DEFENDANT UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO DISMISS
The Defendant, University of Miami (“Miami”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby responds to the Complaint filed by Plaintiffs, The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, on behalf of the University of Wisconsin-Madison (“Wisconsin”), and VC Connect, LLC (“VC Connect” or “the Collective”), and moves to dismiss this pathetic, baseless lawsuit pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 802.06(2)(a)6 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This is not a legal action—it’s a sniveling, hypocritical tantrum from a program so incompetent it drove its own star athlete out the door, then had the audacity to blame Miami. Wisconsin’s claims are a legal embarrassment, their NCAA violations are glaring, and this Court should spike this garbage into the trash where it belongs while we drag their sorry hides before the NCAA for the sanctions they’ve earned.
I. INTRODUCTION: WISCONSIN’S SHAMEFUL ATTEMPT TO DODGE ACCOUNTABILITY
Let’s be crystal clear: Wisconsin’s lawsuit is a masterclass in delusion, a desperate attempt to shift blame for their own catastrophic failures onto Miami. Student-Athlete A didn’t just leave their sinking ship—he fled in horror, and who could blame him? Wisconsin’s own shoddy contract practices and NCAA rule-breaking are what pushed him out, not some imaginary “tampering” by Miami. They had him sign a contract without legal representation (Compl. ¶ 19), sat on it for weeks before giving his mother a copy only after she demanded it (¶ 34), ignored a health concern, and then—here’s the kicker—refused to enter him into the Transfer Portal, a direct violation of NCAA rules (¶¶ 42-43). Now they’re whining about “tampering” because his name wasn’t in the portal? That’s rich, considering they’re the ones who blocked his entry! This isn’t a case; it’s a circus, and Wisconsin’s the clown. Miami will dismantle this farce, expose their guilt, and ensure they face the NCAA’s wrath.
II. WISCONSIN’S SELF-INFLICTED WOUND: THEIR OWN MISCONDUCT DROVE THE TRANSFER
Wisconsin’s Complaint unwittingly lays bare their own incompetence as the root cause of Student-Athlete A’s departure. On December 2, 2024, they pressured a freshman athlete to sign two NIL contracts—a “University Contract” with Wisconsin and a “Collective Contract” with VC Connect—without any indication he had legal representation (¶ 19). This reeks of exploitation, railroading a young student into binding agreements without proper counsel. Then, they stonewalled his mother, only providing a hard copy of the University Contract on December 13, 2024, after she explicitly requested it (¶ 34), and another copy on December 21, 2024, after further demands (¶ 43). This delay screams bad faith, leaving the family in the dark about his obligations.
Add to that a health concern—buried in their vague “family-related reason” excuse (¶ 40)—that Wisconsin apparently ignored, and it’s no wonder Student-Athlete A wanted out by December 17, 2024 (¶ 38). His abrupt request to enter the Transfer Portal that evening, before any alleged contact with Miami (¶ 47), proves he was done with Wisconsin’s mess. Their refusal to enter him into the portal (¶ 42), despite NCAA rules mandating compliance with such requests, sealed the deal. Wisconsin didn’t lose him to Miami’s “interference”—they lost him because they’re a disorganized, rule-breaking disaster. Blaming us is just pathetic.
III. RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS: A HOUSE OF CARDS
Wisconsin’s claims—tortious interference with existing and prospective contracts, plus a laughable declaratory judgment demand—are so flimsy they’d collapse under a stiff breeze. Let’s tear them apart.
A. Tortious Interference with Existing Contracts (Counts I and II)
To state a claim for tortious interference with a contract under Wisconsin law, Plaintiffs must allege: (1) a valid contract; (2) Miami’s knowledge of it; (3) intentional and unjustified interference inducing a breach; (4) a breach caused by Miami; and (5) damages. Mackenzie v. Miller Brewing Co., 241 Wis. 2d 700, 623 N.W.2d 739 (2001). Their pleading is a masterclass in failure.
- No Evidence Miami Knew of Their Shady Contracts
Wisconsin’s assertion that Miami “was aware” of the University Contract (¶ 54) and Collective Contract (¶ 64) is pure fantasy, propped up by a flimsy “on information and belief.” That’s legal-speak for “we’re making it up.” No dates, no documents, no specifics—just hot air. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) demands more than this drivel, and Wisconsin’s got nothing.
- Intentional Interference? Try Intentional Incompetence
The Complaint’s vague “impermissible contacts” (¶ 47) don’t come close to proving Miami intended to induce a breach. A coach’s visit or a compensation discussion? That’s standard recruiting, not a conspiracy. And guess what? Student-Athlete A was already out the door, citing “family-related reasons” (¶ 40) before Miami’s alleged involvement (¶ 47). Wisconsin’s trying to pin their dumpster fire on us—it’s pathetic.
- Causation? Wisconsin’s the Culprit
The timeline buries them. Student-Athlete A demanded portal entry on December 17, 2024 (¶ 38); Miami’s supposed contacts started December 18 (¶ 47). He’d already checked out, fed up with Wisconsin’s contract shenanigans and their health concern neglect. Causation’s a pipe dream—Wisconsin’s own failures drove him away.
- Wisconsin’s NCAA Violation: Refusing Portal Entry
Here’s the nail in their coffin: Wisconsin refused to enter Student-Athlete A into the Transfer Portal (¶ 42), despite NCAA rules requiring it when a player requests. Then they cry “tampering” because his name wasn’t listed—because they blocked it! It’s like burning your own house down and suing the fire department. Their hypocrisy is staggering, and it’s an NCAA violation we’ll shove in their faces.
- No Improper Conduct by Miami
Even if Miami contacted Student-Athlete A, it’s called competition, not tort. He had every right to explore options, especially after Wisconsin’s misconduct. Their “tampering” whining belongs in an NCAA complaint, not a courtroom.
B. Tortious Interference with Prospective Contracts (Counts III and IV)
These claims are even dumber. Wisconsin needs: (1) a specific prospective contract; (2) Miami’s knowledge; (3) improper interference; and (4) damages. Duct-O-Wire Co. v. U.S. Crane, Inc., 31 F.3d 506 (7th Cir. 1994). They’re swinging at air.
- “Prospective Contracts”? Pure Fiction
“Additional contracts” (¶¶ 70, 78)? That’s it? No terms, no timeline, no proof. It’s a daydream, not a claim. Shank v. William R. Hague, Inc., 192 F.3d 675, 689 (7th Cir. 1999) requires a concrete expectation—Wisconsin’s got squat.
- Knowledge and Interference? Keep Dreaming
No evidence Miami knew of their fantasy deals, and their “relationship” with Student-Athlete A (¶¶ 72, 81) was public knowledge, not a trade secret. Recruiting a high-profile athlete isn’t interference—it’s college football.
- Damages? Only to Their Pride
Their “financial and other benefits” (¶¶ 75, 83) are as real as their chances at a national title. They lost him because he couldn’t stand them—tough luck.
C. Declaratory Relief (Count V): A Joke
Wisconsin wants a declaration that Miami “tampered” (¶¶ 85-89). Are they serious?
- NCAA’s Turf, Not This Court’s
Tampering’s an NCAA issue, not a judicial one. Ohio State Univ. v. Kuhn, 2018 WL 1804925 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 17, 2018) says courts stay out of NCAA disputes. Wisconsin’s too spineless to face the NCAA, so they’re wasting our time here.
- No Controversy Left
Student-Athlete A’s at Miami (¶ 46). The fight’s over. This is just Wisconsin begging for a participation trophy.
IV. MOTION TO DISMISS: END THIS FARCE
Miami moves to dismiss under Wis. Stat. § 802.06(2)(a)6. This Complaint is a legal trainwreck for three reasons:
- No Facts, Just Whining
Vague assertions and “information and belief” don’t cut it. Wisconsin’s pleading is a masterclass in futility.
- Wisconsin’s Own Fault
Their contract mishandling and portal refusal drove Student-Athlete A out. Miami’s contacts came after he’d already decided to bolt—causation’s dead.
- Wrong Forum
Tampering’s an NCAA matter. Wisconsin’s dragging us into court because they’re terrified of NCAA scrutiny.
V. WISCONSIN’S NCAA VIOLATIONS: CAUGHT RED-HANDED
Wisconsin’s Complaint is a confession of guilt. First, they refused to enter Student-Athlete A into the Transfer Portal (¶ 42), a clear NCAA violation when a player requests it. Then they scream “tampering” because his name wasn’t listed—because they wouldn’t list it! It’s hypocrisy on steroids. Second, their “University Contract” (¶ 19) looks like illegal institutional NIL pay, especially since it hinged on the House settlement (¶ 22), finalized in June 2025 (¶ 4). Third, having a freshman sign without representation (¶ 19) and withholding the contract from his mother (¶¶ 34, 43) smells like unethical inducement. Miami’s taking this to the NCAA, and Wisconsin’s going to regret their stupidity.
VI. CONCLUSION: WISCONSIN’S DOOMED, MIAMI’S UNSTOPPABLE
This lawsuit is a pathetic, sniveling cry from a program that fumbled its own athlete and now wants to blame Miami. It’s legally brain-dead, factually absurd, and reeks of Wisconsin’s guilt. We’re not just confident this gets tossed—we’re counting the seconds until this Court obliterates it. Then we’re coming for Wisconsin’s NCAA hide, exposing their violations and ensuring they pay dearly. They picked the wrong fight, and we’re going to make them choke on it.
Respectfully submitted (with zero respect for Wisconsin’s clown show),
[Counsel for the University of Miami]
Dated: June 21, 2025
