http://www.atlredline.com/missouri-republican-state-rep-introduces-bill-to-preven-1747967186

Missouri Republican State Rep Rick Brattin proposed a bill that would revoke scholly's for any athlete that sits out for reasons other than health. This is most likely a response to Mizzou's football team threatening to sit out earlier this year, because of racial tension on campus.

But..I thought these were "student" athletes? Student athletes at a public institution being punished for their free speech? Is this guy serious?

I think part of the allure of being a politician is the ego boost of knowing you have the ability to waste a lot of peoples' time with stupid, meaningless, vindictive proposals whenever something happens among your constituency that makes you butthurt.

I seem to remember someone here saying, about the protests, that we have Isis and all these other big world issues, so why are the kids protesting this. Someone might want to remind this dude of the same thing.

raiderbuck;1769592 wrote:
But..I thought these were "student" athletes? Student athletes at a public institution being punished for their free speech? Is this guy serious?

since they are receiving something in return for playing, then they should lose that benefit while they sit out. let's say average tuition is $30k per year, divided by 12 games, that is $2,500 per game. they'll think twice knowing they or mom and dad will get a bill for that amount.

SizzlePig;1769626 wrote:since they are receiving something in return for playing, then they should lose that benefit while they sit out. let's say average tuition is $30k per year, divided by 12 games, that is $2,500 per game. they'll think twice knowing they or mom and dad will get a bill for that amount.

This would need to be an NCAA policy otherwise the school would get no recruits. I don't think the NCAA, in the current climate of student athlete's wanting more money, will pass anything of the sort.

Stupid bill/law idea.

SizzlePig;1769626 wrote:since they are receiving something in return for playing, then they should lose that benefit while they sit out. let's say average tuition is $30k per year, divided by 12 games, that is $2,500 per game. they'll think twice knowing they or mom and dad will get a bill for that amount.

Oh you mean like employees of the school?

sleeper;1769635 wrote:This would need to be an NCAA policy otherwise the school would get no recruits. I don't think the NCAA, in the current climate of student athlete's wanting more money, will pass anything of the sort.

Stupid bill/law idea.

the idea isn't stupid. the reason it would never happen is $tupid.

raiderbuck;1769640 wrote:Oh you mean like employees of the school?

no?

SizzlePig;1769679 wrote:no?

Taken from the author of the article:

"Theoretically, the athletes are breaching their contracts, aka scholarships, by not playing. However, the schools can never actually make that argument. Otherwise, they would be admitting that the athletes are employees under contract to perform athletic services in exchange for tuition, room, and board."

They're students. What you're proposing (at what this bill proposes) is treating them like they are different than the rest of the students on campus. They certainly play sports for the school, but in the eyes of the NCAA and the school they're no different than every other student on campus. Punishment for not playing should be handled by their respective coaches, not politicians.

This bill just emphasizes the idea that student athletes should just shut up and play. Which is ridiculous, and clearly exploitative.

raiderbuck;1769733 wrote:Taken from the author of the article:

"Theoretically, the athletes are breaching their contracts, aka scholarships, by not playing. However, the schools can never actually make that argument. Otherwise, they would be admitting that the athletes are employees under contract to perform athletic services in exchange for tuition, room, and board."

They're students. What you're proposing (at what this bill proposes) is treating them like they are different than the rest of the students on campus. They certainly play sports for the school, but in the eyes of the NCAA and the school they're no different than every other student on campus. Punishment for not playing should be handled by their respective coaches, not politicians.

This bill just emphasizes the idea that student athletes should just shut up and play. Which is ridiculous, and clearly exploitative.

a contract does not make one an employee. i am contracted with my cable company for them to provide tv and internet, and i pay them. they are not my employees.

SizzlePig;1769735 wrote:a contract does not make one an employee. i am contracted with my cable company for them to provide tv and internet, and i pay them. they are not my employees.

That's not a viable comparison. A comparison would be you are contracted by your cable company to represent them in PR, but they don't pay you as an employee.

raiderbuck;1769740 wrote:That's not a viable comparison. A comparison would be you are contracted by your cable company to represent them in PR, but they don't pay you as an employee.

can you explain further why it is not a viable comparison?

raiderbuck;1769740 wrote:That's not a viable comparison. A comparison would be you are contracted by your cable company to represent them in PR, but they don't pay you as an employee.

with your example, if i choose to sit and not represent them, the cable company would still honor my contract? doubtful.

Maybe every kid that skips a class should also be punished, if they are receiving even a cent of any financial aid, housing aid or any type of assistance.

Of course, the cost of trying to enforce that would far outweigh any savings. That probably means it's a good idea.

SizzlePig;1769741 wrote:can you explain further why it is not a viable comparison?

You said "a contract does not make one an employee." In general, you are correct. However, a contract can be used to negotiate employment terms. If you treat a scholarship like a contract of employment (like this bill does), then the person should be treated like an employee.

SizzlePig;1769742 wrote:with your example, if i choose to sit and not represent them, the cable company would still honor my contract? doubtful.

Yes, you are correct. The difference here is that student athletes are not employees. The university and the NCAA portray these kids as students first. Placing them on the same level as any other student. This bill presents them as if they are employees of the university. If I work for a company, and refuse to do my job, I can be fired. These kids don't "work" for the school. If they did, they would have the right to unionize or the right to be compensated for their "job", get it?

The point is that we shouldn't have to make a law about this. This should be completely left up to the school/coaches and leave government out of it.
Most certainly, however, such ridiculous behavior...threatening to sit out a football game to make a point about something completely unrelated...should be dealt with appropriately by the coach and or university president or board. Free speech is "speech".... that protection does not extend to not going to work or school because you want to protest something. The university or coach may allow it at their discretion...but they don't or shouldn't have to automatically.

If you agree to the offer of a scholarship in return for your participation on the athletic field, and then you unilaterally decide not to participate on the athletic field, you lose your scholarship. It is, effectively, quitting, and when you quit you lose the scholarship. It is a coach/school/ncaa matter.

raiderbuck;1769771 wrote:You said "a contract does not make one an employee." In general, you are correct. However, a contract can be used to negotiate employment terms. If you treat a scholarship like a contract of employment (like this bill does), then the person should be treated like an employee.



Yes, you are correct. The difference here is that student athletes are not employees. The university and the NCAA portray these kids as students first. Placing them on the same level as any other student. This bill presents them as if they are employees of the university. If I work for a company, and refuse to do my job, I can be fired. These kids don't "work" for the school. If they did, they would have the right to unionize or the right to be compensated for their "job", get it?

sorry for the misunderstanding. i wasn't agreeing with a bill that says they should be employees. simply stating that they are being given something in return for their services, and if they don't provide the service, i would have no issue with them being "docked" for it.

Azubuike24;1769748 wrote:Maybe every kid that skips a class should also be punished, if they are receiving even a cent of any financial aid, housing aid or any type of assistance.

Of course, the cost of trying to enforce that would far outweigh any savings. That probably means it's a good idea.

that doesn't seem like a good analogy. a contract for financial aid is only a contract to pay back a loan. it's not tied to school attendance of performance. same with housing, etc.

SizzlePig;1769797 wrote:that doesn't seem like a good analogy. a contract for financial aid is only a contract to pay back a loan. it's not tied to school attendance of performance. same with housing, etc.

Most scholarships given for high performance (honors, athletics, etc.) come with a stipulation that the recipient maintain certain criteria in order to remain eligible for the scholarship. I had to maintain a certain GPA to keep my spot in the honors program and receive the corresponding scholarship.

What you're describing is purely a loan, not a scholarship.

Azubuike24;1769748 wrote:Maybe every kid that skips a class should also be punished, if they are receiving even a cent of any financial aid, housing aid or any type of assistance.

Kids on academic scholarship are punished if they don't meet the requirements of that specific scholarship. While those requirements usually don't include mandatory attendance in every class, if a kid skips a bunch of classes and his GPA drops below the requisite level as a result, he could lose his scholarship.

lhslep134;1769803 wrote:Most scholarships given for high performance (honors, athletics, etc.) come with a stipulation that the recipient maintain certain criteria in order to remain eligible for the scholarship. I had to maintain a certain GPA to keep my spot in the honors program and receive the corresponding scholarship.

What you're describing is purely a loan, not a scholarship.

correct, because the poster said "financial aid". i don't think of scholarship when someone says financial aid, i think loan. you?

Azubuike24;1769748 wrote:Maybe every kid that skips a class should also be punished, if they are receiving even a cent of any financial aid, housing aid or any type of assistance.

Of course, the cost of trying to enforce that would far outweigh any savings. That probably means it's a good idea.

SizzlePig;1769797 wrote:that doesn't seem like a good analogy. a contract for financial aid is only a contract to pay back a loan. it's not tied to school attendance of performance. same with housing, etc.

SizzlePig;1769821 wrote:correct, because the poster said "financial aid". i don't think of scholarship when someone says financial aid, i think loan. you?

I interpreted Azubuike's post to include scholarships and you responded by discussing contracts solely for financial aid. I considered that an omission of Azu's point regarding scholarships, as you only spoke to financial aid after calling it a bad analogy. It's a good analogy if you consider "any type of assistance" to include scholarships, so I clarified.

To answer your question if someone is talking solely about "financial aid", I think loan. When someone says "any sort of assistance", I include scholarship money, you?

Well, the attempt to do this has already been abandoned, so I guess it doesn't really matter now.

84% sure sizzle pig is Said. Just an fyi for anyone here arguing with him, might as well stop.

HitsRus;1769782 wrote:The point is that we shouldn't have to make a law about this. This should be completely left up to the school/coaches and leave government out of it.
Most certainly, however, such ridiculous behavior...threatening to sit out a football game to make a point about something completely unrelated...should be dealt with appropriately by the coach and or university president or board. Free speech is "speech".... that protection does not extend to not going to work or school because you want to protest something. The university or coach may allow it at their discretion...but they don't or shouldn't have to automatically.

This. These type of decisions should be left to the school and the athletic department. No reason for the government to poke their nose in this shit. If a school stripped scholarships because the athletes wanted to be SJWs and not participate in their respective sport, I would be 100% ok with it. I know a baseball player who got a full ride, and was cut after not producing for 2 years. He lost his full scholarship.

SportsAndLady;1769839 wrote:84% sure sizzle pig is Said. Just an fyi for anyone here arguing with him, might as well stop.

This as well.