forums

Xavier Lucas in the portal

No_Fly_Zone said:
Then they're even dumber than suspected. At least with UConn's situation, the "bad guys" in the PR ploy are (unnamed) coaches purportedly engaged in rules violations. In this case, the target is a teenage student athlete. They badly misread who the rest of America would consider the more sympathetic party.
Click to expand...
they can’t stop agents from doing it
 
Advertisement
dudenate said:
(lol. Every university thinks their's is the biggest, most powerful, and richest)

It can't all by true.
Click to expand...

IMG_7255.jpeg
 
TheOriginalCane said:
I don't believe they think they have leverage.

I believe they think they are making some big heroic Public Relations stink. This is the fundamental equivalent of UConn saying to the world "we know a bunch of schools are tampering and we know your names".

Looks like a lot of fun in the headlines. Accomplishes absolutely nothing.

But Wisconsin is sure as **** going to try to make us look bad in the meantime.
Click to expand...

lol I was giving them some benefit of a doubt that they might think they had some leverage. Because otherwise this is just absurd and frankly idiotic of them to pull. But I hear ya.
 
Here are the Bylaws, in case anyone is wondering.

13.1.1.3 Four-Year College Prospective Student-Athletes. An athletics staff member or other representative of the institution's athletics interests shall not communicate or make contact with the student-athlete of another NCAA Division I institution, or any individual associated with the student-athlete (e.g., family member, scholastic or nonscholastic coach, advisor), directly or indirectly, without first obtaining authorization through the notification of transfer process. Before making contact, directly or indirectly, with a student-athlete of an NCAA Division II or Division III institution, or an NAIA four-year collegiate institution, an athletics staff member or other representative of the institution's athletics interests shall comply with the rule of the applicable division or the NAIA rule for making contact with a student-athlete. [See Bylaw19.1.3-(f).] (Revised: 1/10/91, 1/16/93, 1/11/94, 4/26/01, 4/29/04 effective 8/1/04, 4/29/10 effective 8/1/10, 10/30/14, 8/8/18effective 10/15/18, 4/28/21 applicable to transfer student-athletes seeking eligibility during the 2021-22 academic year).

13.1.1.3.1 Notification of Transfer -- Undergraduate Student-Athletes. A student-athlete may initiate the notification of transfer process by providing the student-athlete's institution with a written notification of transfer and completing an educational module related to transferring. Notification of transfer must be initiated during a period specified for the applicable sport (see also Figure 13-1). If notification of transfer is provided during a specified period, the student-athlete's institution shall enter the student-athlete's information into the national transfer database within two business days of receipt of a written notification of transfer from the student-athlete or receipt of confirmation of the student-athlete's completion of the educational module, whichever occurs later. [D] (Adopted: 8/8/18 effective10/15/18, Revised: 4/28/21, 8/31/22, 9/21/22, 10/5/22, 2/2/23 effective 2/27/23, 10/4/23, 4/18/24).

Two interesting notes...

The use of the word "shall" strongly indicates the university "must" put the student athlete's name in the portal within 2 days of notice of transfer and the university has no discretion/option to do otherwise.

Even "indirect" contact through non-staff members, friends, families, advisors, other/past coaches, and other "individual(s) associated with the student athlete" is impermissible. So a lot of the categories of communications some people seem to believe doesn't constitute tampering is, apparently, still tampering (albeit much, much harder to prove).
 
Advertisement
No_Fly_Zone said:
Here are the Bylaws, in case anyone is wondering.

13.1.1.3 Four-Year College Prospective Student-Athletes. An athletics staff member or other representative of the institution's athletics interests shall not communicate or make contact with the student-athlete of another NCAA Division I institution, or any individual associated with the student-athlete (e.g., family member, scholastic or nonscholastic coach, advisor), directly or indirectly, without first obtaining authorization through the notification of transfer process. Before making contact, directly or indirectly, with a student-athlete of an NCAA Division II or Division III institution, or an NAIA four-year collegiate institution, an athletics staff member or other representative of the institution's athletics interests shall comply with the rule of the applicable division or the NAIA rule for making contact with a student-athlete. [See Bylaw19.1.3-(f).] (Revised: 1/10/91, 1/16/93, 1/11/94, 4/26/01, 4/29/04 effective 8/1/04, 4/29/10 effective 8/1/10, 10/30/14, 8/8/18effective 10/15/18, 4/28/21 applicable to transfer student-athletes seeking eligibility during the 2021-22 academic year).

13.1.1.3.1 Notification of Transfer -- Undergraduate Student-Athletes. A student-athlete may initiate the notification of transfer process by providing the student-athlete's institution with a written notification of transfer and completing an educational module related to transferring. Notification of transfer must be initiated during a period specified for the applicable sport (see also Figure 13-1). If notification of transfer is provided during a specified period, the student-athlete's institution shall enter the student-athlete's information into the national transfer database within two business days of receipt of a written notification of transfer from the student-athlete or receipt of confirmation of the student-athlete's completion of the educational module, whichever occurs later. [D] (Adopted: 8/8/18 effective10/15/18, Revised: 4/28/21, 8/31/22, 9/21/22, 10/5/22, 2/2/23 effective 2/27/23, 10/4/23, 4/18/24).

Two interesting notes...

The use of the word "shall" strongly indicates the university "must" put the student athlete's name in the portal within 2 days of notice of transfer and the university has no discretion/option to do otherwise.

Even "indirect" contact through non-staff members, friends, families, advisors, other/past coaches, and other "individual(s) associated with the student athlete" is impermissible. So a lot of the categories of communications some people seem to believe doesn't constitute tampering is, apparently, still tampering (albeit much, much harder to prove).
Click to expand...
🤓
 
Advertisement
To me, the language UW is likely basing their actions on is that "another NCAA school cannot recruit you (directly or indirectly) until you follow the division specific steps regarding notification of transfer". Now it does not explicitly call out that this may preclude a school from processing the request if there is evidence of outside interference, but in this case that appears to be what they are likely using as rationale for denying the transfer request.

Wisconsin does have an appeals process (see link below) which has likely already been submitted by Lucas and adjudicated by Wisconsin (denied) thus leading to today's action of hiring Heitner to pursue further remedies via appeal to NCAA or legal action vs UW.

Helpful info:

NCAA transfer portal guide and policies

Wisconsin student athlete policies
 
No_Fly_Zone said:
Then they're even dumber than suspected. At least with UConn's situation, the "bad guys" in the PR ploy are (unnamed) coaches purportedly engaged in rules violations. In this case, the target is a teenage student athlete. They badly misread who the rest of America would consider the more sympathetic party.
Click to expand...
I’m well super well versed in the UCONN situation but yeah sometimes you see this tampering stuff and you can tell it’s just the coach or admin trying to send a message like “knock it the **** off”

Which won’t stop it but might make someone think twice which if that’s the case then you’ve really had no risk and all reward

But this is next level ****
 
Advertisement
No_Fly_Zone said:
Here are the Bylaws, in case anyone is wondering.

13.1.1.3 Four-Year College Prospective Student-Athletes. An athletics staff member or other representative of the institution's athletics interests shall not communicate or make contact with the student-athlete of another NCAA Division I institution, or any individual associated with the student-athlete (e.g., family member, scholastic or nonscholastic coach, advisor), directly or indirectly, without first obtaining authorization through the notification of transfer process. Before making contact, directly or indirectly, with a student-athlete of an NCAA Division II or Division III institution, or an NAIA four-year collegiate institution, an athletics staff member or other representative of the institution's athletics interests shall comply with the rule of the applicable division or the NAIA rule for making contact with a student-athlete. [See Bylaw19.1.3-(f).] (Revised: 1/10/91, 1/16/93, 1/11/94, 4/26/01, 4/29/04 effective 8/1/04, 4/29/10 effective 8/1/10, 10/30/14, 8/8/18effective 10/15/18, 4/28/21 applicable to transfer student-athletes seeking eligibility during the 2021-22 academic year).

13.1.1.3.1 Notification of Transfer -- Undergraduate Student-Athletes. A student-athlete may initiate the notification of transfer process by providing the student-athlete's institution with a written notification of transfer and completing an educational module related to transferring. Notification of transfer must be initiated during a period specified for the applicable sport (see also Figure 13-1). If notification of transfer is provided during a specified period, the student-athlete's institution shall enter the student-athlete's information into the national transfer database within two business days of receipt of a written notification of transfer from the student-athlete or receipt of confirmation of the student-athlete's completion of the educational module, whichever occurs later. [D] (Adopted: 8/8/18 effective10/15/18, Revised: 4/28/21, 8/31/22, 9/21/22, 10/5/22, 2/2/23 effective 2/27/23, 10/4/23, 4/18/24).

Two interesting notes...

The use of the word "shall" strongly indicates the university "must" put the student athlete's name in the portal within 2 days of notice of transfer and the university has no discretion/option to do otherwise.

Even "indirect" contact through non-staff members, friends, families, advisors, other/past coaches, and other "individual(s) associated with the student athlete" is impermissible. So a lot of the categories of communications some people seem to believe doesn't constitute tampering is, apparently, still tampering (albeit much, much harder to prove).
Click to expand...


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 PRESENT 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 "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.
 
Last edited:
cltcane94 said:
To me, the language UW is likely basing their actions on is that "another NCAA school cannot recruit you (directly or indirectly) until you follow the division specific steps regarding notification of transfer". Now it does not explicitly call out that this may preclude a school from processing the request if there is evidence of outside interference, but in this case that appears to be what they are likely using as rationale for denying the transfer request.

Wisconsin does have an appeals process (see link below) which has likely already been submitted by Lucas and adjudicated by Wisconsin (denied) thus leading to today's action of hiring Heitner to pursue further remedies via appeal to NCAA or legal action vs UW.

Helpful info:

NCAA transfer portal guide and policies

Wisconsin student athlete policies
Click to expand...


To put this another way...

Wisconsin cannot appoint itself as judge, jury, and executioner on a "tampering" complaint by...simply refusing to process someone's paperwork.

They can't.

If they have a tampering complaint, file it. If not, shut up and process the Portal paperwork as REQUIRED both by NCAA rules and University of Wisconsin policies.
 
Advertisement
flips said:
The way this is written implies he signed an agreement with the school roughly 1 week before 12/19. The public records denial in another screenshot you posted didn't deny the existence of such an agreement either. Very strange.
Click to expand...


Couple of things.

First, we have no idea of whether the agreement was with the school. If it was with the Collective, technically Wisconsin can't produce or release it anyhow, since it is not a UNIVERSITY document.

Second, no agreement (whether with a collective or a university) can expand and abrogate the rights that Xavier Lucas already has. No matter what Wisconsin says, HE IS ALLOWED TO TRANSFER. No NIL document can take that away from you. There may be contractual implications, but NO CONTRACT can remove the right to transfer.

So it's time for Wisconsin to shut up and put Xavier Lucas' name in the Portal. Period. End of story.

Beginning of NIL contract lawsuit? Maybe. Who knows.
 
Look..I want Xavier Lucas here as much as the next guy..but O&G glasses off for a second..if he took money in December...and the money hit his bank account..and a month later he hit the transfer portal trying to leave..I can see why they are salty. That said, it is what it is. NIL regulations should have been in place years ago and I blame the NCAA for that. Its the wild west out here with no rules or regulations to protect players or the schools.
 
Jassid82 said:
Look..I want Xavier Lucas here as much as the next guy..but O&G glasses off for a second..if he took money in December...and the money hit his bank account..and a month later he hit the transfer portal trying to leave..I can see why they are salty. That said, it is what it is. NIL regulations should have been in place years ago and I blame the NCAA for that. Its the wild west out here with no rules or regulations to protect players or the schools.
Click to expand...


**** this. **** all of it.

I could care less about the volume of their salt. I have stopped caring about what the NCAA should have done five years ago.

The two issues are simple.

1. Are there ANY policies, exceptions, or guidelines in either NCAA rules or Wisconsin rules that allow Wisconsin to NOT process Xavier Lucas's Portal paperwork? (the answer is no)

2. Does ANY contractual agreement that Xavier Lucas signed with Wisconsin or the Wisconsin collective contain a repayment clause? (if so, then file a lawsuit in court)

That is all. ANYTHING beyond those two issues is meaningless and has no bearing here. I don't care about "salty". Wisconsin can shove "salty" up their collective ***.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top