forums

Xavier Lucas in the portal

IbzRlz said:
I agree Wisconsin is cutting off their nose to spite their face, but if Miami has any desire of joining the BIG10, this is going to bite them in the ***. Say what you want, but Wisconsin is one of the most powerful schools in the conference and will do everything they can to make sure UM isn't admitted.
Click to expand...



Sarcastic Harriet The Spy GIF
 
Advertisement
IbzRlz said:
I agree Wisconsin is cutting off their nose to spite their face, but if Miami has any desire of joining the BIG10, this is going to bite them in the ***. Say what you want, but Wisconsin is one of the most powerful schools in the conference and will do everything they can to make sure UM isn't admitted.
Click to expand...
F that school. And f the big ten too
 
lindend said:
Again, not a lawyer, but I'm thinking they're running a risk of him suing them for potential damages and lost income because the market isn't as robust as when he wanted to enter.
Click to expand...

Yep, Heitner is laying the groundwork for lost compensation. Except, they are breaking the damages down per minute. Could just be a negotiating tactic to let Wisconsin know its going to be really expensive to further delay doing what they're legally required to do.

He did so mid-December, and here we are a week into January and from my perspective every minute that he doesn’t have his name in the portal he’s being prejudiced because other schools are filling out their rosters.”​

www.on3.com

CaneSport goes inside the Xavier Lucas situation with his attorney as Miami & others wait on the sidelines: "It's a shame"

Xavier Lucas vs. The University of Wisconsin. That could be a case coming soon ... with Miami expected to be an interested party.
www.on3.com www.on3.com
 
Advertisement
pyhooya said:
I didnt mean Miami wanting him to come home to play and if he is good enough. I meant if he took money then just give it back and move on. I am guessing he took money.....spent some of it and cant pay it back.
Click to expand...
Of course the flip side that would be if you let him enter the portal like you are supposed to he can sign a new NIL with his new school's collective and then pay you back assuming your contract includes payback language.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Let's address a cople of points, because there is some misreading and/or projection with back-channeling.

First, it is talking about schools not being allowed to contact certain individuals who are currently associated with a student-athlete, such as family members, scholastic/nonscholarstic coach, advisor. Those terms do not specify past associations, such as FORMER coaches or FORMER teammates. Now, you can argue that an "e.g." list is not an exclusive exhaustive listing, and that might be true. But it becomes impossible to legislate and include any and all past associations (i.e., would it be tampering if a school talked to an old Pop Warner coach from middle school).

The NCAA rules can SAY whatever they want, but the reason it is drafted to say "associated with" in the CURRENT TENSE (and not the past tense) is because there is no way to enforce it otherwise.

Second, there is a bit of an issue with DIRECTION. Short of the use of the word "communicate", the direction of the prohibition is against UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES from "making contact" with the student-athlete or anyone currently associated with the student-athlete. But what if the student-athlete back-channels to a university? The way I read the rule, it is not clear that this would be tampering either.

Finally, let's not forget that if things are done PROPERLY, and the back-channeling happens with the COLLECTIVE, this also may fall outside of the statutory construction. I can see an argument to be made on both sides, but the issue is also one of first impression.

Interesting times.
Click to expand...

There is certainly room for interpretation within the rules. And a clear definition of "tampering" beyond just the contact rules would probably be helpful. Cynically, I don't believe the NCAA wants to go that route because I don't believe they actually want to police things like "tampering" because of how difficult it is to prove when you don't have direct contact between the staff and the student athlete and how expensive it would be to effectively (and fairly) police. But, just because it's difficult to prove doesn't mean it isn't impermissible contact.

Starting with your second point, the word communicate can't be ignored. The language used is "communicate or make contact...." Beginning your contention with "short of the use of the word 'communicate'" ignores the plain language of the rule. But, it exists, so we must assume it is there for a reason. If the NCAA wanted to prohibit any "athletics staff member or other representative" from initiating contact, they could have written it that way by cutting "communicate or" and leaving "make contact." Or they could have written "communicate AND make contact". The use of "or" as opposed to "and" further suggests the drafters wanted a broader prohibition against communication in either direction.

To your first point, absolutely it prevents discussion where there is a current association (and not a past association). No argument there. The rule would be unworkable (and likely unenforceable) otherwise But, notwithstanding your qualified acknowledgment that a list of examples might not be considered an exhaustive list, where a non-exhaustive list of examples follows a broader classification it is the broader classification that generally controls. The operative restriction is against "an individual associated with a student athlete". Moreover, you seem to be ignoring the phrase "direct or indirectly", which further emphasizes that the contact need not be "directly" between any of these individuals.

To your example, a staff member communicating with a student athlete's old Pop Warner coach, whom the student athlete is not currently associated with, appears outside the restriction. But, if the student athlete's old Pop Warner coach is actively working as a go-between for a staffer and the student athlete regarding a future transfer, it boggles the mind how that "individual" would be regarded as anything but "associated" with the student athlete. The substance of the conversation itself is evidence of the association between the parties. But good luck coming up with evidence of the substantive of the conversation; hence the difficulty in proving tampering outside of direct contact between the staff and student athlete.

As to your last point, I would caution that not all collectives are the same, and some of them are apparently run by ******* morons. And the phrase, "other representative of the institution's athletics interest" is frighteningly broad. Case in point: the morons at The Varsity Collective's website: (1) uses the University of Wisconsin trademark; (2) states it is "a proud partner of Wisconsin athletics;" (3) states "We have aligned our efforts with UW Athletics’ holistic mission and have built partnerships with influential alumni and some of the biggest names in the Badgers’ record books;" and (4) notes that "tax-deductible contribution to The Varsity Collective is recognized as an informational gift by the University of Wisconsin Foundation" (NOTE: I'm not sure how it's tax deductible considering current IRS guidance, but that's a question for their attorneys). In the case of Wisconsin, their collective has created room for the argument that "The Varsity Collective" qualifies as a "representative of the institution's athletics interests."

Interesting times, indeed...
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
407cane said:
This is JUST what we needed to get to ramped back up and get this bad boy to 300 pages
Click to expand...
That would finally break one of the oldest CIS laws of recruiting.

lindend

Post in thread 'Xavier Lucas in the portal'

*****-Wan Kanobi said:
That curse been broken, you late.

@lindend show em
Click to expand...


LA\^/ said:
Unfortunately, we’re not gonna land Lucas

Thread has gone on too long. Thread curse never fails fam
Click to expand...


As far as I know, that curse has yet to be broken. But we're nowhere near 250 pages so hope springs eternal.

15. Once a recruit's page his 250+ pages, they're not coming.​

 
Beginning of NIL contract lawsuit?
Click to expand...

Whatever Wisconsin thinks they're owed I am sure it's not as much as the damages Lucas can claim having been left out of the portal. He could easily argue that being held out caused potential future opportunities to be lost and easily make a claim for millions in damages.

If Wisconsin has an obligation to enter him and they didn't I don't know how it's not a slam dunk case.
 
hurricaneman said:
Dude, I don't understand how they don't understand this entire thing implies their collective is colluding with the university. None of them seem to comprehend this.

And they think it's good for the school to go to trial over a player wanting to enter the portal? They think that's going to help them?

What are they smoking up there?
Click to expand...
Cheese meth? Very moldy cheese meth
 
Advertisement
No_Fly_Zone said:
There is certainly room for interpretation within the rules. And a clear definition of "tampering" beyond just the contact rules would probably be helpful. Cynically, I don't believe the NCAA wants to go that route because I don't believe they actually want to police things like "tampering" because of how difficult it is to prove when you don't have direct contact between the staff and the student athlete and how expensive it would be to effectively (and fairly) police. But, just because it's difficult to prove doesn't mean it isn't impermissible contact.

Starting with your second point, the word communicate can't be ignored. The language used is "communicate or make contact...." Beginning your contention with "short of the use of the word 'communicate'" ignores the plain language of the rule. But, it exists, so we must assume it is there for a reason. If the NCAA wanted to prohibit any "athletics staff member or other representative" from initiating contact, they could have written it that way by cutting "communicate or" and leaving "make contact." Or they could have written "communicate AND make contact". The use of "or" as opposed to "and" further suggests the drafters wanted a broader prohibition against communication in either direction.

To your first point, absolutely it prevents discussion where there is a current association (and not a past association). No argument there. The rule would be unworkable (and likely unenforceable) otherwise But, notwithstanding your qualified acknowledgment that a list of examples might not be considered an exhaustive list, where a non-exhaustive list of examples follows a broader classification it is the broader classification that generally controls. The operative restriction is against "an individual associated with a student athlete". Moreover, you seem to be ignoring the phrase "direct or indirectly", which further emphasizes that the contact need not be "directly" between any of these individuals.

To your example, a staff member communicating with a student athlete's old Pop Warner coach, whom the student athlete is not currently associated with, appears outside the restriction. But, if the student athlete's old Pop Warner coach is actively working as a go-between for a staffer and the student athlete regarding a future transfer, it boggles the mind how that "individual" would be regarded as anything but "associated" with the student athlete. The substance of the conversation itself is evidence of the association between the parties. But good luck coming up with evidence of the substantive of the conversation; hence the difficulty in proving tampering outside of direct contact between the staff and student athlete.

As to your last point, I would caution that not all collectives are the same, and some of them are apparently run by ******* morons. And the phrase, "other representative of the institution's athletics interest" is frighteningly broad. Case in point: the morons at The Varsity Collective's website: (1) uses the University of Wisconsin trademark; (2) states it is "a proud partner of Wisconsin athletics;" (3) states "We have aligned our efforts with UW Athletics’ holistic mission and have built partnerships with influential alumni and some of the biggest names in the Badgers’ record books;" and (4) notes that "tax-deductible contribution to The Varsity Collective is recognized as an informational gift by the University of Wisconsin Foundation" (NOTE: I'm not sure how it's tax deductible considering current IRS guidance, but that's a question for their attorneys). In the case of Wisconsin, their collective has created room for the argument that "The Varsity Collective" qualifies as a "representative of the institution's athletics interests."

Interesting times, indeed...
Click to expand...


I don't dispute any of that. It wasn't the point to do so, but just to show where there are still semi-truck-sized loopholes and vagaries in the rules.

What is particularly hilarious is the quickness with which Wisconsin settled on a deal with Dyoni Hill, who they obviously knew from way back in his Marshall days. I'm sooooo sure that there will be absolutely zero contact prior to Portal entry, right? RIGHT?

The more important issue is really to just ignore all of the salacious heat associated with the word "tampering". It's simply not relevant. It's like screaming about the problem of "child abuse", as if anyone will actually stand up and DEFEND child abuse.

The reality is very simple. Is Wisconsin the first and only university to stumble upon the secret to preventing players from transferring ("just ignore it, do nothing, and it will eventually go away")? I highly doubt it. The invention of a "rationale" for not processing Portal paperwork is a Hitchcockian MacGuffin, a device that seems to be the central issue, but has no bearing on the outcome of the story.

If Wisconsin wants to file tampering charges, let them do it. But violating NCAA and Wisconsin guidelines to process Portal paperwork within 48 hours has no bearing on tampering charges. Or NIL contract breaches either.
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Back
Top