forums

Wisconsin officially sues Miami over Xavier Lucas

I just don’t see how they satisfy all elements.

Common law elements of tortious interference include:
  • The existence of a valid contract between the plaintiff and a third party;
  • The defendant having knowledge of the contract;
  • The defendant intentionally and unjustifiably inducing the third party to breach the contract;
  • The occurrence of the breach resulting from the defendant’s conduct; and
  • Damages.
They might not even be able to get past the first one, since the NIL contract wasn’t with the university. But even if they do, how do they quantify damages of a kid who hadn’t played and whom hasn’t yet been paid?
 
Advertisement
George84 said:
Close, but i think diversity requires citizens of different states and a "state" is not a citizen for purposes of DJ. The 11th prevents states from being defendants in federal court in cases brought by citizens of different states or countries -- doesn't apply when a state is a plaintiff.
Click to expand...
But the state university is typically considered an arm of the state- found a cite
Therefore, given the Mazur court's holding that the University of Idaho falls within the protection of the Eleventh Amendment as an instrumentality of the state, and finding its reasoning in line with substantial precedent, the Court will consider the University an arm of the State of Idaho for diversity purposes. As a result of this finding, the Court concludes that the removal of this matter to this Court was improper and orders that it be remanded.

Univ. of Idaho v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49828, *14
 
Jonnyblaze said:
Should be interesting. With as much time that has passed, they must think they have something. Certainly can’t expect we will get a fair shake.
Click to expand...
The original contract was reliant on a speculative future event that they were so sure would occur that they waited to file suit until it had.
 
caneingville said:
I just don’t see how they satisfy all elements.

Common law elements of tortious interference include:
  • The existence of a valid contract between the plaintiff and a third party;
  • The defendant having knowledge of the contract;
  • The defendant intentionally and unjustifiably inducing the third party to breach the contract;
  • The occurrence of the breach resulting from the defendant’s conduct; and
  • Damages.
They might not even be able to get past the first one, since the NIL contract wasn’t with the university. But even if they do, how do they quantify damages of a kid who hadn’t played and whom hasn’t yet been paid?
Click to expand...
Replying to myself because I’m thinking through other possibilities…

They obviously waited until the House settlement to file the suit. So are they are admitting the university had an NIL contract directly with Lucas and trying to get the court to retroactively enforce it? And that is why the B10 is backing them, because they know other schools have more (similar - we are aware there was a model contract out there) like this. So they want to set precedent. Courts usually don’t do that though, but I suppose anything can happen.
 
Gennaker Cane said:
But the state university is typically considered an arm of the state- found a cite
Therefore, given the Mazur court's holding that the University of Idaho falls within the protection of the Eleventh Amendment as an instrumentality of the state, and finding its reasoning in line with substantial precedent, the Court will consider the University an arm of the State of Idaho for diversity purposes. As a result of this finding, the Court concludes that the removal of this matter to this Court was improper and orders that it be remanded.

Univ. of Idaho v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49828, *14
Click to expand...
The court held the 11th Amendment doesn’t apply when the state is a plaintiff. The court determined that it didn’t have jurisdiction because the defendant did not establish diversity. It didn’t explain why very well—presumably the insurance company was also an Idaho citizen. But I don’t think that case would preclude removal in this situation where there is diversity of citizenship.
 
Also are they specifically not suing Lucas because it would clearly show they broke the NCAA rules regarding pay for play? So why shouldn’t we push hard as **** for the NCAA to punish Wisconsin for this? We should report them for violations and push for scholarship reductions and bowl game restrictions. Also we should get Lucas to sue them for restricting his entry into the portal in the first place.
 
Advertisement
The B10’s statement is really gross to me. These schools and conferences have all the power, flash all this money and resources at these kids, many of them who come from NOTHING and can’t afford an attorney or representation to help them understand the agreements they’re signing.

And then UW made Lucas sign these:

(From Yahoo article)

“The revenue-share agreement, a Big Ten-issued template form, binds Lucas — and all players who sign — to that specific school and grants that school a player’s non-exclusive rights to use and market their name, image and likeness. The agreement prohibits the player’s rights to be used by any other school while permitting him or her to sign outside marking agreements, according to those familiar with the template.

Lucas also signed an NIL agreement with the collective to compensate him until the university could legally, within settlement terms, compensate him with revenue starting in July. In the suit, Wisconsin describes Lucas’ promised payment as “substantial” and one of the highest among Badgers football players.“

Come on now. What a joke. No attorney would let their client simultaneously sign both of those.
 
Rellyrell said:
2. Wisconsin suing Miami b/c of a transfer player

What a soft *** age we’re in
Click to expand...

They oughtta be suing whoever gave this doofus a 7-year, $55M contract

Screenshot 2025-06-20 at 5.12.26 PM.png
 
Calinative said:
Also are they specifically not suing Lucas because it would clearly show they broke the NCAA rules regarding pay for play? So why shouldn’t we push hard as **** for the NCAA to punish Wisconsin for this? We should report them for violations and push for scholarship reductions and bowl game restrictions. Also we should get Lucas to sue them for restricting his entry into the portal in the first place.
Click to expand...
Don’t believe the ncaa did anything about Wisc not entering him in the portal which was a violation per Heitner. Why do we think they’ll do anything here.
 
Calinative said:
Also are they specifically not suing Lucas because it would clearly show they broke the NCAA rules regarding pay for play? So why shouldn’t we push hard as **** for the NCAA to punish Wisconsin for this? We should report them for violations and push for scholarship reductions and bowl game restrictions. Also we should get Lucas to sue them for restricting his entry into the portal in the first place.
Click to expand...
They aren’t suing him because there’s no glory in it. What damages could they get from a breach of contract suit? What precedent could they set for a player leaving?

But what damages could they get and what precedent could they set from punishing another major university?
 
Advertisement
Gennaker Cane said:
Filed in State Court, but a State entity. Not sure what their procedural rules are in Wisconsin so it might be the same standard, but it won't likely be a federal suit.
Click to expand...
I can’t imagine we’ll get a fair hearing in Wisconsin against Wisconsin. Can it be removed to a federal court?
 
aelmiami said:
What I don’t understand is, the court of public opinion isn’t going to change either way here.

If you think Miami tampered, because it’s slimy, dirty, same ‘ole Miami. Miami being vindicated changes nothing.

If you think Miami didn’t or it’s witch-hunt, even Miami being proved guilty, your thought will be well, everyone does.

Wisconsin really stands to gain nothing here. The whole thing is very silly and pointless.
Click to expand...
They are trying to save face but it can backfire on them. I’d rather be representing Miami if I had a choice.

Even in the worse case scenario, Miami could just pay like a buyout and be done with it. I’m sure they will counter sue.

Interesting they don’t name Lucas in the suit.
 
Back
Top