forums

CB Xavier Lucas is transferring to Miami

View as article
Advertisement
Is miami able to give a scholly to Lucas immediately? Or is he paying his own way?

I'm guessing since he wont count against the 105 limit for wisconsin this semester, since he never enrolled (like a high school athlete failing to get in)? Once he's no longer under scholarship from Wisconsin, I imagine at that point there wouldn't even be tampering problems
 
Advertisement
we now have 3 top tier
All acc and more caliber cbs in O’Conner oj and Lucas
All Who have actually shown it on the field
No speculation needed with them
this is true competitive depth
And allows Antoine to take his time and not rush back

This isn’t copium
But O’Conner and Lucas >>>>> picket and hanks

I haven’t seen a room flipped like this before
Usually it’s flipped with jags
We have hands down the best db room in acc, Florida
And easily top 10 maybe top 5 in country
 
Advertisement
grover said:
As his lawyer said, the rev share was a Memorandum of Understanding with ZERO enforceability. I create LOIs and MOUs all the time in business. They're legal toilet paper. Their value is in aligning the two parties on expectations and facilitating real contract negotiations down the road.
Click to expand...
Not only that the terms were blown up by the court case that was settled yesterday that ruled that any revenue sharing would have to be shared equally between all athletes. Which means 2k a peice. The intent of the contract was to pay him his market value.
 
MumbleRap said:
Oh no, not the 9th best program in the B1G wanting to block us from joining. Quick, someone reach out and ask Northwestern’s opinion
Click to expand...
Well, in this one area you are off because Wisconsin from the conference level is one of three schools that has the most power in how it operates. Regardless of off the field and of course, still **** Wisconsin, but keeping it real they have a lot of power in the politics of that conference. There are two or three main voting blocks that sometimes overlap and they tend to lead one of them.

While I find it hard to believe that this issue would make a decision on a long-term marriage, don’t underestimate big *** boosters being ****ed and making it known alongside their coach to the athletic department and Board of Directors and presidents. In the end, it seems like an empty threat, but it is something to at least be aware of.
 
Since this whole thing is complicated with NCAA rulings and house lawsuit and the definition of an MOU versus a contract,I think this is a pretty good summary for when you want to troll idiots from Wisconsin who try to claim there was a contract, assuming the information we’ve heard from Xavier’s lawyer is true:



Xavier has the much stronger position because:

1. If it was an MOU:
- No money exchanged hands (no consideration)
- It was contingent on future events (House settlement approval)
- It was contingent on future enrollment (Spring 2025- and he didn’t enroll)
- Neither contingency had been met

2. Even if argued as a contract:
- The consideration (revenue sharing) didn't exist yet
- The underlying House settlement isn't approved
- The school potentially breached first by not following NCAA transfer portal rules
- NCAA has confirmed no rules were violated by the player

Think of it like signing a preliminary agreement to rent an apartment next year, contingent on the building being completed and you getting a job in that city - if neither has happened yet, you're not bound to the lease.

The Wisconsin fans' contract argument seems weak because:
- Can't enforce rights to money that doesn't exist yet
- proper transfer procedures weren't followed
- Can't bind someone to a future condition (Spring 2025 enrollment) without present consideration

Unless there are undisclosed details, this appears to be a non-binding MOU rather than an enforceable contract.

In terms of tampering, and accusations against Miami or any other school, put up or shut up Wisconsin.

I am not a lawyer but I’ve had to deal with tons of contracts on the business development site alongside lawyers so any of our legal eagles out here want to contradict or correct me, have at it
 
Wisconsin vibes right now... all this BS over 2k.
Better Off Dead Cash GIF by moodman
 
Advertisement
Ispyin said:
Since this whole thing is complicated with NCAA rulings and house lawsuit and the definition of an MOU versus a contract,I think this is a pretty good summary for when you want to troll idiots from Wisconsin who try to claim there was a contract, assuming the information we’ve heard from Xavier’s lawyer is true:



Xavier has the much stronger position because:

1. If it was an MOU:
- No money exchanged hands (no consideration)
- It was contingent on future events (House settlement approval)
- It was contingent on future enrollment (Spring 2025- and he didn’t enroll)
- Neither contingency had been met

2. Even if argued as a contract:
- The consideration (revenue sharing) didn't exist yet
- The underlying House settlement isn't approved
- The school potentially breached first by not following NCAA transfer portal rules
- NCAA has confirmed no rules were violated by the player

Think of it like signing a preliminary agreement to rent an apartment next year, contingent on the building being completed and you getting a job in that city - if neither has happened yet, you're not bound to the lease.

The Wisconsin fans' contract argument seems weak because:
- Can't enforce rights to money that doesn't exist yet
- proper transfer procedures weren't followed
- Can't bind someone to a future condition (Spring 2025 enrollment) without present consideration

Unless there are undisclosed details, this appears to be a non-binding MOU rather than an enforceable contract.

In terms of tampering, and accusations against Miami or any other school, put up or shut up Wisconsin.

I am not a lawyer but I’ve had to deal with tons of contracts on the business development site alongside lawyers so any of our legal eagles out here want to contradict or correct me, have at it
Click to expand...

Yeah but the whole thing blew up when the current ruling likely limited revenue sharing to about 2K an athlete., You cant promise a kid to pay him his market value and then buy him a ps5 and say I got you. Once that ruling came forward Heitner laughed at them and said go to Miami, they aint got shiat.
 
clg003 said:
Yeah but the whole thing blew up when the current ruling likely limited revenue sharing to about 2K an athlete., You cant promise a kid to pay him his market value and then buy him a ps5 and say I got you. Once that ruling came forward Heitner laughed at them and said go to Miami, they aint got shiat.
Click to expand...
This was in Works before the title IX guidance came down- no connection.

And you couldn’t count on that ruling either because the new administration is happening. It may not stick.

I get your point, but they’re not related. Yet. Could be for others depending.
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Back
Top