Started By
Message
0
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:32 pm to TidenUP
Yep.
This legislation appears to step in when the school may have the right to pull the scholly, but not the guts, or have a conflicting agenda.
This legislation appears to step in when the school may have the right to pull the scholly, but not the guts, or have a conflicting agenda.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:33 pm to KaiserSoze99
quote:
The University of Missouri Athletic Dept is a State entity
I know at UGA the Athletic Association is an entity unto itself and is not part of any state agency or state funding.
Most schools in the SEC are set up this way...to avoid meddling from the state governments.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:34 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.
Exactly, which was my point. Mizzou itself wasn't going to do anything ... matter of fact, they seemed to encourage it.
The citizenry is something else altogether though. It's a state supported school, the people do have a say so as far as how their tax dollars are spent. Whether or not the schollies are state funded or not, that's irrelevant and inconsequential. The institution itself is what matters.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:34 pm to JesusQuintana
Link
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:34 pm to KaiserSoze99
quote:
the school may have the right to pull the scholly, but not the guts
Exactly. They're just covering their butt for the ensuing shitstorm that will occur.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:35 pm to BluegrassBelle
The problem is the uproar it would've caused had the University revoked the scholarships- having a state law would send the outrage to the government which they can handle
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:35 pm to KaiserSoze99
Bama players go on strike and get their lockers cleaned out before sundown.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:36 pm to TidenUP
You're right. Mizzou would have been well within its rights to pull scholarships but rights weren't what stopped them from doing it. They wanted to avoid the impression that they were anti black. They were blindsided and left very little time to act in any other way.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:38 pm to RD Dawg
quote:
I know at UGA the Athletic Association is an entity unto itself and is not part of any state agency or state funding.
Most schools in the SEC are set up this way...to avoid meddling from the state governments.
That's window dressing, at best. The state owns the university. You don't think the state would have control over the athletic department if it chose to take that control? Al
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:38 pm to RD Dawg
quote:
I know at UGA the Athletic Association is an entity unto itself and is not part of any state agency or state funding.
Most schools in the SEC are set up this way...to avoid meddling from the state governments.
Boards of Trustees remain appointed positions ... by the governors. Therefore meddling is inevitable, ESPECIALLY when it involves the football programs in the South. And governors use those appointments to hold influence over the Boards of Trustees ... our (SC's) taterhead governor is a prime example of this.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:38 pm to PAGator
quote:
The problem is the uproar it would've caused had the University revoked the scholarships- having a state law would send the outrage to the government which they can handle
Precisely
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:41 pm to JesusQuintana
Players have no authority to go on "strike." They essentially are stating that they are giving up their scholarship when refusing to play. Any school worth their weight would have pulled their scholarships to begin with. Shouldn't take a state legislature to try and enact a law that would end up in court for years.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:41 pm to KaiserSoze99
quote:
Yeah, but if football players choose not to play football, they should not get to keep their scholarships for doing jack shite. Two way street. If you want to ruin your academic and football career, go on strike.
Yall are overthinking this. The head coach can kick players off the team and off scholarship. It doesnt need to go any farther. Dont want to play? Youre off the team. If the HC sympathizes then you're still on the team and have a scholly.
Not that difficult.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:42 pm to PAGator
quote:
The problem is the uproar it would've caused had the University revoked the scholarships- having a state law would send the outrage to the government which they can handle
And I totally get that. I don't see anything wrong with that kind of legislation. But I think the issue we have here (having pretty much no idea of what the potential legislation actually says), is would it be a law supporting the school in their decision or taking away their ability to make that decision themselves.
This post was edited on 12/14/15 at 12:44 pm
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:43 pm to JesusQuintana
pitchforks burn it down 
and please take a hammer to this thing
and please take a hammer to this thing
This post was edited on 12/14/15 at 12:45 pm
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:45 pm to whiskeyjohn
quote:
Players have no authority to go on "strike." They essentially are stating that they are giving up their scholarship when refusing to play. Any school worth their weight would have pulled their scholarships to begin with. Shouldn't take a state legislature to try and enact a law that would end up in court for years.
I know all of you love to think this because it didn't happen at your school, but it's complete bullshite.
As I said, the school was blindsided by the strike and had very little time to act. Their two choices would be to pull scholarships from every player, forfeit remaining games and pay out millions to opponents, be smeared as anti black by the liberal media, and tank the football program for likely a decade or more. Or, they could have done what they did.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:45 pm to whiskeyjohn
quote:
Players have no authority to go on "strike." They essentially are stating that they are giving up their scholarship when refusing to play.
Thats not the issue though. If theyre on the team they keep their scholarship even if they dont play/participate.
Its on the team/off the team and should rest on the HC.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:46 pm to johnzorback
quote:
Yall are overthinking this. The head coach can kick players off the team and off scholarship. It doesnt need to go any farther. Dont want to play? Youre off the team. If the HC sympathizes then you're still on the team and have a scholly.
Not that difficult.
That's exactly what happened. Pinkel was even praising his players on twitter. Under this piece of legislation (apparently. haven't seen it) it takes the power out of the hands of the HC, or the school.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:48 pm to KaiserSoze99
quote:Yea, but they won't ruin their career because there will be someone willing to take them. If Mizzo starts voiding scholarships they won't recruit another good black player ever and it may spread to basketball as well.
Yeah, but if football players choose not to play football, they should not get to keep their scholarships for doing jack shite. Two way street. If you want to ruin your academic and football career, go on strike.
Page 3 of 7
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News