Wisconsin Badgers are idiots

Donate To GopherHole

SJUgopher said:
View attachment 35405
Click to expand...

Bold!

1.Why would a player sign a multi-year binding contract for as low as ~ 30K (pending Title IX litigation) in annual revenue sharing, though?
2.Why are schools entering contracts promising money not yet available, and perhaps destined for the tennis team instead. Unlike the player’s obligation per the “standardized Big Ten form”, they surely have a weasel clause if the settlement falls through.
3.Why would the Big Ten buy negative publicity money can’t buy, in its moment of triumph?
 

Pompous Elitist said:
How would the NIL contract, even if stupidly agreed to by the player, allow Wisconsin to prevent a transfer. They don’t seem like they can be related? Or, are universities employing players now?
Click to expand...
There is some hint in the news that this was a revenue sharing contract (anticipating a settlement in the House lawsuit), not an NIL contract. That would give the University standing as a party. If an NIL contract instead, the University’s standing to withhold a transfer seems more indirect (if at all); standing would be the NIL collective that signed the contract and paid the dollars,
 


Gophergrandpa said:
There is some hint in the news that this was a revenue sharing contract (anticipating a settlement in the House lawsuit), not an NIL contract. That would give the University standing as a party. If an NIL contract instead, the University’s standing to withhold a transfer seems more indirect (if at all); standing would be the NIL collective that signed the contract and paid the dollars,
Click to expand...

Doesn’t this open a whole new can of worms?

Edit: based on tweet above Wisconsin said they signed the NIL deal with the player, yet the House settlement called for a third party clearinghouse. I don’t claim to understand what they’re thinking, or what’s going on.
 
Last edited:




Pompous Elitist said:
Doesn’t this open a whole new can of worms?

Edit: based on tweet above Wisconsin said they signed the NIL deal with the player, yet the House settlement called for a third party clearinghouse. I don’t claim to understand what they’re thinking, or what’s going on.
Click to expand...
They’re also trying to do it as a binding, two-year contract which is interesting.
 





USAF said:
Heh.

First thing you've been accurate on this entire thread.
Click to expand...

Nice. Never said I was accurate, and the truth is this is uncharted territory that nobody seems to have answers for. The mafia boss lawyer up approach by the Big Ten and Wisconsin towards Lucas is interesting. The NIL rev-share contracts, beyond being different from anything we’ve seen before also seem possibly problematic as a collusion amongst conferences. A back door way to enforce NCAA rules, control costs and player freedom. We don’t know if the contracts are negotiable, or if players can opt out/buy out. They never had a say in any of this…right? Why can’t contracts eg be week to week, month to month if desired by the player, or school. Are they necessary at all? Buy outs.

Has anyone seen the Wisconsin contract? It should be public record.
 


Pompous Elitist said:
Doesn’t this open a whole new can of worms?

Edit: based on tweet above Wisconsin said they signed the NIL deal with the player, yet the House settlement called for a third party clearinghouse. I don’t claim to understand what they’re thinking, or what’s going on.
Click to expand...
It's not an NIL deal.
 



matt said:
They’re also trying to do it as a binding, two-year contract which is interesting.
Click to expand...
If those are the terms and it is signed, why wouldn't it be binding?
 

dog mustard said:
Interested to see the fallout from this
Click to expand...
I'm all for teams calling out other teams for tampering. Will be interesting to see what if anything comes out of that part of all of this.
 



PMWinSTP said:
The conference release calls it revenue sharing.
Click to expand...
PMWinSTP said:
If those are the terms and it is signed, why wouldn't it be binding?
Click to expand...

If the contract consideration is: playing for the school in exchange for revenue isn’t that pay for play, and an employer/employee relationship, by any other interpretation? An employment contract we’re all familiar with. Compensation based on market value. How is this different?

You said it wasn’t an NIL relationship, so what is it?
 

Some guy said:
Supreme Court rulings have essentially said just because they’re an athlete doesn’t mean they don’t have rights.
Other students don’t have to enter a portal to transfer

Will be interesting to see where this goes. For those who blame the portal…you might miss it when it’s gone
Click to expand...
Not sure how it plays into this but you can't transfer into a school mid-semester (academically).
 

TNGophfan said:
Not sure how it plays into this but you can't transfer into a school mid-semester (academically).
Click to expand...
I'm sure there will be some school that starts to allow it if it gives them an advantage.
 

TNGophfan said:
Not sure how it plays into this but you can't transfer into a school mid-semester (academically).
Click to expand...
Depends on the school. You can’t in some places if they do a model with quarters or condensed classes one at a time

There are not many though
 

This is all so good: a summary

a.) Player signs revenue sharing contract with WI.
b.) Player then signs a similar contract with Miami.
c.) Player then enters the portal
d.) WI refuses to let player enter portal as they are contractually signed via revenue sharing with WI.
e.) Player then hires lawyer to get into portal
f.) Portal closes without player in the portal.
g.) Player goes to Miami by simply unenrolling at WI and enrolling in Miami.
h.) WI says Miami tampered and it has proof that it signed a player to a contract when player was already singed in a contract.
i.) B1G makes a statement calling out current unregulated mess we are in and supporting WI


GOPHER FANS: While WI my be is the right, we are just glad it happened to them and not us. Enjoying the show from a far for once. I thought all new rules in sports had to revolve around MN sports fans getting screwed over.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
If the contract consideration is: playing for the school in exchange for revenue isn’t that pay for play, and an employer/employee relationship, by any other interpretation? An employment contract we’re all familiar with. Compensation based on market value. How is this different?

You said it wasn’t an NIL relationship, so what is it?
Click to expand...
Revenue sharing from the school.
 

PMWinSTP said:
Revenue sharing from the school.
Click to expand...

Which is related to…

OK, if an entity receives outside revenue based on work you (and others) performed and distributes that revenue, contingent on you being physically present at the entity at certain dates and hours, subject to entity management and rules does that sound like an NIL contract or an employment agreement?

Wisconsin is behaving like it has a 2 year nationwide non-compete, unless I’m missing something, which no court would uphold. They have no right to restrict the player from entering the portal.

It’s early, I’m drinking coffee. Maybe I’m way out in left field.
 

gophernut1 said:
This is all so good: a summary

a.) Player signs revenue sharing contract with WI.
b.) Player then signs a similar contract with Miami.
c.) Player then enters the portal
d.) WI refuses to let player enter portal as they are contractually signed via revenue sharing with WI.
e.) Player then hires lawyer to get into portal
f.) Portal closes without player in the portal.
g.) Player goes to Miami by simply unenrolling at WI and enrolling in Miami.
h.) WI says Miami tampered and it has proof that it signed a player to a contract when player was already singed in a contract.
i.) B1G makes a statement calling out current unregulated mess we are in and supporting WI


GOPHER FANS: While WI my be is the right, we are just glad it happened to them and not us. Enjoying the show from a far for once. I thought all new rules in sports had to revolve around MN sports fans getting screwed over.
Click to expand...

The lawyers are bickering. Given that we’ve had Kevin Warren and TV exec Pettiti I wonder about the BIG TEN. The days of Jim Delaney are long gone. Long gone. I don’t have a lot of confidence. JMHO. But, bully by lawyering does work versus the undercapitalized. I wonder if Wisconsin fans are split on this, or circling the wagons around the school





 

Pompous Elitist said:
Which is related to…

OK, if an entity receives outside revenue based on work you (and others) performed and distributes that revenue, contingent on you being physically present at the entity at certain dates and hours, subject to entity management and rules does that sound like an NIL contract or an employment agreement?

Wisconsin is behaving like it has a 2 year nationwide non-compete, unless I’m missing something, which no court would uphold. They have no right to restrict the player from entering the portal.

It’s early, I’m drinking coffee. Maybe I’m way out in left field.
Click to expand...
Go google college revenue sharing.
 

part of the issue is that schools are using NIL to refer to two different types of compensation - NIL from outside collectives and NIL from the new revenue-sharing per the House settlement. technically, they are both NIL - payments to players for use of their name, image and likeness - but they come from two different locations and from different sources of money.

I am not a contract lawyer. but the question seems to be whether a contract between a player and a school to receive revenue-sharing directly from the school is a binding contract.

AND - whether an attempt by another school to get that player to transfer is contract interference.

so we have - theoretically - two types of tampering by Miami.
1. improper contact with a player at another school who is not in the portal, and
2. contract interference with a player who has a (theoretically) valid revenue-sharing contract at another school.
 

PMWinSTP said:
Go google college revenue sharing.
Click to expand...

I’m not understanding your argument, sorry. How does college revenue sharing prevent player movement via portal? It doesn’t. Contracts? I’ve never seen an employment contract that prevented movement, either, on a binding national basis except in the military which is a different form of obligation with different legal rules. So, we’re in uncharted territory. The Big Ten seems to believe its rev-share template has special rules. I guess we’ll see?


At the same time, Wisconsin is going for the jugular. There's been no precedent set to this point on whether revenue sharing deals can be binding and prevent player movement. The Badgers seem to hope they can change that, which would be a massive restructuring of the sport. While Lucas is a future difference-maker on the field, Wisconsin and the Big Ten clearly see more opportunity.

Lucas's representation has made a reasonable case that his situation was not handled correctly under the curent precedents and bylaws. Assuming trial is on the horizon, the courts could simply handle his case in a vacuum. However, college football is waiting for this kind of showdown. Whether it comes in the courts or in the halls of Congress, slowing the portal churn will be one of the greatest issues facing college football in its next iteration.


www.cbssports.com

Why Wisconsin DB Xavier Lucas' transfer to Miami triggered tampering accusations, potential legal battle

The Big Ten, NCAA and Wisconsin have all weighed in the DB's transfer in a battle that could set a precedent for future transfers and revenue-sharing contracts
www.cbssports.com www.cbssports.com
 
Last edited:

short ornery norwegian said:
part of the issue is that schools are using NIL to refer to two different types of compensation - NIL from outside collectives and NIL from the new revenue-sharing per the House settlement. technically, they are both NIL - payments to players for use of their name, image and likeness - but they come from two different locations and from different sources of money.

I am not a contract lawyer. but the question seems to be whether a contract between a player and a school to receive revenue-sharing directly from the school is a binding contract.

AND - whether an attempt by another school to get that player to transfer is contract interference.

so we have - theoretically - two types of tampering by Miami.
1. improper contact with a player at another school who is not in the portal, and
2. contract interference with a player who has a (theoretically) valid revenue-sharing contract at another school.
Click to expand...

Has any collective or other NIL contract successfully blocked a player from transferring?

That’s really the question here. If Lucas violated terms of an NIL contract then he’d be obligated to return front-loaded strings attached money, etc.. nobody would dispute that.

Wisconsin has (apparently) provided nothing to the player, yet is expecting consideration on its end, blocking movement. That’s the part that doesn’t make sense, and will lead to more litigation which given recent rulings versus the NCAA antitrust violations won’t succeed.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom