IlliniKat91
- Chicago, IL
This'll be fun to follow. Not that it'll make any school think twice unless the punishment is stiff enough, but we'll see.
College Sports / Conference Realignment
- Status
there has always been outlaws in CFB and there always will be
cheaters gonna cheat
Battle89
- Cary-Grove, the better Trojan team
Is this a key point? Are they all effective employees now, and is that or some other pertinent condition now applicable retroactively, when it wasn't before?
Because until the settlement, I thought the only contracts were between the NIL collectives and the players, and specifically not pay-for-play with the universities.
Or is all this less about NIL and more about scholarship commitments?
TL; DR - what is Wisconsin's basis for suing? I know what tortious interference (misspelled in the Yahoo article header) is, but which tort was interfered with?
Final phrase 
on purpose, yes?
Re your ‘Because’ paragraph, when this first ‘broke’ back in winter, I instantly felt same.
Reading the full article today, something else struck me that I’m not sure was mentioned months ago, at least not prominently.
That being a retroactive effective date.
In my experience, eg, parties are perfectly free to agree that a contract will have a specified effective date, for purposes of operation of contract terms, duties and benefits, which date is effective irrespective of when the K is actually executed by the parties. And said date need not be prospective. It is perfectly proper to have said date be in the rear view. Retroactive effective date.
Seems to me that W is asserting a twist to that.
Not just retroactive, but triggered by House Settlement date.
Now, I don’t work for W, so I don’t truly care if they prevail or not.
But, the way I’m familiar with, K law is the private law between the Parties. As agreed by said parties.
So long as terms are not violative of statute, or so egregious as to be ‘against public policy’, said terms are not to be disregarded by court.
So, W must be feeling that the document executed in December became retroactively effective in December once House was approved in June, by express voluntary agreement of both parties.
And that U knew of such an inchoate situation, and nevertheless moved ahead to interfere with its operation. At the U’s own risk. Kinda sorta like a Lis Pendens.
Like I first said in first post, W sold the B1G Office on the notion, so maybe not so laughable as on first blush.
I’ll happily watch W and U bicker and snipe and battle. Glad it’s not Illini.
on purpose, yes?Re your ‘Because’ paragraph, when this first ‘broke’ back in winter, I instantly felt same.
Reading the full article today, something else struck me that I’m not sure was mentioned months ago, at least not prominently.
That being a retroactive effective date.
In my experience, eg, parties are perfectly free to agree that a contract will have a specified effective date, for purposes of operation of contract terms, duties and benefits, which date is effective irrespective of when the K is actually executed by the parties. And said date need not be prospective. It is perfectly proper to have said date be in the rear view. Retroactive effective date.
Seems to me that W is asserting a twist to that.
Not just retroactive, but triggered by House Settlement date.
Now, I don’t work for W, so I don’t truly care if they prevail or not.
But, the way I’m familiar with, K law is the private law between the Parties. As agreed by said parties.
So long as terms are not violative of statute, or so egregious as to be ‘against public policy’, said terms are not to be disregarded by court.
So, W must be feeling that the document executed in December became retroactively effective in December once House was approved in June, by express voluntary agreement of both parties.
And that U knew of such an inchoate situation, and nevertheless moved ahead to interfere with its operation. At the U’s own risk. Kinda sorta like a Lis Pendens.
Like I first said in first post, W sold the B1G Office on the notion, so maybe not so laughable as on first blush.
I’ll happily watch W and U bicker and snipe and battle. Glad it’s not Illini.
Last edited:
wettsten
- Chicago
saw that tennessee supposedly already passed a similar law. any truth to that?
RabidDawgClassic
- Los Angeles, CA
I don’t know how this can be called cheating, though. Different from the norm? Sure. But the norms of the past have been shattered.
I also don’t know how Wisconsin has a legitimate claim in this lawsuit. IANAL, but any contract involving payment is with the NIL collective or the individual sponsor, lest the badgers be admitting to “pay for play.” If they’re suing only on the scholarship aspect, then they would likely be denying the athlete his fair trade marketability. This should be interesting.
It’s neither of the things you mentioned
You are right. This is going to be interesting on how this will play out
According to what I've read the contract in question is one in which Lucas signed over non-exclusive rights to use his NIL in promotions to Wisconsin, and as part of the contract he is prohibited from making commitments to play sports at any other school.
I think there are a number of questions here. First, I wonder if a court or the NCAA will find this arrangement too cute by half. It's obvious what the real intent is here. To lock down a player to a two-year commitment to play football for Wisconsin (you can tell because the whole beef here is that he decided to play football somewhere else). The thing is, you're not supposed to be able to do that.
Second, you can't tortiously interfere with a contract you don't know exists. So did Miami know about this 2-year deal? Might be tough to prove. It would be easier to sue Lucas for breach, but for obvious reasons they're avoiding that. But its kind of awkward to sue a third party for inducing someone to breach a contract, but not sue the party that actually has privity to the contract.
Third, proving damages is going to be tough. OK, so Wisconsin lost out on Lucas. What is the monetary effect of that? How much revenue was Lucas going to bring in vs whoever replaced him? How much did it cost Wisconsin to find a replacement? The answers may be difficult to determine and may not actually come out to a lot of money (and by the way that is the reveue for a suit like this, the court is not going to order sanctions of Miami's football program or order Lucas to return to the Badgers).
RabidDawgClassic
- Los Angeles, CA
I just don’t see how Miami can be sued here. Even getting around the whole “not employees” issue, if I worked at Twin City Radiator and had an iron clad contract, and CU Radiator called me and asked if I had any interest in working with them instead (I’m really really good when it comes to radiators), there’s no breach of contract on CU Radiator’s part. There could be on my part. Now, if CU Radiator REALLY wants me (again, I’m the best radiator guy out there!), they would have to buy out my contract to satisfy the legal requirements on MY end. If I go work there and my contract isn’t bought out, Twin City Radiator has legal action against me, but not CU Radiator.
So the whole thing with tortious interference of contact is that CU radiator has to have 1) known about the contract, 2) intentionally and unjustifiably interfered with the contract, and 3) caused you to breach the contract.
In your scenario it's the 2nd element that is probably lacking. Contacting a competitor's employee with a job offer is not in normal circumstances "unjustifiable." But in the Wisconsin/Miami beef, that may not be the case because the NCAA has rules about contacting players who are not in the portal (whereas the radiator industry does not). While those rules are not law, they are evidence demonstrating that what Miami did was "unjustifiable." Industry norms and standards are considered in these kinds of cases, and certainly the rules of an association both entities belong to would be considered. And there was definitely intent that Lucas end his relationship with Wisconsin and come play football at Miami.
The bigger questions here are about whether Miami even knew about this contract, and to me the biggest question, whether this contract is even enforceable. Can you really have contract that explicitly says "this is not a contract to play football," with a provision that declares the contract to be in breach if the guy goes and plays football somewhere else? It's clear to me that the intent of this contract is to create a pay-for-play relationship in spite of NCAA rules, and if I was the NCAA this kind of multi-year contract would worry me as opening the door to courts imposing an employer-employee relationship between schools and players (which probably should be the case but is the exact red line the NCAA wants to avoid at all costs).
Serious Late
- Peoria via Denver via Ann Arbor via Albuquerque vi
State laws would still apply. Every state still has a 21+ policy. This wouldn't change that.
Battle89
- Cary-Grove, the better Trojan team
Is it really that hard not to? I get that gambling has expanded immensely in my lifetime, and also that there are individuals with legitimate addiction issues.
But I were blessed to make tens or hundreds of thousands as a player, or hundreds of thousands to millions as a staff member, that ought to be enough. I don't think it is unreasonable to eliminate any signs of impropriety by keeping all gambling off-limits to those folks.
Seems to be to be just another NCAA acknowledgement of something they can no longer control, rather than real change.
But I were blessed to make tens or hundreds of thousands as a player, or hundreds of thousands to millions as a staff member, that ought to be enough. I don't think it is unreasonable to eliminate any signs of impropriety by keeping all gambling off-limits to those folks.
Seems to be to be just another NCAA acknowledgement of something they can no longer control, rather than real change.
Illwinsagain
- Cary, IL
I suppose it depends how far you want to take it. Is playing fantasy football, with an entry fee and end of season payouts gambling? Technically, yes. I am fine with them betting on pro sports, if that is how they want to lose their money. Obviously, staying away from all college sports is important.
The problem here is that they can get in deep betting on professional sports. To get out, they can, ahem, influence a game on which their creditor/gambler has bet heavily. "Kid, make sure you lose to Nebraska and your NFL betting debts are history".
Yeah, that was always the problem with illegal gambling, but now with the proliferation of legal gambling by actual corporate entities, I'm not so sure the same concern exists. Do we really think Draft Kings is going to press college athletes to point shave?
Don't get me wrong, I don't at all like the idea of college athletes betting on sports, and personally think the ever increasing linkage between professional sports leagues and gambling is not a good thing for sports or society. I'm just not sure this specific concern exists as much with legal gambling as it did with illicit gambling, and while I haven't read the language of the proposal I would guess that it makes it clear that they're talking about legal gambling only.
Illwinsagain
- Cary, IL
With the preponderance of sports books, both in person and online, I wasn't considering the local bookie scenario. That certainly could mess things up, though student athletes can get into financial trouble A LOT of ways. It is not limited to sports betting.
Battle89
- Cary-Grove, the better Trojan team
Far from the March Madness spotlight, college hoops grapples with a gambling problem
All eyes are on the Final Four, but college athletics officials are worried about suspicious bets on games featuring smaller schools.
To @Mr. Roberts point
Epsilon
M tipping over
- Pdx
Endowment figures are nice and all but if that's the total of each school's endowments compiled for each conference, it's kind of a meaningless figure. Much of that money is restricted in terms of how it is used. For example, some of it can only be used to help with tuition for kids who need assistance, or some of it is for a new building named after a rich donor, etc.
Also, side note: Bank of Phil Knight isn't going to dry up, because he is going to leave a gigantic endowment that will set up the future for U of O athletics.
Epsilon
M tipping over
- Pdx
Been following this pretty closely. While it may be a bump for former Mountain West teams, it sounds like it will be on the lower side of things, maybe $8-10 mil with all contracts. I think the Texas State add will be announced by EOW. I don't expect anything else to happen this cycle with additions either. The times leading up to 2030, when many media rights contracts expire, is going to be absolutely nuts.
- Status