This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2015, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
This time, another school's protest had nothing to do with BYU. Yet the potential fallout would have hurt the Cougar football players, and unfairly so.
Missouri coach Gary Pinkel canceled the Tigers' scheduled practice Sunday, after more than 30 players said they would boycott team activities in support of a protest regarding the way university system president Tim Wolfe has addressed racial incidents on the Columbia campus. Wolfe resigned Monday morning, and multiple football players were quoted as saying they would return to practice as scheduled Tuesday — knowing their position made an impact on the campus.
Missouri is booked to play BYU on Saturday in a neutral-site meeting in Kansas City. BYU's spot on Missouri's schedule made the potential boycott and cancellation of the game a coincidence involving the Cougars, although there's a natural historical comparison.
In 1969, 14 African-American players refused to play for Wyoming in a game against BYU, protesting LDS Church policies. Wyoming coach Lloyd Eaton dismissed the players from the team and the program took a long-term hit, because the coach failed to support his athletes.
In that context, it is clear that Pinkel was right to back his players, declaring the team "united" in the cause. That's an enlightened viewpoint in this century, and the reality is Tigers' season otherwise would have crumbled and the fallout would have devastated his recruiting efforts.
Missouri's players deserve credit for exercising a social conscience, in this era of self-absorbed, entitled athletes. They're looking beyond themselves in supporting a graduate student's hunger strike, and involving themselves in campus issues is healthy. Nobody can say student-athletes lack power these days, based on whatever role the Missouri guys player in Wolfe's ouster. I also commend Pinkel's stance, even if that really was his only choice.
The Tigers succeeded in bringing considerable attention to the issues, and that's good. But if had come to Saturday's game being canceled, that would have been unfair to another group of students — BYU's football players.
In the unofficial union of college athletes, Missouri's players had an obligation to play the game, for the sake of their opponents. I would have supported any form of protest by the Tigers, up to that point. Historical irony aside, Missouri's campus issues are not the Cougars' fault. Counting a bowl game, football players get only 13 annual opportunities to play, as a reward for year-round work.
Games occasionally do get canceled, usually for weather-related reasons beyond anyone's control. This case is different, and the Tigers have a responsibility to participate, as they apparently will do. And that makes Saturday's game even more interesting.
Twitter: @tribkurt