I go back to when Gillispie was at UK and borderline abusing players and the players threatened to not take the court in the NIT game because of it. I would've absolutely supported them doing so with what has come out about his tenure at UK and would've been livid if their scholarships were automatically yanked because of some shitty legislation like this.
Missouri isn't thinking ahead of commie academics. They're taking the "easy" way out instead of addressing larger issues at their largest public university.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:24 pm to JesusQuintana
quote:
It doesn't tell us anything other than we have a good ole boy republican state rep pandering to his target audience. Reactive, not proactive.
That's not the point.
The point is that when the institution itself fails to address and solve the problem ... politicians are going to get involved.
Whatever the party of the representative who introduced the bill, he obviously did so as the result of what he was hearing from his constituency. No doubt, it is a political gesture not likely to pass - but it raises the question, offers a solution and endears him to his constituency for at least trying.
It's sending a signal ... and that tells us that many Missourians are still not happy about what happened and they want to make sure it doesn't happen again. They obviously feel that the threat of future boycotts looms large over Mizzou and they are, in essence, sending a warning that football players will not hold them hostage to political activists' influence in the future. And it should be that way. You cannot allow the tail to wag the dog when it comes to college football .... ESPECIALLY in the SEC.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:25 pm to JesusQuintana
Forest for the trees. Or in the words of Frozen, let it go
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:25 pm to JesusQuintana
If student fees are used at Mizzou to subsidize athletics then perhaps the state can make the arguement...kind of a stretch though.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:26 pm to JesusQuintana
quote:
This was partially my point. Wouldn't it need to be proven that the state subsidized the scholarships for them to have any power to revoke them?
The University of Missouri Athletic Department is a state entity. The legislator may not fund it, but the State owns it and can make laws that dictate how that state agency will be run.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:26 pm to BluegrassBelle
I'm thinking it would be like a safety net insurance policy.
The University yanks schollies and you know, without question, there is going to be hell raised.
With legislation in place, the school would basically point to the law and say take it up with the state...their law, not ours.
Hell will be raised even with legislation in place but I would think it would more or less absolve the school from any liability.
The University yanks schollies and you know, without question, there is going to be hell raised.
With legislation in place, the school would basically point to the law and say take it up with the state...their law, not ours.
Hell will be raised even with legislation in place but I would think it would more or less absolve the school from any liability.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:27 pm to KaiserSoze99
I agree, had such a law been in place when this occured then...
A. Highly likely there would be no strike in the first place.
B. If there was, there could have been action taken against them without the liberal media smearing Mizzou as a racist institution that won't stick up for poor, disenfranchised black youth.
A. Highly likely there would be no strike in the first place.
B. If there was, there could have been action taken against them without the liberal media smearing Mizzou as a racist institution that won't stick up for poor, disenfranchised black youth.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:28 pm to scrooster
quote:
That's not the point.
The point is that when the institution itself fails to address and solve the problem ... politicians are going to get involved.
Whatever the party of the representative who introduced the bill, he obviously did so as the result of what he was hearing from his constituency. No doubt, it is a political gesture not likely to pass - but it raises the question, offers a solution and endears him to his constituency for at least trying.
It's sending a signal ... and that tells us that many Missourians are still not happy about what happened and they want to make sure it doesn't happen again. They obviously feel that the threat of future boycotts looms large over Mizzou and they are, in essence, sending a warning that football players will not hold them hostage to political activists' influence in the future. And it should be that way. You cannot allow the tail to wag the dog when it comes to college football .... ESPECIALLY in the SEC.
BOOM.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:29 pm to Carolina_Girl
That's a different perspective and a very good point, CG.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:30 pm to BluegrassBelle
Please...
Middle aged republican southerners would have loved Mizzou pulling scholarships from uppity young blacks, but unfortunately you aren't 220lbs and you don't run a 4.4
Middle aged republican southerners would have loved Mizzou pulling scholarships from uppity young blacks, but unfortunately you aren't 220lbs and you don't run a 4.4
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:30 pm to JesusQuintana
quote:
I agree, had such a law been in place when this occured then...
A. Highly likely there would be no strike in the first place.
B. If there was, there could have been action taken against them without the liberal media smearing Mizzou as a racist institution that won't stick up for poor, disenfranchised black youth.
Exactly.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:31 pm to Carolina_Girl
quote:
I'm thinking it would be like a safety net insurance policy.
And that would make sense, but depending on the wording I could also see where it'd be something that would force the revocation whether the school supports it or not.
Dammit Jesus, get us a link to this shite already.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:31 pm to MontyFranklyn
It's basically a quid pro quo. The school agrees to cover tuition, food, housing,etc. and the student athlete agrees to participate in the sport. If the student then decides to stop playing the sport, breaking his agreement that he has in writing, then the school should have the right to end the contract(scholly). Not really a slippery slope at all.
Page 2 of 7
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News