forums

Wisconsin accuses Miami of tampering

Advertisement
clg003 said:
They have no choice. They are the ones that structured these contracts that are based on things they hope will happen and that attempt to circumvent NCAA bylaws. They are the ones with egg on their faces and probably getting pressure from Wisconsin.

The bottom line is revenue sharing was just ruled completely insignificant and in no way what they were offering these kids. Since they ruled it has to be shared equally across athletes and sports, there is no reason to think it ever will be significant. All they are doing now is trying to increase the revenue available for sharing, right now its capped at like 20 mill. Even If they increase that 10xs. That means they might be able to offer the star QB 20K but you know who else gets 20K? The male cheerleader... LOL
Click to expand...
Understood.

I was running with the angle/narrative that the BIG 10, including OSU/Mich/PSU,etc, are behind Wisky’s tampering allegations AND the way UW treated Lucas throughout the process.
 
DMoney said:
What does Wisconsin really want?

If they want Lucas to play football for them, they can’t force it with a lawsuit. Courts won’t order specific performance of personal services because it’s one step removed from slavery.

If they want Lucas to play anywhere but Miami, they need the NCAA to block him. But there is no basis for that in the NCAA rules or past precedent. The worst penalty for tampering is a slap on the wrist. And the NCAA has already signaled they aren’t getting involved, because they don’t want to get sued and lose again. If anything, Wisconsin violated NCAA rules by not entering Lucas into the Portal as required by the by-laws.

If Wisconsin wants money from Miami, they need to show the existence of a binding contract and damages. There is no binding contract because the MOU was contingent on the settlement being approved and Lucas being enrolled at Wisconsin. He also never got paid.

And even if the contract was binding, how was Wisconsin damaged? They can’t say he was an employee contracted to play football. Are they going to say they lost millions in marketing value? It’s absurd.

It seems that Wisconsin is mad about losing the player, and the Big 10 is mad at the ACC for not playing the game. They want this to look like a mess so they can ask Congress to clean it up.

But the problem is the NCAA itself. Its business model is illegal. If Congress doesn’t protect them from getting sued, they will eventually collapse under the weight of litigation.

Just make it professional already. Keep all the school ties that make college football unique, allow the players to negotiate the rules with the coaches and schools, and get real business people involved. It’s inevitable.
Click to expand...

Fantastic summary. Checks all the boxes. Thanks.

Playing Devil's Advocate I would have one question about this observation of yours: "And even if the contract was binding, how was Wisconsin damaged? They can’t say he was an employee contracted to play football. Are they going to say they lost millions in marketing value? It’s absurd."

Obviously UW can't say he was an employee. But they do have a contingent NIL agreement with him. Assuming that the contingent NIL agreement is enforceable (legally questionable I acknowledge) would UW have to show damages in the millions? Or could UW claim damages in the tens of thousands of dollars and then seek millions in punitive damages on top?

For this hypothetical, I would be assuming that the litigation would occur in Wisconsin state court.

Again playing Devil's Advocate here. The only possible significant exposure UM might have would be with a hostile Wisc state court on a tortious interference claim for a minor amount of actual damages and a much greater amount of punitive damages.

Is my concern misplaced?
 
Cribby said:
Wisconsin never got the memo that you want no part ‘s of Miami in the offseason. Trying to come at UM between Jan -August is like having a casket match with the Undertaker. We’re in the midst of a dynasty.
Click to expand...
Wisconsin had to learn the hard way
IMG_0366.jpeg
 
Advertisement
skyman said:
This seems to be unique situation and we are miami. He signed a agreement that they seem to think they can enforce.. Even if they cant, we will be made the bad guy on national tv, not bama or anyone else, because no one at Miami said anything about bama tampering..

The amount of publicity this will cause will make someone have to take fall
Click to expand...
I disagree…
 
Advertisement
Q
PalyCane said:
Fantastic summary. Checks all the boxes. Thanks.

Playing Devil's Advocate I would have one question about this observation of yours: "And even if the contract was binding, how was Wisconsin damaged? They can’t say he was an employee contracted to play football. Are they going to say they lost millions in marketing value? It’s absurd."

Obviously UW can't say he was an employee. But they do have a contingent NIL agreement with him. Assuming that the contingent NIL agreement is enforceable (legally questionable I acknowledge) would UW have to show damages in the millions? Or could UW claim damages in the tens of thousands of dollars and then seek millions in punitive damages on top?

For this hypothetical, I would be assuming that the litigation would occur in Wisconsin state court.

Again playing Devil's Advocate here. The only possible significant exposure UM might have would be with a hostile Wisc state court on a tortious interference claim for a minor amount of actual damages and a much greater amount of punitive damages.

Is my concern misplaced?
Click to expand...
These are the types of discussions I’d love to see played out by rational people.

It’s easy to put the orange and green glasses on and say Wisconsin and the B1G are stupid and evil. But I also can’t imagine UM admin are thinking to themselves “this is awesome…we’re so happy to see it being played out this way.”

And while I don’t see a world where the University of Miami, Mario, or the football team are substantially impacted by this situation. I do value unbiased perspectives on how this may play out and would like to hear a balanced take in realistic scenarios.
 
Advertisement
PalyCane said:
Fantastic summary. Checks all the boxes. Thanks.

Playing Devil's Advocate I would have one question about this observation of yours: "And even if the contract was binding, how was Wisconsin damaged? They can’t say he was an employee contracted to play football. Are they going to say they lost millions in marketing value? It’s absurd."

Obviously UW can't say he was an employee. But they do have a contingent NIL agreement with him. Assuming that the contingent NIL agreement is enforceable (legally questionable I acknowledge) would UW have to show damages in the millions? Or could UW claim damages in the tens of thousands of dollars and then seek millions in punitive damages on top?

For this hypothetical, I would be assuming that the litigation would occur in Wisconsin state court.

Again playing Devil's Advocate here. The only possible significant exposure UM might have would be with a hostile Wisc state court on a tortious interference claim for a minor amount of actual damages and a much greater amount of punitive damages.

Is my concern misplaced?
Click to expand...
The venue is a concern for me. I have been thinking that if we know that they are going to sue us and are going to file in Wisconsin, we should file a defamation lawsuit in Dade against Wisconsin and the B1G immediately before they can do it in Wisconsin and then move to have the cases heard in Dade. I wasn’t a litigator and haven’t practiced in years so I’m curious on the opinions on this.
 
Gi0logy said:
Q

These are the types of discussions I’d love to see played out by rational people.

It’s easy to put the orange and green glasses on and say Wisconsin and the B1G are stupid and evil. But I also can’t imagine UM admin are thinking to themselves “this is awesome…we’re so happy to see it being played out this way.”

And while I don’t see a world where the University of Miami, Mario, or the football team are substantially impacted by this situation. I do value unbiased perspectives on how this may play out and would like to hear a balanced take in realistic scenarios.
Click to expand...
It’s not “awesome” but we didn’t do anything anyone else including Wisconsin does so F em
 
Advertisement
PalyCane said:
Fantastic summary. Checks all the boxes. Thanks.

Playing Devil's Advocate I would have one question about this observation of yours: "And even if the contract was binding, how was Wisconsin damaged? They can’t say he was an employee contracted to play football. Are they going to say they lost millions in marketing value? It’s absurd."

Obviously UW can't say he was an employee. But they do have a contingent NIL agreement with him. Assuming that the contingent NIL agreement is enforceable (legally questionable I acknowledge) would UW have to show damages in the millions? Or could UW claim damages in the tens of thousands of dollars and then seek millions in punitive damages on top?

For this hypothetical, I would be assuming that the litigation would occur in Wisconsin state court.

Again playing Devil's Advocate here. The only possible significant exposure UM might have would be with a hostile Wisc state court on a tortious interference claim for a minor amount of actual damages and a much greater amount of punitive damages.

Is my concern misplaced?
Click to expand...
Punitive damages is a really high standard. I don’t see it- Wisconsin isn’t a rival or close competitor Miami wants to hurt out of spite, the kid has obvious family reasons to want Miami, and I know for a fact Wisconsin tampers with players who aren’t even in the Portal. That’s a lot of direct laundry to risk exposing.
 
Gi0logy said:
Q

These are the types of discussions I’d love to see played out by rational people.

It’s easy to put the orange and green glasses on and say Wisconsin and the B1G are stupid and evil. But I also can’t imagine UM admin are thinking to themselves “this is awesome…we’re so happy to see it being played out this way.”

And while I don’t see a world where the University of Miami, Mario, or the football team are substantially impacted by this situation. I do value unbiased perspectives on how this may play out and would like to hear a balanced take in realistic scenarios.
Click to expand...
I think the Big 10 is mad because Miami violated a gentleman’s agreement on the rev-share deals. The truth is it’s more evidence of NCAA collusion.

This episode will likely hurt our reputation in the Big 10. That’s the only real practical concern I have.
 
DMoney said:
Punitive damages is a really high standard. I don’t see it- Wisconsin isn’t a rival or close competitor Miami wants to hurt out of spite, the kid has obvious family reasons to want Miami, and I know for a fact Wisconsin tampers with players who aren’t even in the Portal. That’s a lot of direct laundry to risk exposing.
Click to expand...
Do you expect Miami to acknowledge and respond publicly?
 
Advertisement
Back
Top