I agree. A college football scholarship is worth, in today’s market, upwards of $50,000. The football players were about to strike and not play BYU, which would have cost Missouri $1,000,000.
It’s ridiculous to listen to these privileged athletes whine.
This will really help with recruting.
First, of course, there’s the “nope, they aren’t employees” issue and that minor little first amendment thing.
But even if a law like this were to pass and survive judicial scrutiny, it would be impossible to enforce. It’s easy for a player to come down with the flu or suffer an injury in practice that will heal fine, but not in time for the game.
True. But the law ain’t gonna happen. The NCAA and the coaches will be shutting this bullshit down toot sweet. There’s simply too much money involved.
If I was a football player in HS looking for somewhere to play I think I would look really hard at going to another college if this bill passes.
Or the rabidity of sports fans.
But that is the point. Its a D1 program in the SEC. If they fail to keep even 5 or 6 of their top recruits and 5 or 6 of their current top tier players, it will hurt the program and they will slide even further into mediocrity. The big money boosters and politicians will be quite angry. Therefore this wont pass. And if you think that just because they are having their tuition paid for as scholarship athletes they have no right to express their displeasure about certain circumstances on campus, then I suggest you go back to your clown car. Because that is a ridiculous statement.
Why, I would not advocate suppressing free speech. However, you seem confused. “Free speech” does NOT mean “speech free of consequences”. Let them speak their minds, and strike and do all kinds of stupid shit. Hey, they’re college students, and college is where people do stupid shit. But, in the real world, there are consequences. In this case, they should lose their scholarships, and the ticket to the big payoff which some will get.
In the real world, speaking freely has consequences. Adults learn that they need to think before they speak.
Soooo, college football fields = plantations?
Seriously - the Missouri legislature took what was a huge recruiting positive (Athletics cares about social justice and has your backs), to a negative. Freedum eleventy!!
Good point.
This is from the Columbia Missourian:
"Does the bill have any legs? Probably not. Even if the bill, which does not yet have a hearing scheduled, becomes a law, MU student-athlete scholarships are not state-funded. The Tiger Scholarship Fund pays for athletics scholarships." [emphasis added]
This is a public university and state legislation we’re talking about. Therefore, it is state action constituting a prior restraint and coercion. The law frowns on prior restraints of free speech and assembly like almost no other regulation. It is motivated solely by anger at the possibility of losing revenue that the college earns from the games and selling out the seats if these students decide to strike. They are essentially telling these students…who ARE students FIRST…that they may not exercise their rights to free speech and assembly without losing their ability to attend the school if they do not get out there and earn the school its revenue from the football games…that their scholarships make them subject to state control over their ability to exercise their civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution. That wasn’t part of their bargain. It is fucked on every level of human decency imaginable. It would also hold up in court as not only a colorable claim under Section 1983, but as a meritorious one.
Hilarious - hey, why even bother with scholarships? There are plenty of kids who would be thrilled to don their school’s uniform for nothing! And the alums won’t mind losing every game by triple digits, as long as they get to see somebody dressed up as a football team.
Constitutionally speaking, which is the only place that Freedom of Speech exists, that’s exactly what it means. The State cannot enact “consequences” upon someone practicing their right to free speech.
There can be consequences from speaking your mind from non-state entities. But the University of Missouri and the Missouri State Legislature are not those entities.
Proving once again how deeply confused of an individual you are. In the real world, they are not losing their scholarships for their protests. Not a single one of them. What you meant to say is in the hate filled imagined world that fills that tiny space between you ears, they should lose their scholarships.
You really just do not understand leverage, do you? If Missouri does this, they can say goodbye to all their blue-chip recruits.
Why do you think the school president resigned in the first place? Would he have done so if minority teaching assistants had gone on strike to protest conditions in the Biology department? Of course not!
So your solution is to force football players to surrender that leverage - after we’ve all had a look at how powerful it is. Unless white Missourians are so pissed off that they’re willing to give up Division 1 football, this will not happen.
These are ‘student’ athletes first and foremost. Just because you received a scholarship doesn’t mean you abandon your citizenship rights! Sounds like these Rethuglican legislators still think we’re still as a country operating in a slaveholder/plantation overseer/slave mentality. This shows contempt for student/athletes with social awareness and activism. As future recruits get wind of the racism shown by the Missouri legislative body, they should ‘scratch’ Mizzou from any consideration.
This is racism pure and simple…
Not to even mention the problem that arises from singling out athletes. What happens when a student with an academic scholarship protests something? Doesn’t seem very Equal to me.
And what would be the State’s compelling need to withdraw scholarships if an athlete protests? Loss of revenue to a non profit organization? That wouldn’t seem to hold much water either as the school can always round up 22 volunteers to go play a football game. Shoot, every major college in America has intramural football leagues.
But even if that was accepted as the reason, it hardly seems to rise to the level of restricting 1st Amendment rights preemptively.
Or economics, as for many big colleges the football program is what keeps the rest of the sports afloat. Some even help the university make money for academic areas. Not saying that is good or bad, but just saying. The response of the university would have to take all of that in mind.
There would still be no promise that the students would not do something like this again if the cause was big enough and the law did pass. The issue would then be the backfire. The state legislature is willing to smack down these kids expressing their rights and in the process further threaten football.
Honestly, as much as I enjoy college football, it is a very employer driven sort of system. Many of the coaches really do love their players but that students do not have much say in how things are done outside of the field really does hurt their cause. It would really say something if the university can and does make loads on them but they are not allowed to express any of their rights.
Haven’t you seen the NFL, NHL, NBA and MLB players strike? What makes you think they didn’t think before speaking? You may not like the action the students took, but they have a right to speak their minds. They are students, not employees. If what you are implying is true, then NCAA student athletes should be unionized.