The Lions Den: The Anything Thread

[Sllim Pickens]

47 minutes ago, LionArkie said:

I’m not really for this. At what point do we just get rid of child labor laws as well so a kid can get their true value? In the end, who does this profit more, the kids or schools/parents. I think when you look at it from that perspective, lines aren’t quite as blurred.

Kids can work starting at age 14, but the child labor laws limit how much they can work.  The kids being paid for advertising I am sure are working less than that number of hours, they are just being paid more because their talent is more valuable than working at McDonalds.  Not to mention that kids who play sports in high school typically don't have time for a job to make a little extra cash between school and practice.  The kids and their parents will benefit from it.  Some will have good parents that let them have the money but help them manage it.  Others will have parents that take the money for themselves.  Either way the kid probably will have a better life at home because the family has more money.  And again, I highly doubt that we are talking millions or even tens of thousands of dollars here other than the top 100 or so kids.  

[LionArkie]

Child labor laws incorporate more than just hours worked. Unless things have changed when I was a working minor, There are also restrictions on how much a child can pick up, which could be directly correlated to the athletic ability. We can argue the kid would already be lifting, …but now it can be incentivized even more . I could definitely see a push for lifting more faster and tying that back to wages.

I’m probably over thinking it, but I know we take things to the nth level when it comes to turning a dollar. At what point are schools for education and not for recruiting athletes…especially at the high school level?

im for the free market and allowing kids to work…but I see a dark side to this. It looks good on paper to pay kids, but I’m not sure I want to turn hs sports into a business more than it already is. I’d much rather see one of the worst education systems in the developed world put tax money into education than paying a kid to join its football team.

[Sllim Pickens]

48 minutes ago, LionArkie said:

Child labor laws incorporate more than just hours worked. Unless things have changed when I was a working minor, There are also restrictions on how much a child can pick up, which could be directly correlated to the athletic ability. We can argue the kid would already be lifting, …but now it can be incentivized even more . I could definitely see a push for lifting more faster and tying that back to wages.

I’m probably over thinking it, but I know we take things to the nth level when it comes to turning a dollar. At what point are schools for education and not for recruiting athletes…especially at the high school level?

im for the free market and allowing kids to work…but I see a dark side to this. It looks good on paper to pay kids, but I’m not sure I want to turn hs sports into a business more than it already is. I’d much rather see one of the worst education systems in the developed world put tax money into education than paying a kid to join its football team.

I agree, the money could be better utilized if just given to the school as most public schools are underfunded.  But thats a whole different discussion IMO.  It feels gross because its different and not what we are used to, but that doesn't mean its wrong. It means maybe we should have been looking at how kids are worked and paid them earlier if someone was willing.  Like I said, I don't see this being a huge pay day type thing for most kids but just a few extra dollars.  Being in a commercial for a local company or getting free clothes from another isn't going to change much.  The big recruits have always been recruited with dollar signs it just wasn't public.  

In looking around the world, soccer players, basketball players etc are in professional leagues at very young ages.  If someone is that good and able to use their talents on that level, let them.  Victor Wembayana has been playing professional ball since he was 13 years old.  Luka Romero has been in the Premier League since he was 15.  Freddy Adu was aloud to join the MLS at 14.  The MLB signs kids in the international signings as young as 16 and Ronald Acuna's 12 year old brother just made a commitment to sign with the Phillies at 12 years old. Why is it different if these guys play football or basketball?  Nothing other than the pro leagues are using the high school and college ranks as cheap developmental leagues. 

[LionArkie]

You asked what is the difference between kids getting pro contracts and kids being offered NIL contracts at the high school level.

This to me is the crux of the conversation. For me, there is a huge difference between a private funded company taking a risk in a kid and paying him and a publicly funded k-12 educational system paying them. If we want to have kids leagues sprout up for the sole purpose  of paying them, then I have no problem with it. If the Detroit Lions want to fund a kid at 14 to help ensure said kid comes to them in free agency, then I have no problem with it. But if schools are using tax money to pay or recruit, then I have a problem. If some sort of booster is pulling kids from one school district to another, I have somewhat a problem with that as you are creating a bigger disparity between the haves and have nots.

if a private school wants to offer a scholarship to come play for them, I have no problem with it. The source of the funds, and the pulling from one publicly funded school to another is more what I have an issue with.

with all this being said, I am commenting on what I believe this is about. I need to go back and read the link.

[LionArkie]

Ok, after reading the article I see I was misunderstanding what was going on… imagine that. I thought it was the hs offering the nil.

 Still think it’s sucky, but I have no real issue with the scenario in the article. I don’t blame a kid for trying to get an early payday. I still think it leads to major exploitation, but ultimately that’s the name of the game.

however, I’d have an issue with what I was laying out in previous posts.

Edited March 7 by LionArkie

[Sllim Pickens]

1 hour ago, LionArkie said:

You asked what is the difference between kids getting pro contracts and kids being offered NIL contracts at the high school level.

This to me is the crux of the conversation. For me, there is a huge difference between a private funded company taking a risk in a kid and paying him and a publicly funded k-12 educational system paying them. If we want to have kids leagues sprout up for the sole purpose  of paying them, then I have no problem with it. If the Detroit Lions want to fund a kid at 14 to help ensure said kid comes to them in free agency, then I have no problem with it. But if schools are using tax money to pay or recruit, then I have a problem. If some sort of booster is pulling kids from one school district to another, I have somewhat a problem with that as you are creating a bigger disparity between the haves and have nots.

if a private school wants to offer a scholarship to come play for them, I have no problem with it. The source of the funds, and the pulling from one publicly funded school to another is more what I have an issue with.

with all this being said, I am commenting on what I believe this is about. I need to go back and read the link.

Public schools are audited every year and that would not be an allowable expense.  There is no way that public schools will be spending tax dollars recruiting athletes.  They will need to find donors/alumni to do that. 

 

 

[Sllim Pickens]

1 hour ago, LionArkie said:

Ok, after reading the article I see I was misunderstanding what was going on… imagine that. I thought it was the hs offering the nil.

 Still think it’s sucky, but I have no real issue with the scenario in the article. I don’t blame a kid for trying to get an early payday. I still think it leads to major exploitation, but ultimately that’s the name of the game.

however, I’d have an issue with what I was laying out in previous posts.

I think exploitation happens anyways.  See the guys on MTV's two-a-days and the elite 11 segments/shows on ESPN, televised high school games and All-American games.  Someone is making money off of these kids and exploiting them already. So allowing them to be compensated for it makes sense to me.  

[LionArkie]

7 minutes ago, Sllim Pickens said:

I think exploitation happens anyways.  See the guys on MTV's two-a-days and the elite 11 segments/shows on ESPN, televised high school games and All-American games.  Someone is making money off of these kids and exploiting them already. So allowing them to be compensated for it makes sense to me.  

Definitely agree, I just hate that the kids are getting used like this. In the end, the kids get a small piece of pie, while everyone else profits even more off of them. But as you said, it’s going to happen anyways.

[LionArkie]

13 minutes ago, Sllim Pickens said:

Public schools are audited every year and that would not be an allowable expense.  There is no way that public schools will be spending tax dollars recruiting athletes.  They will need to find donors/alumni to do that. 

 

 

Yeah, I was trying to figure out how this was going to happen. It made zero sense to me and was wrong for a lot of reasons. I’m comforted realizing I was misunderstanding the context.

[idoubtit]

I think the even bigger problem is how easy it is to transfer. The portal seems to make it a free for all every year with no ability for a program to build. It seems to get worse every year. Players can't do that in the pros, they have to see out their contracts unless they are released. With the move toward considering players as employees maybe there should be a contract that both sides have to live up to. Sign a 2-4 year contract and both the school and the player have to see it out.

[Sllim Pickens]

14 minutes ago, idoubtit said:

I think the even bigger problem is how easy it is to transfer. The portal seems to make it a free for all every year with no ability for a program to build. It seems to get worse every year. Players can't do that in the pros, they have to see out their contracts unless they are released. With the move toward considering players as employees maybe there should be a contract that both sides have to live up to. Sign a 2-4 year contract and both the school and the player have to see it out.

I agree with this to some extent.  I think there should be some sort of barrier for the transfer portal such as allowing teams to only take so many transfers per year.  This would reduce the number of kids able to transfer but I don't think they should be locked in.  Just make it riskier to transfer for these kids.  That makes their initial decision more important and allows coaches to build a program without the threat of losing half their roster each year because they didn't play enough snaps.  If say each team was allowed 5 transfers a year, that would be 640 spots available for division 1 programs to take transfers.  Last year from August to May, there were 8,300 kids that entered the portal, so if they did this, then 7,700 of them would be at D2 or lower.  They could even bump it to 10 per year and it would still drastically cut down the number of available spots for transfers.  Then if a team doesn't utilize all of their spots that would be even less opportunity for them.  This would still allow some ability to move if the situation isn't right or if you can get significantly more NIL elsewhere but would scare some guys from leaving the program. 

[nagahide13]

Scott Mitchell is really talking himself into being the bad guy. What an incredibly unlikable person. Scotty was a disappointment, alienated teammates and coaching, complained constantly. He was mediocre (take away 1 season and he was straight up bad) but nobody thinks everything was his fault... That's reserved for WCF and bad coaching hires.

https://theathletic.com/5190322/2024/03/08/scott-mitchell-lions-barry-sanders/?source=freedailyemail&campaign=601983&userId=1155936

 

[LionArkie]

I always felt Fontes really effed up the qb room during that time period. Peete, Kramer, Ware, Mitchell… we should have done more than what we did. Each one with their pros and cons, but Fontes never gave them stability.

[nagahide13]

9 minutes ago, LionArkie said:

I always felt Fontes really effed up the qb room during that time period. Peete, Kramer, Ware, Mitchell… we should have done more than what we did. Each one with their pros and cons, but Fontes never gave them stability.

I shoulda said "owner and front office". Lets not give Chuck a pass 😎

Edited March 8 by nagahide13

[nagahide13]

RFK jr. named Aaron Rodgers as a potential running-mate. I have no further comment.