Started By
Message
re: Bill introduced in MO legislature that would void scholarships
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:49 pm to KaiserSoze99
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:49 pm to KaiserSoze99
Pinkel did what he thought he had to do to protect the football program. Maybe he was wrong (I don't think so), but his actions and the universities actions were solely made to protect the football program. It's that simple.
2
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:49 pm to KaiserSoze99
quote:
Under this piece of legislation (apparently. haven't seen it) it takes the power out of the hands of the HC, or the school.
If true this is so dumb. A HC is going to do whats best for his team. Might as well foot a bill that says HCs can't manage their team.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:50 pm to JesusQuintana
quote:totally agree
Pinkel did what he thought he had to do to protect the football program. Maybe he was wrong (I don't think so), but his actions and the universities actions were solely made to protect the football program. It's that simple.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:51 pm to KaiserSoze99
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.
Ahhh yes. The disenfranchised millionaire Railroad executive's son and his "hunger strike" brought to you by Campbell's soup.
Ahhh yes. The disenfranchised millionaire Railroad executive's son and his "hunger strike" brought to you by Campbell's soup.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:52 pm to johnzorback
Well, it might give the coach a 'quiet' way to say "it's out of my hands" if players do strike. 
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:53 pm to scrooster
quote:
Board of trustees
Wasn't referring to them...my refernce was geared towards the legislatures.The BOT's couldn't implement any laws that would apply towards players behaviors when it comes to keeping their scholarships.
They might try get a coach fired or a staff position changeg but it could be argued that gold and silver circle donors have FAR more influence. (Yes,I know,sometimes they are one and the same)
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:54 pm to JesusQuintana
quote:
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.
If I were the MO legislature, I would also add civil and criminal penalties to the law.
Make it decidedly against their interest to hold a multimillion dollar entity hostage to assert a liberal agenda (or any non-athletic agenda). Missouri basically had no choice but to get the pres to resign, even if he was faultless and a good president. Everyone but the poopstika gang lost control of one of the largest entities in the state of Missouri. They effectively circumvented the hiring and retention process of a state institution as well as the legislative and elective process. That cannot happen.
How much did their strike cost the University of Missouri? Can it be quantified?
Somebody needs to pay for that shite.
This post was edited on 12/14/15 at 12:56 pm
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:54 pm to Tiger97
quote:
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.
Or, you know, the HC dismissing students from the team who refuse to abide by team rules.
Its a HC decision. Dont like the decision then fire the HC.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:54 pm to JesusQuintana
quote:
Pinkel did what he thought he had to do to protect the football program. Maybe he was wrong (I don't think so), but his actions and the universities actions were solely made to protect the football program. It's that simple.
His hand definitely got forced. And it should be up to the University and the AD how they want to address that action.
Don't like that your coach didn't revoke those scholarships (which could've been revoked)? Then get rid of the coach. Don't like the University supporting the decision? Then get rid of your Administration.
But don't start legislating rules over when scholarships are automatically revoked, University support/decisions be damned.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:55 pm to Tiger97
quote:You obviously don't get it. It didn't matter what the media said about it, someone on the recruiting trail(white and black) was going to spin this as racist. Football coaches could give a shite about the true politics of it, but they will sure as hell take a side if it were going to help them win.
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.
Ahhh yes. The disenfranchised millionaire Railroad executive's son and his "hunger strike" brought to you by Campbell's soup.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 12:59 pm to JesusQuintana
quote:
I don't disagree. I'm just wondering how the state would have any power to enforce such things. TBH, I don't know if the state contributes directly to scholarship costs being a public institution or not?
Currently, scholarships are guaranteed for one year for the most part, some schools give four year guarantees. Technically, players can accept the one year scholarship, show up, quit, and still attend school for free for the remainder of the academic calendar. Part of this is due to the tax code, which does not categorize an athletic scholarship as "income" as long as the student isn't "required" to participate. The scholarship would not be renewed if they did this, but they wouldn't be on the hook for the one year of tuition.
The state would administer this legislation it through the officials at Mizzou. Had Mizzou yanked scholarships his past year, there would be a lot of red tape and administrative hearings--civil rights attorneys would argue the students had a vested interest in the scholarship for the remainder of the year. It probably doesn't mean they'd be kicked out of school immoderately; just reiterates that their scholarship won't be renewed if they refuse to participate for an extended period of time.
This post was edited on 12/14/15 at 1:01 pm
Posted on 12/14/15 at 1:00 pm to BluegrassBelle
I can see such legislation also being a means of serious abuse. Especially here in Texas, where some fan bases have more influence than others.
They will need to narrowly tailor the law to only give power in limited circumstances to prevent abuse.
They will need to narrowly tailor the law to only give power in limited circumstances to prevent abuse.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 1:03 pm to JesusQuintana
You'd be surprised with how much power the state has. They have been constantly proposing bills to limit the goings-on at UT.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 1:06 pm to TidenUP
quote:
Well, it might give the coach a 'quiet' way to say "it's out of my hands" if players do strike.
Or the coach can suggest and motivate his team to not strike and get media attention by wearing a ribbon or something on tv that promotes the issue worth striking for, and promise to get the message out there.
i may be fired but i believe in you. Keep doing that until the strike ends.
Hell change the jerseys and emblem to justice or some shite.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 1:12 pm to johnzorback
quote:Not a bad idea
Or the coach can suggest and motivate his team to not strike and get media attention by wearing a ribbon or something on tv that promotes the issue worth striking for, and promise to get the message out there.
i may be fired but i believe in you. Keep doing that until the strike ends.
Hell change the jerseys and emblem to justice or some shite.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 1:14 pm to johnzorback
This legislation may also grant the AD the right to terminate a head coach "for cause" if he fails to take action (which means, no buyout).
This post was edited on 12/14/15 at 1:15 pm
Posted on 12/14/15 at 1:21 pm to JesusQuintana
A link would be nice.
I'm sure, if true, it will become race motivated.
I'm sure, if true, it will become race motivated.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 1:21 pm to JesusQuintana
quote:
Thoughts?
Pandering.
Haven't read the bill, but doubt it would stand up to court scrutiny if it only singles out athletic scholarships.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 1:25 pm to MontyFranklyn
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.
Mizzou is likely going to be hurt by this any way it's looked-at ... Pinkel knew it, everyone knows it. What the politician is trying to do is ... who knows, I dunno, with regard to the actual football program at Mizzou but it's likely to have repercussions for years.
Just imagine the conversations sitting at the tables with the mommies of recruits. Mizzou will be easy pickins' for the Big 12, B1G, SEC, etc.
Posted on 12/14/15 at 1:26 pm to sms151t
quote:
Because if it is only Athletic Scholarships then it is discrimination. If it is all scholarships then you are unfairly infringing on rights of students to form groups as a government, not as a school.
Not really. Students are still more than free to strike, just without a 3rd party paying their tution. Note that bill has no effect on student status with the University or the team.
Quite literally, would make them like any other non-athlete student.
Athletic department still a part of the University and thus under jurisdiction of state..by way of legislature. Not directly $ wise, but definitely in perception which can impact $.
This post was edited on 12/14/15 at 1:31 pm
Page 4 of 7
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News