Xavier Lucas wants to be in the portal but Luke Fickell pays to watch men ramrod his wife

[No_Fly_Zone]

I don't think the resolution was expected from the court system. I believe some people felt that the obvious (eventual) outcome from the court system would result in Wisconsin "doing the right thing".

We have learned two things here. First, file for the injunction IMMEDIATELY. Second, never underestimate the stubbornness of cows and cheeseheads. And there may be a dietary connection in there somewhere.

And you can get the case expedited on a request for an emergency injunction. Still, it would have been better to file in December.

Agreed. But, speaking from experience, even on an expedited preliminary injunction in a civil matter, the Court will still provide the respondent time to paper the response. The court is also very likely to want to insulate itself by entering a written order. That all takes time. To your point, all the more reason to file immediately.

 

[Canes Legacy]

I'm in favor of this approach.

Maybe even file for an injunction to prevent Dyoni Hill from playing for Wisconsin.

At a bare minimum, file a vague "tampering" charge, based solely on the quickness between his portal entry and decision to go to Wisconsin.

I can picture the ESPN headline now “Miami Refuses to Enter CB in Portal” story by Heather Dinich.

 

[404Usernamenotfound]

I don't think the resolution was expected from the court system. I believe some people felt that the obvious (eventual) outcome from the court system would result in Wisconsin "doing the right thing".

We have learned two things here. First, file for the injunction IMMEDIATELY. Second, never underestimate the stubbornness of cows and cheeseheads. And there may be a dietary connection in there somewhere.

And you can get the case expedited on a request for an emergency injunction. Still, it would have been better to file in December.

I do wonder why it’s always the University that’s has to “do the right thing”, and never the player.

If the player signed a NIL agreement, it’s his commitment to the school. The “right” thing is also for the players to honor his word and the contract, especially If that agreement had some upfront monies paid, as has been reported.

This is not an attack on your comment, just an observation.

In any other industry, field, or sports league - once that contract is signed you don’t typically just get to change your mind.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Agreed. But, speaking from experience, even on an expedited preliminary injunction in a civil matter, the Court will still provide the respondent time to paper the response. The court is also very likely to want to insulate itself by entering a written order. That all takes time. To your point, all the more reason to file immediately.

I'm not denying any of that.

But the rule in question is so clear, unambiguous, brief, and direct. I'm not sure what response would require more than a day to draft.

And that's what Heitner and his team would need to emphasize. There is literally nothing here that requires legal analysis or argument.

"Shall". "48 hours". Why anyone would need longer than 48 hours to respond to an injunction on a rule that literally is a 48 hour rule is beyond me.

 

[Peachycarnahan]

I don't think the resolution was expected from the court system. I believe some people felt that the obvious (eventual) outcome from the court system would result in Wisconsin "doing the right thing".

We have learned two things here. First, file for the injunction IMMEDIATELY. Second, never underestimate the stubbornness of cows and cheeseheads. And there may be a dietary connection in there somewhere.

And you can get the case expedited on a request for an emergency injunction. Still, it would have been better to file in December.

If the practical deadline is January 22 for registering for classes (and UM would not make an exception) and Lucas hasn't filed his complaint and motion yet, his lawyer better have a good reason for the delay because federal judges, as lifetime appointees, are the closest you'll ever come to meeting G-d on earth. The judge could be in the middle of a 3 week criminal trial with severely limited availability. Getting a prompt hearing before January 22nd is not guaranteed.

But the hearing is unlikely to take long. When you file a motion for preliminary injunction, and request an emergency hearing, you normally inform the court how many witnesses you will have and how long your presentation (case-in chief) will be to prove the elements of your case. Here, I'm guessing, but you could do it with 2 witnesses, and two documents . . . Lucas (to authenticate his portal request form and testimony that he delivered it to the Wisc. athletic department) and 2) the secretary in the athletic department he handed it in to (to testify and prove receipt by Wisconsin). That combined with the rule you posted above as exhibit 2. A skilled trial lawyer could get this done in 30 minutes if there is no cross examination. Then Wisconsin gets to put on their defense, and I have no idea what that would be or how long it would take.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

I do wonder why it’s always the University that’s has to “do the right thing”, and never the player.

If the player signed a NIL agreement, it’s his commitment to the school. The “right” thing is also for the players to honor his word and the contract, especially If that agreement had some upfront monies paid, as has been reported.

This is not an attack on your comment, just an observation.

In any other industry, field, or sports league - once that contract is signed you don’t typically just get to change your mind.

As politely as possible, I'm going to tell you to **** all the way of on this. And that's not an attack, it's just an observation as to ANYONE who tries to bring "the NIL agreement" into this issue.

The Wisconsin collective is FREE to bring a contract case against Xavier Lucas. The Wisconsin collective could have done so ANYTIME within the past month.

But that is not the issue here.

The issue is the REQUIREMENT for a university to enter a student-athlete's name into the Portal database. It does not matter if he has overdue library books or has shot the president or has "signed an NIL deal". There is no exception in the rule, there is no provision for DELAY in the rule.

Stop trying to confuse the issues. I don't give a rat's *** what your feelings about NIL agreements are. Those issues are irrelevant here.

Again, what you don't know about NIL agreements could fill a set of encyclopedias. An NIL agreement is NOT, I repeat NOT, "a commitment to the school". It literally is NOT. It is an agreement to a third party (NOT the school) to exploit one's name, image, and likeness.

**** Wisconsin. And **** the Wisconsin water-carriers who will tell any lie and torture any logical construct in order to muddy the waters with IRRELEVANT and SEPARATE issues.

 

[JHallCanes]

Nah, we ain’t there yet. Even if we land Lucas, which we have not, we would still need one more DB. We have done well this portal cycle at getting quality at CB and S but the mission isn’t accomplished yet.

Agreed. And then anything we get from guys like Mack or the incoming freshmen is a bonus

Lots of potential there but ideally let them play when they’re ready and not because they have to. Mack I think is really intriguing.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

If the practical deadline is January 22 for registering for classes (and UM would not make an exception) and Lucas hasn't filed his complaint and motion yet, his lawyer better have a good reason for the delay because federal judges, as lifetime appointees, are the closest you'll ever come to meeting G-d on earth. The judge could be in the middle of a 3 week criminal trial with severely limited availability. Getting a prompt hearing before January 22nd is not guaranteed.

But the hearing is unlikely to take long. When you file a motion for preliminary injunction, and request an emergency hearing, you normally inform the court how many witnesses you will have and how long your presentation (case-in chief) will be to prove the elements of your case. Here, I'm guessing, but you could do it with 2 witnesses, and two documents . . . Lucas (to authenticate his portal request form and testimony that he delivered it to the Wisc. athletic department) and 2) the secretary in the athletic department he handed it in to (to testify and prove receipt by Wisconsin). That combined with the rule you posted above as exhibit 2. A skilled trial lawyer could get this done in 30 minutes if there is no cross examination. Then Wisconsin gets to put on their defense, and I have no idea what that would be or how long it would take.

First, not all judges are lifetime appointees. Depends on the forum chosen.

Second, you request stipulations and for the court to take judicial notice of certain documents. You state there will be zero witnesses. You submit the NCAA rule and you submit whatever "receipt" is issued when Xavier Lucas submitted his Portal request.

The key in your first complaint is to narrow the field, narrow the issues, and make it clear that there is no need for irrelevant witnesses or documents or anything.

The NCAA rule cannot be more simple. Emphasize that. Zero exceptions. Zero arguments. Zero interpretation.

Clearly, the legal action has wasted weeks. And clearly Wisconsin will do NOTHING short of being compelled to do so.

 

[Yoyo423]

I do wonder why it’s always the University that’s has to “do the right thing”, and never the player.

If the player signed a NIL agreement, it’s his commitment to the school. The “right” thing is also for the players to honor his word and the contract, especially If that agreement had some upfront monies paid, as has been reported.

This is not an attack on your comment, just an observation.

In any other industry, field, or sports league - once that contract is signed you don’t typically just get to change your mind.

An NIL agreement is NOT a commitment to the SCHOOL. Legally, it CAN'T be.
So, that narrative needs to stop because they're two separate issues.
If he violated his NIL contract, the collective has every right to pursue that, and they should.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

An NIL agreement is NOT a commitment to the SCHOOL. Legally, it CAN'T be.
So, that narrative needs to stop because they're two separate issues.
If he violated his NIL contract, the collective has every right to pursue that, and they should.

I would simply add, an NIL agreement cannot prevent a student from transferring.

If a person wants to end an agreement to license his name, image, and likeness, he can do so at any time (per the terms of every NIL agreement). Separately, that person can transfer schools any time he wants to do so.

It's like people use "NIL" without even bothering to think of what the letters stand for.

 

[404Usernamenotfound]

As politely as possible, I'm going to tell you to **** all the way of on this. And that's not an attack, it's just an observation as to ANYONE who tries to bring "the NIL agreement" into this issue.

The Wisconsin collective is FREE to bring a contract case against Xavier Lucas. The Wisconsin collective could have done so ANYTIME within the past month.

But that is not the issue here.

The issue is the REQUIREMENT for a university to enter a student-athlete's name into the Portal database. It does not matter if he has overdue library books or has shot the president or has "signed an NIL deal". There is no exception in the rule, there is no provision for DELAY in the rule.

Stop trying to confuse the issues. I don't give a rat's *** what your feelings about NIL agreements are. Those issues are irrelevant here.

Again, what you don't know about NIL agreements could fill a set of encyclopedias. And NIL agreement is NOT, I repeat NOT, "a commitment to the school". It literally is NOT. It is an agreement to a third party (NOT the school) to exploit one's name, image, and likeness.

**** Wisconsin. And **** the Wisconsin water-carriers who will tell any lie and torture any logical construct in order to muddy the waters with IRRELEVANT and SEPARATE issues.

Bro relax guy. You are overly emotional

My comment was not in anyway about the specifics or legal aspects of the case

My comment is about people (or i guess over emotional fans like yourself) being biased in their language.

If you don’t think as a man, signing a contract saying you’re going to do something, and then reneging on the deal is NOT “the right thing to do” then it’s clear you’re either a sleaze ball attorney or your old man didn’t raise you right - or likely both.

 

[404Usernamenotfound]

An NIL agreement is NOT a commitment to the SCHOOL. Legally, it CAN'T be.
So, that narrative needs to stop because they're two separate issues.
If he violated his NIL contract, the collective has every right to pursue that, and they should.

See my previous comment. Not speaking to legal aspect, only speaking to language such as “right thing to do”

 

[bobbydigius]

No we wouldn’t. We got 10 cbs not including Lucas. 9 if you don’t count Richard who probably won’t play next year. Lucas or brown or maybe both will probably move to safety. And it’s a strong chance brown might leave after spring

Lucas isn’t a CB, he is a safety, at best a hybrid. The fact that you mentioned Jadais is telling. Based on what we should expect, players like Jadais should rarely see the field here and if they do it’s because we are ****** up.

The benchmark here is that we are expected to compete for the ACC annually and shoot for CFP appearances. Before these quality transfers we just got, everyone but OJ is either an unknown or ***. You will on a regular basis be playing 5 if not 6 DBs at all times. If you don’t think we need another quality DB because the numbers say we have this or that, I don’t know what to tell you.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Bro relax guy. You are overly emotional

My comment was not in anyway about the specifics or legal aspects of the case

My comment is about people (or i guess over emotional fans like yourself) being biased in their language.

If you don’t think as a man, signing a contract saying you’re going to do something, and then reneging on the deal is NOT “the right thing to do” then it’s clear you’re either a sleaze ball attorney or your old man didn’t raise you right - or likely both.

Typical dumb response that I expected here. Because I am prepared and detailed and well-spoken on the issue, I must be "overly emotional" or "biased in my language".

**** off.

You're just feminine in your overreaction to using the term "do the right thing", and for that you can **** straight off. You have clearly never read an NIL agreement, which specifies ways in which the agreement can be terminated.

I'm sure you're one of those dopey types who argues for "covenant marriage" and whatnot, and acts like the words "a contract" means the same exact thing in every setting, some sort of mythical "ethical construct" which would indicate lack of moral fiber upon breach.

Again, **** off with your comments on my family, of which you know nothing.

A "contract", mythical though you think it is, is simply the documentation of an agreement between parties. It can have plenty of clauses that specify the rights and obligations of the party. You don't just run around screaming the word "contract".

Here is where you are a clownish buffoon. You use the word "renege" as if you know what that means. NIL deals can be terminated at any point. That is not "reneging", that is simply following the terms of, you know, THE CONTRACT.

And your mythical "contract" cannot take away the rights of a person in areas not covered by the contract. Since an NIL deal is not "pay for play" and it is NOT "with the university", a person can choose to TRANSFER UNIVERSITIES at any point.

It is not me who is being "biased in their language". It is you. You mistakenly believe an NIL contract is all kinds of things THAT IT IS NOT, and you have attributed some sort of bizarre moral/ethical component to terminating an NIL agreement.

You are weird and misinformed, and you are projecting your own value system on a **** NIL CONTRACT. Which is just crazy, since Xavier Lucas followed the terms of his NIL contract.

"As a man". Holy ****, you are nuts. "As a man", you should "never terminate a contract". You should never "as a man" ever "renege"? What the **** is wrong with you, particularly when you don't know what's in the NIL contract?

The "right thing to do" is to follow the rules and guidelines. If the NCAA rules compel a university to enter a name into the Portal database within 48 hours, that is the "right thing to do". And if an NIL agreement allows you to terminate the NIL agreement and transfer universities (which all NIL agreements allow for and CANNOT prevent), then that is ALSO the "right thing to do".

 

[Angry Ibis]

Bro relax guy. You are overly emotional

My comment was not in anyway about the specifics or legal aspects of the case

My comment is about people (or i guess over emotional fans like yourself) being biased in their language.

If you don’t think as a man, signing a contract saying you’re going to do something, and then reneging on the deal is NOT “the right thing to do” then it’s clear you’re either a sleaze ball attorney or your old man didn’t raise you right - or likely both.

 

[404Usernamenotfound]

Typical dumb response that I expected here. Because I am prepared and detailed and well-spoken on the issue, I must be "overly emotional" or "biased in my language".

**** off.

You're just feminine in your overreaction to using the term "do the right thing", and for that you can **** straight off. You have clearly never read an NIL agreement, which specifies ways in which the agreement can be terminated.

I'm sure you're one of those dopey types who argues for "covenant marriage" and whatnot, and acts like the words "a contract" means the same exact thing in every setting, some sort of mythical "ethical construct" which would indicate lack of moral fiber upon breach.

Again, **** off with your comments on my family, of which you know nothing.

A "contract", mythical though you think it is, is simply the documentation of an agreement between parties. It has plenty of clauses that specify the rights and obligations of the party. You don't just run around screaming the word "contract".

Here is where you are a clownish buffoon. You use the word "renege" as if you know what that means. NIL deals can be terminated at any point. That is not "reneging", that is simply following the terms of, you know, THE CONTRACT.

And your mythical "contract" cannot take away the rights of a person in areas not covered by the contract. Since an NIL deal is not "pay for play" and it is NOT "with the university", a person can choose to TRANSFER UNIVERSITIES at any point.

It is not me who is being "biased in their language". It is you. You mistakenly believe an NIL contract is all kinds of things THAT IT IS NOT, and you have attributed some sort of bizarre moral/ethical component to terminating an NIL agreement.

You are weird and misinformed, and you are projecting your own value system on a **** NIL CONTRACT. Which is just crazy, since Xavier Lucas followed the terms of his NIL contract.

"As a man". Holy ****, you are nuts. "As a man", you should "never terminate a contract". You should never "as a man" ever "renege". What the **** is wrong with you, particularly when you don't know what's in the NIL contract?

The nil deals are not “play for play” officially, but you, I, and everyone else knows the intent is play for play.

Which is why doing the right thing comes into play and your opinion that only the university has the obligation to do what is right, and not the player, is biased.

i don’t know if those agreements have any termination for convenience clauses or what not. But I guarantee you if they do, it’s the collective that can terminate and not the player.

You can continue spouting off paragraphs of emotional response all you want. You still don’t get it because you’re incapable of getting it, because you’re a sleaze ball attorney.

 

[252cane]

Lucas isn’t a CB, he is a safety, at best a hybrid. The fact that you mentioned Jadais is telling. Based on what we should expect, players like Jadais should rarely see the field here and if they do it’s because we are ****** up.

The benchmark here is that we are expected to compete for the ACC annually and shoot for CFP appearances. Before these quality transfers we just got, everyone but OJ is either an unknown or ***. You will on a regular basis be playing 5 if not 6 DBs at all times. If you don’t think we need another quality DB because the numbers say we have this or that, I don’t know what to tell you.

Lucas would be the other guy and safety is including in that 5 or 6 DB. No team has 10 plus good DBs

 

[MiamisMoperiestMopes]

An NIL agreement is NOT a commitment to the SCHOOL. Legally, it CAN'T be.
So, that narrative needs to stop because they're two separate issues.
If he violated his NIL contract, the collective has every right to pursue that, and they should.

Like real life legal or not within ncaa rules legal? Seems like two very different parameters. Heitner has said schools are already doing it. Enforceability seems to be contentious.

 

[rascon]

I know all the kids do their own things and this will never happen, but would love to see all the local kids see what’s happening to XL and come together to not only blacklist Wisconsin from coming down here, but maybe also revisit what it means to put it on for the crib.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

The nil deals are not “play for play” officially, but you, I, and everyone else knows the intent is play for play.

Which is why doing the right thing comes into play and your opinion that only the university has the obligation to do what is right, and not the player, is biased.

i don’t know if those agreements have any termination for convenience clauses or what not. But I guarantee you if they do, it’s the collective that can terminate and not the player.

You can continue spouting off paragraphs of emotional response all you want. You still don’t get it because you’re incapable of getting it, because you’re a sleaze ball attorney.

OK, so you're going to ping-pong between "hey, as a man, a contract is some sacred document that can never be reneged upon" to "hey, wink-wink, I'm just going to invent my own meaning and understanding of NIL contracts because I feel like it"?

Sure. Whatever.

Your misstatements of what I wrote need to stop. I clearly stated that Xavier Lucas actually HAS done the right thing.

But there you go again. You freely admit that YOU DON'T KNOW about the clauses in NIL agreements. Then in the very next sentence, you INSIST that only the Collective can terminate an NIL agreement, and not the player.

You are delusional.

Unlike yourself, none of this is emotional for me. Except for my objection to your ignorant mouth saying anything about my family upbringing, which I will not put up with under any circumstances.

You are just making **** up. You jump between worshiping the mortal/ethical requirements of a holy contract, and then making up whatever concepts you need to in order to try to win an argument you are losing badly.

I get it, you had an overly-triggered reaction to a phrase ("do the right thing") and now you are just doubling and tripling down on your ignorance and emotions. That's on you.