forums

CB Xavier Lucas is transferring to Miami

View as article
didn't realize he was the #25 rated transfer overall .... i see why wisky feelings are hurt
 

Advertisement
Canes Legacy said:
Definitely possible. But if the Big10 is currently using that same template, there hasn’t been 1 other player that signed and transferred? Either way, Wisconsin has **** but well be portrayed as the bad guys.
Click to expand...
Maybe they tweaked it at Wisconsin. Templates can be customized from a baseline “boilerplate”
 
AtlAtty said:
Did UW hire lawyers who previously worked for and lost case after case for the NCAA? Seems like UW is receiving terrible legal advice between the handling of the Lucas situation, the subsequent defamatory remarks and now refusing to turn over what are clearly public records at a state university.
I guess sometimes you have to fight losing causes just to prove you aren’t giving up. But sometimes the smart money is on walking away.
As Kenny Rogers famously told us,
“you got to know when to hold em,
know when to walk away,
know when to run”
Click to expand...
Along those lines and glass houses, a fairly reasonable take from on3 recruiting

 
Advertisement
Ispyin said:
Maybe they tweaked it at Wisconsin. Templates can be customized from a baseline “boilerplate”
Click to expand...


I posted this on the other thread, but that's what I discussed with a (Wisconsin-born-and-bred) coworker this morning.

That Wisconsin apparently is adding the EXTRA YEARS (grant of rights) to the Big 10 template.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
I posted this on the other thread, but that's what I discussed with a (Wisconsin-born-and-bred) coworker this morning.

That Wisconsin apparently is adding the EXTRA YEARS (grant of rights) to the Big 10 template.
Click to expand...
Someone please explain to me why Lucas can’t just break any contract he may/may not have signed which may/may not be connected to the House settlement?
We know courts hate specific performance so no court will require Lucas to play for UW. And other than the return of any money that has been exchanged , if any, I don’t see how UW can prove specific damages. And we know punitive damages are extremely unlikely.

So in the end why would UM or Lucas even care if UW filed a lawsuit?
 
AtlAtty said:
Someone please explain to me why Lucas can’t just break any contract he may/may not have signed which may/may not be connected to the House settlement?
We know courts hate specific performance so no court will require Lucas to play for UW. And other than the return of any money that has been exchanged , if any, I don’t see how UW can prove specific damages. And we know punitive damages are extremely unlikely.

So in the end why would UM or Lucas even care if UW filed a lawsuit?
Click to expand...
The only damages I see is the revenue split from Lucas's NIL. Let's say Wisky says they would have sold 10,000 Lucas jerseys in the school store. The amount of money lost from that revenue share would be their damages.

Good luck actually proving up those type of damages though or any other revenue split from some above average defensive player. It's not like they are losing Travis Hunter or Caleb Downs that would actually bring in big money
 
Advertisement
AirCane said:
The only damages I see is the revenue split from Lucas's NIL. Let's say Wisky says they would have sold 10,000 Lucas jerseys in the school store. The amount of money lost from that revenue share would be their damages.

Good luck actually proving up those type of damages though or any other revenue split from some above average defensive player. It's not like they are losing Travis Hunter or Caleb Downs that would actually bring in big money
Click to expand...
I think you are 100% correct. And so now we are discussing damages from a freshman DB leaving your school after a season with 12 tackle and 1 INT.
I can understand why UW is upset, and the BIG 10 which felt it had “solved” the annual transfer issue by creating a 2 year contract. But all contracts can be broken. The only issue is damages.
 
Advertisement
AtlAtty said:
Someone please explain to me why Lucas can’t just break any contract he may/may not have signed which may/may not be connected to the House settlement?
We know courts hate specific performance so no court will require Lucas to play for UW. And other than the return of any money that has been exchanged , if any, I don’t see how UW can prove specific damages. And we know punitive damages are extremely unlikely.

So in the end why would UM or Lucas even care if UW filed a lawsuit?
Click to expand...


Apparently (and the reference is probably a few pages back) Wisconsin inserted some language that is (for lack of a more precise summary) a 2-year Grant of Rights of Xavier's NIL.

So it's a comparable situation to "leaving the ACC". Can we leave? Sure, the ACC Constitution says so. Will it be expensive? If any court in the country ever upholds a GOR, then apparently the ACC would still own our media rights until the mid-2030s.

The funny part about reading Wisconsin porsters pontificate on these issues is that they think an NIL grant of rights would somehow impact eligibility (it does not) or Xavier's ability to play for Miami (it does not).

No NIL GOR can prevent a player from transferring. It just can't.
 
PennsylvaniaCane said:
The Big 10


Where you can transfer in, but not transfer out
Click to expand...


The Big 10 is a roach motel...


1737476179503.png
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Apparently (and the reference is probably a few pages back) Wisconsin inserted some language that is (for lack of a more precise summary) a 2-year Grant of Rights of Xavier's NIL.

So it's a comparable situation to "leaving the ACC". Can we leave? Sure, the ACC Constitution says so. Will it be expensive? If any court in the country ever upholds a GOR, then apparently the ACC would still own our media rights until the mid-2030s.

The funny part about reading Wisconsin porsters pontificate on these issues is that they think an NIL grant of rights would somehow impact eligibility (it does not) or Xavier's ability to play for Miami (it does not).

No NIL GOR can prevent a player from transferring. It just can't.
Click to expand...
As far as we know, is there a specific buy out/opt out clause? If not, I don’t see how anyone can accurately determine damages.
 
AtlAtty said:
As far as we know, is there a specific buy out/opt out clause? If not, I don’t see how anyone can accurately determine damages.
Click to expand...


Couple of responses to that.

I do not believe there is buy-out/opt-out. But there is supposedly a provision in the common template for repayment of money RECEIVED back to the university if a player leaves. I don't believe Xavier has RECEIVED any money yet under the common template rev-share, but this leads directly into my second point.

The second part of the response is the curious one. Rev-share is currently unavailable. Supposedly, the reason that there is a SECOND contractual deal with the Collective is that the Collective may be "fronting" money against future-rev-share distributions. This is what was hinted to me when I was DM'ing with a Wisconsin 247 poster who is an attorney.

In other words, kids on "old" NIL deals still want to get paid between December 2024 and whenever-the-House-settlement-happens-in-2025. So if the Collective gives a kid $50K now, and then once the school can hand out rev share, the first 50K goes to repay the Collective, and then all other future payments are between Wisconsin and the players directly...

The mental gymnastics are exhausting. But this is what was hinted to me, that Big 10 schools might be sliding money to players out of the Collectives, but it's really just a "bridge loan" until the rev-share deals are fully legal.

Weird.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top