Wisconsin Badgers are idiots

Donate To GopherHole
MNVCGUY said:
This. I'm all for teams sticking up for themselves in this messed up environment but not following the procedural process of putting the kids name in the portal comes across as petty when it has been made pretty clear that players can transfer anytime they want to and as many times as they want to in this current environment.
Click to expand...
It would be nice to see pertinent information from his NIL contract, which would clear up a lot.
 

GopherTheJugular said:
How, exactly, is Wisconsin getting ripped off? Did they give him any money?
Click to expand...
Neither of us know, but Wisconsin put over a dozen players in the portal this year.
There's got to be SOME reason they're resisting in this case, and only this case.

Usually the simplest answer is the most correct....money.

Hold the line, Badgers.
 


USAF said:
Neither of us know, but Wisconsin put over a dozen players in the portal this year.
There's got to be SOME reason they're resisting in this case, and only this case.

Usually the simplest answer is the most correct....money.

Hold the line, Badgers.
Click to expand...
 

WAGopher said:
I happen to think Wisconsin has to protect their NIL, and not placing him in the portal is one way to do it. The kid can provide in detail his side of the story, which could sway opinions either way.
Click to expand...
And I happen to think since there is (if he signed a contract) methods by which to protect their NIL that don't involve them blocking a players ability to transfer (which no one is even sure they are allowed to do) that is the more prudent avenue.

Both sides can drag this out forever as far as I am concerned...but the end result (him playing elsewhere) will be the same. I don't think anything Wisconsin gets out of this will be worth all the headaches...although I guess it takes a bit of heat of Fickell for a bit.

(I would also argue if we want change Wisconsin is not the right school to hold the line but whatever)
 


Dave H said:
And I happen to think since there is (if he signed a contract) methods by which to protect their NIL that don't involve them blocking a players ability to transfer (which no one is even sure they are allowed to do) that is the more prudent avenue.

Both sides can drag this out forever as far as I am concerned...but the end result (him playing elsewhere) will be the same. I don't think anything Wisconsin gets out of this will be worth all the headaches...although I guess it takes a bit of heat of Fickell for a bit.

(I would also argue if we want change Wisconsin is not the right school to hold the line but whatever)
Click to expand...
There probably are other ways to recover the funds, but once the player leaves the state, it will be harder to collect.
 

Dave H said:
And I happen to think since there is (if he signed a contract) methods by which to protect their NIL that don't involve them blocking a players ability to transfer (which no one is even sure they are allowed to do) that is the more prudent avenue.

Both sides can drag this out forever as far as I am concerned...but the end result (him playing elsewhere) will be the same. I don't think anything Wisconsin gets out of this will be worth all the headaches...although I guess it takes a bit of heat of Fickell for a bit.

(I would also argue if we want change Wisconsin is not the right school to hold the line but whatever)
Click to expand...
Again, it looks like Wisconsin has decided to make a stand here on principle. You don't have to like it. It was only a matter of time before schools started to do it.
 


PMWinSTP said:
Again, it looks like Wisconsin has decided to make a stand here on principle. You don't have to like it. It was only a matter of time before schools started to do it.
Click to expand...
But I thought they offered him the money to use his NIL. They should still have that. Unless they were offering him the money to play for the Badgers, which would certainly be a violation of the rules and utilization of NIL money.

The problem with saying it’s on principle is that to make this argument, you have to say your principle is in direct violation of what NIL is for. They can certainly still advertise with him. Hell they could even have him wear a Badger jersey in his photos or appearances.
 



USAF said:
Neither of us know, but Wisconsin put over a dozen players in the portal this year.
There's got to be SOME reason they're resisting in this case, and only this case.

Usually the simplest answer is the most correct....money.

Hold the line, Badgers.
Click to expand...
I would agree. There has to be a lot more to the story. I would love to rip on Wisconsin and say it is a bad look for them, but I don't think it is that easy.

As much as I hate to say it, I actually love that a school is fighting back and holding a player accountable if they signed something.
 

upnorthkid said:
But I thought they offered him the money to use his NIL. They should still have that. Unless they were offering him the money to play for the Badgers, which would certainly be a violation of the rules and utilization of NIL money.

The problem with saying it’s on principle is that to make this argument, you have to say your principle is in direct violation of what NIL is for. They can certainly still advertise with him. Hell they could even have him wear a Badger jersey in his photos or appearances.
Click to expand...
Schools have the ability to direct where the NIL money goes.
 

PMWinSTP said:
Schools have the ability to direct where the NIL money goes.
Click to expand...
sure. and they still can't direct it based on them playing for their school, but rather for the name image and likeness. again, they can put him in their jersey and do whatever they want. Now if he's refusing to do that for them or refusing to complete the things the contract asks for, which can't be based on playing/performance, then yes he's violating the contract.

if this is an early "revenue sharing" thing, then yes that makes complete sense as he would not be entitled to the share from the B10/school. They could also make an argument that he is signing with Miami (or X school) and that this will be a conflict of interest thus violating their contract.

I'm just saying that nothing about his name, image, or likeness has changed regardless of the school he is at which is how those deals are supposed to be reached.

Now what could be really interesting is if they have an appearances clause in their contract that leads to money forfeiture and then they could countersue him and really make this blowup on both sides (given I'd assume that Miami probably isn't going to let him fly up to WI for appearances during game weeks).

In all reality, both sides are at fault. If you were going to shop around, don't take the money. Hard to know what to say about WI in blocking his entering the transfer portal given we don't have all the details, but imagine you could release him and hold him to his contract and sue him down the road for breach if that's really a game he wants to play against a side that has vastly more money and resources rather than blow this into a huge news story
 





pharmacygopher said:
More wisconsin fun. No clue on the back/full story

Click to expand...
This happens with coaching changes and recruits.

But what is with the constant use of the phrase "With that being said"? Kids seem to want to shorten everything but for some reason on Twitter they use this phrase all the time in transfer announcements and comments like this one. Sorry....will hop off my soapbox now :)
 

upnorthkid said:
sure. and they still can't direct it based on them playing for their school, but rather for the name image and likeness. again, they can put him in their jersey and do whatever they want. Now if he's refusing to do that for them or refusing to complete the things the contract asks for, which can't be based on playing/performance, then yes he's violating the contract.

if this is an early "revenue sharing" thing, then yes that makes complete sense as he would not be entitled to the share from the B10/school. They could also make an argument that he is signing with Miami (or X school) and that this will be a conflict of interest thus violating their contract.

I'm just saying that nothing about his name, image, or likeness has changed regardless of the school he is at which is how those deals are supposed to be reached.

Now what could be really interesting is if they have an appearances clause in their contract that leads to money forfeiture and then they could countersue him and really make this blowup on both sides (given I'd assume that Miami probably isn't going to let him fly up to WI for appearances during game weeks).

In all reality, both sides are at fault. If you were going to shop around, don't take the money. Hard to know what to say about WI in blocking his entering the transfer portal given we don't have all the details, but imagine you could release him and hold him to his contract and sue him down the road for breach if that's really a game he wants to play against a side that has vastly more money and resources rather than blow this into a huge news story
Click to expand...
My thought is that Wisconsin put the amount and terms of the NIL $$ payout in the contract that it had him sign.
 

MNfootballfan said:
I would agree. There has to be a lot more to the story. I would love to rip on Wisconsin and say it is a bad look for them, but I don't think it is that easy.

As much as I hate to say it, I actually love that a school is fighting back and holding a player accountable if they signed something.
Click to expand...
I love that they're fighting back too because it will blow up in their face and it will be glorious. The whole having principles thing is hilarious because ultimately they're mad that a school with deeper pockets is better at cheating than they are. When the rubber meets the road will they have enough integrity to admit that this is all pay for play and not NIL since the University itself isn't paying him to attend a private collective is? Or will they just bail before gets that far? I'll bet the latter and then they'll open themselves to a lawsuit and a nice settlement for Lucas.
 

PMWinSTP said:
My thought is that Wisconsin put the amount and terms of the NIL $$ payout in the contract that it had him sign.
Click to expand...
yeah one would assume so, just is contingent on what those stipulations are and my guess is it doesn't say that he has to be a Wisconsin football player (unsure if they can include language that you must be a student there and if players can be dual enrolled at multiple schools but playing sports at one such as taking online classes at WI while playing in FL) because I don't think it can as that would be pay for play. Kind of amazing to this point that these contracts are not more regularly leaked
 

pharmacygopher said:
More wisconsin fun. No clue on the back/full story

Click to expand...
Considering how low he's rated I'm surprised Wisky offered him in the first place. Unless they planned on changing his position.
 

Word said:
Considering how low he's rated I'm surprised Wisky offered him in the first place. Unless they planned on changing his position.
Click to expand...
They late in the process got the kid that was committed to Michigan before someone paid the top qb recruit like 23 trillion dollars to go to Michigan. Which led to this cascade of kids moving to other schools.
 

upnorthkid said:
yeah one would assume so, just is contingent on what those stipulations are and my guess is it doesn't say that he has to be a Wisconsin football player (unsure if they can include language that you must be a student there and if players can be dual enrolled at multiple schools but playing sports at one such as taking online classes at WI while playing in FL) because I don't think it can as that would be pay for play. Kind of amazing to this point that these contracts are not more regularly leaked
Click to expand...
I mean a contract with the school to play there with the NIL info as part of that contract, so yes, playing there.would be in that contract.
 



I don't think I have ever seen a kid post that a school has withdrawn a scholarship from them. It is not to say it hasn't happened, but typically the school works with them to find a landing spot. Then you see the kid open up the recruitment and move on. Obviously WI is not putting in the work. This is going to be a fun year. I doubt Fickle makes it through the season.[/MEDIA]
 


PMWinSTP said:
What can't you do?
Click to expand...
I think the problem is that the school cannot be part of a NIL contract. If they are they might be viewed as an employer. The current system needs a separation between team, player, and NIL supplier
 

NextYear_76 said:
I think the problem is that the school cannot be part of a NIL contract. If they are they might be viewed as an employer. The current system needs a separation between team, player, and NIL supplier
Click to expand...
I never said they were.
 




You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom