forums

wisconsin and b10 are full of ****

Advertisement
AtlAtty said:
The hypocrisy of giving schools the ability to increase or decrease the player’s pay based on performance while still saying it isn’t pay for play? People should be ashamed of themselves for writing and enforcing this.
Click to expand...
They’re a monopoly as I see it and it feels like they’re colluding to take advantage of college ball players. Talk about unfair labor practices.
 
Advertisement
RVACane said:
Memorandum of Understanding
Click to expand...
Think of it as like a blue print or draft of the contract before it’s formalized. But it rarely can be enforced in and of itself @Cajuncane unless some consideration (money as an example) has been exchanged. And even then it’s still not likely.

Fwiw bill belicheck and Mike Lombardi are working under mou reportedly and according to Lombardi he has been paid, but their contract still not signed. But that would have a better chance being enforced or at least cause negotiations out of court as there are not a set of conditions that don’t yet exist in it . What we are hearing about these big ten or Wisconsin ones have at least two things not even active yet PLUS the baseline template is so blatantly unbalanced that even an ambulance chaser with no NIL/IP/sports experience could use ai argument to get of it in most courts
 
Last edited:
RVACane said:
Memorandum of Understanding
Click to expand...
To add to what @Ispyin said, the judge is set to possibly approve the final settlement in the House v. NCAA case on April 7, which would give revenue-sharing capabilities to the schools and athletes. However, she has also stated she has some issues with the proposed settlement, and there is by no means a guarantee that she will approve it in April. The MOU (and thus, UW and the B10) presumes that the settlement is approved already - not just in the future. In other words, they put the horse wayyyyyy before the cart and got caught.

Further, @TheOriginalCane has it on good authority that the B10 MOU that was cited in the Sportico article was the main contract using the one-sided unfair language that is unfair to the athletes. However, UW also added two-year grant of rights language as well. So there are at least two versions of this MOU that B10 schools are using. (Heitner did mention in the Lockedin Canes podcast interview today that not all B10 school are using the MOU though, which is very interesting. So at least some schools may have morals? Or maybe it’s just the new ones from the Pac12?)
 
Ispyin said:
Think of it as like a blue print or draft of the contract before it’s formalized. But ir rarely can be enforced in and of itself @Cajuncane unless some consideration (money as an example) has been exchanged. And even then it’s still not likely.

Fwiw bill belichyand Mike Lombardi are working under mou reportedly and according to Lombardi he has been paid, but their contract still not signed. But that would have a better chance being enforced or at least cause negotiations out of court as there are not a set of conditions that don’t yet exist in it . What we are hearing about these big ten or Wisconsin ones have at least two things not even active yet PLUS the baseline template is so blatantly unbalanced that even an ambulance chaser with no NIL/IP/sports experience could use ai argument to get of it in most courts
Click to expand...
Fun wrestling story related to this situation.

Scott Hall and Kevin Nash joined WCW in May 1996 at an unadjusted, very high $750K per year. They worked - and were paid - by Turner throughout the summer.

During this time WCW initially insinuated that they were actually still WWF wrestlers, making fans think that Razor Ramon (Hall) and Diesel (Nash) had invaded. The WWF ultimately sued, but part of their legal preparations they decided quietly to enforce their trademarks and had two other wrestlers adopt the Razor Ramon and Diesel trademarks.

In September 1996 WWF announced on television that Diesel and Razor were coming back to the company. Meanwhile in WCW, there was absolute panic. Why? Because Scott Hall and Kevin Nash had never actually signed their contracts.

Legally both Hall and Nash could return to WWF. They’d never signed the contracts, even though they had been getting paid. Turner officials immediately sat them down at the next Nitro and offered them enhanced deals to sign immediately. Hall and Nash received raises off their original unsigned contracts that put them both at about $1M each. The two signed their deals, getting quarter of a million dollar raises without having done a thing. All because WCW had them working under their new deals, without having signed them.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
TheATLCane said:
You think most agents would advise against this?
Click to expand...
absolutely, they'd suggest that safeguards are negotiated into the deal, (mainly what metric will be used to increase/decrease payments) ... wisky was betting on the fact that if everyone signed one it gave the mou credibility, similar to crypto currency, they more folks accept it, the more credible it becomes ... it's shady all around because if lucas doesn't buck the system, they're framework of a illegitimate contract is never exposed
 
caneingville said:
To add to what @Ispyin said, the judge is set to possibly approve the final settlement in the House v. NCAA case on April 7, which would give revenue-sharing capabilities to the schools and athletes. However, she has also stated she has some issues with the proposed settlement, and there is by no means a guarantee that she will approve it in April. The MOU (and thus, UW and the B10) presumes that the settlement is approved already - not just in the future. In other words, they put the horse wayyyyyy before the cart and got caught.

Further, @TheOriginalCane has it on good authority that the B10 MOU that was cited in the Sportico article was the main contract using the one-sided unfair language that is unfair to the athletes. However, UW also added two-year grant of rights language as well. So there are at least two versions of this MOU that B10 schools are using. (Heitner did mention in the Lockedin Canes podcast interview today that not all B10 school are using the MOU though, which is very interesting. So at least some schools may have morals? Or maybe it’s just the new ones from the Pac12?)
Click to expand...


Let's add a few more logs to the fire.

First, on the House settlement, there is already a former player who says he will be filing a lawsuit against the settlement. People have to realize, there are two primary components to the House case and settlement. One is backwards-looking, i.e., the compensation that former student-athletes should have received. And the other component is forward-looking, in the sense that once there is a framework, everyone can move forward under a new paradigm of how to compensate student-athletes.

Essentially, the Big 10/Wisconsin MOU is treating the House settlement as a "done-deal". They have made the common template rev-share deal "contingent" upon the settlement HAPPENING, but as I've mentioned before, WHAT EXACTLY WILL THE SETTLEMENT ENTAIL? Nobody really knows. There might have been an idea at the beginning of December when Xavier Lucas signed, but what the settlement morphs into, nobody knows.

And this is the difference between most of the Wisconsin fans "understanding" the document and how the courts would interpret such a document. Wisconsin fans (and administrators) seem to attach a magical power to signing a contract, as if ANY terms, once drafted and agreed upon, have binding power. But this is not how courts operate. And even if a local Wisconsin court WANTED to be sympathetic to Wisconsin, the reality is that the contingency on the House settlement is not only vague and unknown as to WHEN it will happen, but also WHAT the settlement will actually be at the time it becomes final. And courts don't tend to bind parties on the basis of so many contingent elements.

Second, the Sportico article (and Heitner's comments) were very illuminating as to the "common template" revenue share that the Big 10 has proffered to Wisconsin and other schools. And while we can say there are "at least two versions", it actually may be a much higher number.

1. What the Big 10 has offered is a starting point. There may be other state law modifications necessary across the Big 10 footprint as well.
2. Wisconsin has inserted ADDITIONAL terms. Perhaps other schools have done so as well. From what I was told from my co-worker who is a Wisconsin alum, the Wisconsin powers-that-be feel that they can add even longer terms, such as 3 years for a high school recruit.
3. Finally, there were MULTIPLE attorneys who commented on Twatter that they have been redlining these agreements for months. And because every attorney I know sees things a bit differently, that means there could be dozens and dozens of DIFFERENT deals, at least in their final approved versions.

I would add something else as it relates to the "common template" that has been signed (modified or unmodified) by multiple student-athletes already. It was my understanding that, going forward, the NCAA will need to approve and review NIL deals. So on one hand, a "common template" sounds compelling, in that student-athletes might be treated similarly. But on the other hand, if attorneys are redlining these deals, then the "common template" is really not so common any longer. And what happens IF THE NCAA DETERMINES that the Wisconsin multi-year grant-of-rights clause exceeds and destroys the right of players to transfer? Once the "Big 10 common template" becomes legal, might it also be true that the NCAA could strike the additional language that Wisconsin added for multi-year grants of rights?

So, yeah, this whole situation is insane. And all this bull**** about "trade secrets" as to why Wisconsin won't release these (redacted) agreements is bull**** too.

Anyhow, I'm sure Xavier Lucas has a copy of whatever he signed. And I have confidence that if Darren Heitner was able to read the NCAA rules and the documents that Xavier Lucas signed, and then figure out a massive loophole in the process that has been staring us all in the face FOR YEARS, then he is also capable of determining that the MOU, as written, is unenforceable.

I can't wait to see the very first lawsuit that Wisconsin files in this matter. I suspect I will be waiting for a very long time. If ever.
 
GojiraCane said:
Fun wrestling story related to this situation.

Scott Hall and Kevin Nash joined WCW in May 1996 at an unadjusted, very high $750K per year. They worked - and were paid - by Turner throughout the summer.

During this time WCW initially insinuated that they were actually still WWF wrestlers, making fans think that Razor Ramon (Hall) and Diesel (Nash) had invaded. The WWF ultimately sued, but part of their legal preparations they decided quietly to enforce their trademarks and had two other wrestlers adopt the Razor Ramon and Diesel trademarks.

In September 1996 WWF announced on television that Diesel and Razor were coming back to the company. Meanwhile in WCW, there was absolute panic. Why? Because Scott Hall and Kevin Nash had never actually signed their contracts.

Legally both Hall and Nash could return to WWF. They’d never signed the contracts, even though they had been getting paid. Turner officials immediately sat them down at the next Nitro and offered them enhanced deals to sign immediately. Hall and Nash received raises off their original unsigned contracts that put them both at about $1M each. The two signed their deals, getting quarter of a million dollar raises without having done a thing. All because WCW had them working under their new deals, without having signed them.
Click to expand...
Eric Bischoff was such an amateur lol
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Let's add a few more logs to the fire.

First, on the House settlement, there is already a former player who says he will be filing a lawsuit against the settlement. People have to realize, there are two primary components to the House case and settlement. One is backwards-looking, i.e., the compensation that former student-athletes should have received. And the other component is forward-looking, in the sense that once there is a framework, everyone can move forward under a new paradigm of how to compensate student-athletes.

Essentially, the Big 10/Wisconsin MOU is treating the House settlement as a "done-deal". They have made the common template rev-share deal "contingent" upon the settlement HAPPENING, but as I've mentioned before, WHAT EXACTLY WILL THE SETTLEMENT ENTAIL? Nobody really knows. There might have been an idea at the beginning of December when Xavier Lucas signed, but what the settlement morphs into, nobody knows.

And this is the difference between most of the Wisconsin fans "understanding" the document and how the courts would interpret such a document. Wisconsin fans (and administrators) seem to attach a magical power to signing a contract, as if ANY terms, once drafted and agreed upon, have binding power. But this is not how courts operate. And even if a local Wisconsin court WANTED to be sympathetic to Wisconsin, the reality is that the contingency on the House settlement is not only vague and unknown as to WHEN it will happen, but also WHAT the settlement will actually be at the time it becomes final. And courts don't tend to bind parties on the basis of so many contingent elements.

Second, the Sportico article (and Heitner's comments) were very illuminating as to the "common template" revenue share that the Big 10 has proffered to Wisconsin and other schools. And while we can say there are "at least two versions", it actually may be a much higher number.

1. What the Big 10 has offered is a starting point. There may be other state law modifications necessary across the Big 10 footprint as well.
2. Wisconsin has inserted ADDITIONAL terms. Perhaps other schools have done so as well. From what I was told from my co-worker who is a Wisconsin alum, the Wisconsin powers-that-be feel that they can add even longer terms, such as 3 years for a high school recruit.
3. Finally, there were MULTIPLE attorneys who commented on Twatter that they have been redlining these agreements for months. And because every attorney I know sees things a bit differently, that means there could be dozens and dozens of DIFFERENT deals, at least in their final approved versions.

I would add something else as it relates to the "common template" that has been signed (modified or unmodified) by multiple student-athletes already. It was my understanding that, going forward, the NCAA will need to approve and review NIL deals. So on one hand, a "common template" sounds compelling, in that student-athletes might be treated similarly. But on the other hand, if attorneys are redlining these deals, then the "common template" is really not so common any longer. And what happens IF THE NCAA DETERMINES that the Wisconsin multi-year grant-of-rights clause exceeds and destroys the right of players to transfer? Once the "Big 10 common template" becomes legal, might it also be true that the NCAA could strike the additional language that Wisconsin added for multi-year grants of rights?

So, yeah, this whole situation is insane. And all this bull**** about "trade secrets" as to why Wisconsin won't release these (redacted) agreements is bull**** too.

Anyhow, I'm sure Xavier Lucas has a copy of whatever he signed. And I have confidence that if Darren Heitner was able to read the NCAA rules and the documents that Xavier Lucas signed, and then figure out a massive loophole in the process that has been staring us all in the face FOR YEARS, then he is also capable of determining that the MOU, as written, is unenforceable.

I can't wait to see the very first lawsuit that Wisconsin files in this matter. I suspect I will be waiting for a very long time. If ever.
Click to expand...
I wonder if in the case of this revenue sharing agreement whether Wisconsin would also have the right to extend the contract if the event that a player misses time. Let’s say True Freshman Player A signs a two year deal with Wisconsin, but then tears an ACL and misses 2025. He comes back in 2026 and has a monster year. He wants to transfer in 2027 but Wisconsin tacks on another year for the 2025 season that he missed.

That’s how contracts work in AEW and WWE. If a wrestler misses time with injury, the company extends the length of the contract by the duration of time that they missed.
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Let's add a few more logs to the fire.

First, on the House settlement, there is already a former player who says he will be filing a lawsuit against the settlement. People have to realize, there are two primary components to the House case and settlement. One is backwards-looking, i.e., the compensation that former student-athletes should have received. And the other component is forward-looking, in the sense that once there is a framework, everyone can move forward under a new paradigm of how to compensate student-athletes.

Essentially, the Big 10/Wisconsin MOU is treating the House settlement as a "done-deal". They have made the common template rev-share deal "contingent" upon the settlement HAPPENING, but as I've mentioned before, WHAT EXACTLY WILL THE SETTLEMENT ENTAIL? Nobody really knows. There might have been an idea at the beginning of December when Xavier Lucas signed, but what the settlement morphs into, nobody knows.

And this is the difference between most of the Wisconsin fans "understanding" the document and how the courts would interpret such a document. Wisconsin fans (and administrators) seem to attach a magical power to signing a contract, as if ANY terms, once drafted and agreed upon, have binding power. But this is not how courts operate. And even if a local Wisconsin court WANTED to be sympathetic to Wisconsin, the reality is that the contingency on the House settlement is not only vague and unknown as to WHEN it will happen, but also WHAT the settlement will actually be at the time it becomes final. And courts don't tend to bind parties on the basis of so many contingent elements.

Second, the Sportico article (and Heitner's comments) were very illuminating as to the "common template" revenue share that the Big 10 has proffered to Wisconsin and other schools. And while we can say there are "at least two versions", it actually may be a much higher number.

1. What the Big 10 has offered is a starting point. There may be other state law modifications necessary across the Big 10 footprint as well.
2. Wisconsin has inserted ADDITIONAL terms. Perhaps other schools have done so as well. From what I was told from my co-worker who is a Wisconsin alum, the Wisconsin powers-that-be feel that they can add even longer terms, such as 3 years for a high school recruit.
3. Finally, there were MULTIPLE attorneys who commented on Twatter that they have been redlining these agreements for months. And because every attorney I know sees things a bit differently, that means there could be dozens and dozens of DIFFERENT deals, at least in their final approved versions.

I would add something else as it relates to the "common template" that has been signed (modified or unmodified) by multiple student-athletes already. It was my understanding that, going forward, the NCAA will need to approve and review NIL deals. So on one hand, a "common template" sounds compelling, in that student-athletes might be treated similarly. But on the other hand, if attorneys are redlining these deals, then the "common template" is really not so common any longer. And what happens IF THE NCAA DETERMINES that the Wisconsin multi-year grant-of-rights clause exceeds and destroys the right of players to transfer? Once the "Big 10 common template" becomes legal, might it also be true that the NCAA could strike the additional language that Wisconsin added for multi-year grants of rights?

So, yeah, this whole situation is insane. And all this bull**** about "trade secrets" as to why Wisconsin won't release these (redacted) agreements is bull**** too.

Anyhow, I'm sure Xavier Lucas has a copy of whatever he signed. And I have confidence that if Darren Heitner was able to read the NCAA rules and the documents that Xavier Lucas signed, and then figure out a massive loophole in the process that has been staring us all in the face FOR YEARS, then he is also capable of determining that the MOU, as written, is unenforceable.

I can't wait to see the very first lawsuit that Wisconsin files in this matter. I suspect I will be waiting for a very long time. If ever.
Click to expand...
Great analysis, thank you.

I am very curious to know which schools aren’t using the MOU. I made that comment earlier about it possibly being the new PAC-12 schools because 1) the timing and 2) the UW GOR addition. I am wondering how much the B10 is pulling the strings here for these test cases and what requirements, if any, the conference is putting on the schools.
 
caneingville said:
Great analysis, thank you.

I am very curious to know which schools aren’t using the MOU. I made that comment earlier about it possibly being the new PAC-12 schools because 1) the timing and 2) the UW GOR addition. I am wondering how much the B10 is pulling the strings here for these test cases and what requirements, if any, the conference is putting on the schools.
Click to expand...


I'd imagine this is also "power-oriented". Like, do we honestly believe that Northwestern can force this deal on their players?

I'd imagine that Michigan, Pedo State, Ohio Taint, and Wisconsin (one of the most powerful universities on the planet, in their opinion) would be pulling this high-handed ****.
 
I’m not a lawyer but I feel like you can’t just say “we can adjust your pay based on your play” and then say “but this isn’t pay for play” and expect that to fly.

It’d like saying “if you fumble we got a group of guys that are going to beat your *** at the 50 yard line. But that is explicitly not assault.”
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
I'd imagine this is also "power-oriented". Like, do we honestly believe that Northwestern can force this deal on their players?

I'd imagine that Michigan, Pedo State, Ohio Taint, and Wisconsin (one of the most powerful universities on the planet, in their opinion) would be pulling this high-handed ****.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe they are forcing the deal on the players; it seems they are taking advantage of them, plain and simple. It’s akin to the subprime mortgages where people didn’t understand the raw deal they were getting because they were uneducated. These kids lack representation, probably aren’t even reading the full MOU, and trusting the schools because they are dazzled by the potential of dollar signs.

Either way, these “nonprofit” educational institutions belong in ****.
 
soddyCane said:
I’m not a lawyer but I feel like you can’t just say “we can adjust your pay based on your play” and then say “but this isn’t pay for play” and expect that to fly.

It’d like saying “if you fumble we got a group of guys that are going to beat your *** at the 50 yard line. But that is explicitly not assault.”
Click to expand...
More concerning and confusing would be, how you determine your pay on base of play. Is it compared to your teammates and starting? Best in conference? Best in college football?

Let's say you have a WR, who actually is really good, but the QB sucks and can't throw the ball downfield or accurate. Is his pay reduced because his QB doomed him?

slipper slope.....
 
ARodri7982 said:
More concerning and confusing would be, how you determine your pay on base of play. Is it compared to your teammates and starting? Best in conference? Best in college football?

Let's say you have a WR, who actually is really good, but the QB sucks and can't throw the ball downfield or accurate. Is his pay reduced because his QB doomed him?

slipper slope.....
Click to expand...
Or you have 4 and 5 stars defensive guys forced to put on a ton of weight, play out of position, and play 10 yards off the ball because their HC and DC are POSs.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top