It’s Monday morning, so it’s time for me to let you all know what’s been on my mind for the past week. We’ve got a couple more updates around the sport that I think are important to talk about.
1. Wisconsin is suing Miami.
That’s an interesting thing to type.
But more importantly, the University of Wisconsin and its NIL collective are suing the University of Miami for tampering. We’ve heard a lot of coaches complain about tampering the past few years as the transfer portal has gotten ever more active each season, but nobody has ever done anything about it.
But now the Badgers have decided rising sophomore defensive back Xavier Lucas is the guy to make this a big issue about.
For some context, Lucas was a four-star corner in the class of 2024, we had him rated as the No. 45 cornerback in the country coming out of Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
He played in all 12 Wisconsin games last year, making 18 tackles, a sack and an interception.
He transferred during the winter portal, but there were issues with his transfer because he claimed the Wisconsin staff refused to file the proper paperwork to enter his name in the portal.
I guess we know why now.
Wisconsin claimed a Miami staffer and “prominent alumnus” met with Lucas at a relative’s home in Florida and offered him money to transfer, which was shortly after Lucas had apparently signed a two-year contract with the Badgers' NIL collective in December.
So the argument is Miami sent a staffer to offer money to knowingly break the contract.
Definitely tampering.
The question isn’t whether tampering has been happening. It has.
There have been reports from baseball coaches whose team’s are in the College World Series that their players are receiving texts and calls from other coaches while they’re still playing to get them to transfer. Same with softball, same with both men's and women's basketball. Football was happening through bowl prep. That's one of the major reasons why there's been talk about moving the portal windows after the postseason in each sport.
We all knew tampering was happening.
But, finally, we’re going to find out if it’s actually against the rules.
2. The timing is fascinating to me.
Why did Wisconsin wait until after the House settlement passed to file this lawsuit?
The Badgers could have filed back in February and had everything very actively on people’s minds, but they specifically waited until after contracts with schools were a more direct thing.
“While we reluctantly bring this case, we stand by our position that respecting and enforcing contractual obligations is essential to maintaining a level playing field,” Wisconsin said in a statement on Friday.
Well, there’s a lot more direct contractual obligations that will begin July 1 around college sports and setting this precedent could have major, major implications.
And according to the complaint, Wisconsin did decide to wait until those implications were more clear.
“During this watershed time for college athletics, this case will advance the overall integrity of the game by holding programs legally accountable when they wrongfully interfere with contractual commitments,” Wisconsin said in the statement.
I understand the idea of waiting until the House settlement and contracts with players becoming a much more common, direct aspect of the sport, but this is still a contract from before the House settlement, one signed with an NIL collective instead of a university. I don’t see the advantage to waiting for this one specifically when it could have been filed at a point where all the tampering was freshly on coaches minds and it could have gotten more support from across the sport.
3. Overall, in theory, I'm very glad this case is being brought.
I think tampering is bad.
When players agree to a contract, other schools shouldn’t be able to talk them out of that contract by just offering more money and a promise that no consequences will be faced.
For there to be any semblance of stability, there have to be consequences when things like this happen.
What worries me is the NIL factor of this case.
The contract was not with Wisconsin as a school/athletic department/football team. It couldn’t be last December. It was with an NIL collective.
That doesn’t mean I think the contract shouldn’t be enforceable or anything like that. But I worry since Wisconsin is part of the entity bringing the suit that this suit is going to be beaten by Miami and it’s going to set a precedent that tampering rules can’t be enforced.
I kind of wish everyone would have waited until it happened again this December. It was certainly going to. But at that point you’d have players on contracts with the schools/athletic departments directly because of the House settlement instead of through a third party that technically isn’t supposed to be connected to the school directly.
And I want to make clear, I’m not a lawyer. I don’t understand a lot of what’s going to happen here legally. But that’s the impression I get. Lawdog83 had a good breakdown of why the suit isn't aimed correctly over in another thread, which you can find here.
Now, if the collective sued on its own, then sure I think that would have more bearing (again, not a lawyer, I don’t know for sure, this is my interpretation) but the school is supposed to be unconnected from the group that the player signed the contract with, which feels like the perfect reasoning around the school being part of the suit for breach of that specific contract.
Lucas was not an employee of the school, he was in an agreement through an NIL collective that paid him to be part of the team. But in less than a month, players will start being direct employees of the school and that feels a lot more enforceable when something inevitably happens the next time the portal rolls around.
I think tampering rules have to be enforceable, but I worry that Wisconsin jumped the gun a little bit when a more sure thing could have been in play in just a few months.
4. I hope Wisconsin wins.
I was asked for yesterday’s Ask the Editor (which you can find here) if I thought the new rules around the House settlement would affect how many players enter the transfer portal.
I don’t know if a salary cap really does that much, I hope it does, but I think there will still be paydays to have and players looking for more of an opportunity at other schools.
But I think a strict enforcement of tampering could actually make a difference. Especially with the possibility of multi-year contracts signed with players.
If you can sign a guy for two or even three or four years, and tampering is actually dealt with, then yes, there will be fewer players hitting the portal.
Players will get paid for the value they’re providing schools, there will be possible buyouts if a player is still desperate to leave, teams can still add through the portal but not every single player is a free agent every six months.
We could live in a utopia! Or maybe I’m exaggerating just a little bit and there would still be definite problems with whatever the system becomes because there are always problems with a system that large and difficult to control.
I don't know what's going to happen or how each lawsuit is going to change the sports landscape next, but I think putting down some precedent that tampering is bad and there are enforceable rules around it is an important next step, especially now that contracts are happening directly with schools/athletic departments/teams.
5. We're going to change topics slightly, but stick with lawsuits. Zakai Zeigler's motion to get a fifth year of eligibility was initially denied.
For those who don’t remember, I’ll run through some basics of this case.
Zakai Zeigler, a point guard who has played the past four seasons at Tennessee, sued to try to get a fifth year of eligibility because the rule that you can only play four seasons in a five-year period is supposedly unfair to players who don’t redshirt because it takes away a player’s most lucrative season based on NIL valuations.
He’s not wrong about the money aspect, if Zeigler were to get an extra year, he would make more money for his extra season than he had in any previous year, but he’s only doing it because he doesn’t have much of an NBA future.
He did instantly appeal the decision, so it’s not over yet, but the initial denial is probably a good thing.
This kind of goes along with me wanting a less crazy transfer portal, I am desperate to get back to knowing how many years of eligibility players have available.
I get why the decision was made with the COVID years, I don’t love where I think we’re heading with JUCO years, but those are both at least somewhat knowable.
Especially now that we’re moving further and further away from players who were in college sports in 2020, we should be getting back to four years available, plus a redshirt. There are still a few guys around such as Jalen Catalon (about to start his seventh season of college football) and Keagan Trost (also about to start Year 7), but the majority of college athletes currently playing started their careers after 2020, including Ziegler.
But if this appeal ends up going his way, we’re looking at a situation where it’s reasonable to say there can be no limit on eligibility. The rules have to matter at some point.
I’m glad his initial motion was denied, I hope the appeal is as well.
6. I don't often shout out other guys on the beat, but Eli Hoff did some excellent reporting this past week on Mizzou's NIL usage.
I’m not going to go through every piece of his reporting. If you want to read the full thing, go here.
It’s an excellent piece, Eli does really great work for the Post-Dispatch.
And it gives an idea of what is likely for Mizzou’s revenue-sharing split moving forward.
As athletic director Laird Veatch said in a press conference, not every Tiger team will receive revenue sharing funds, but more than just football and men’s basketball will.
For the 2024 calendar year, Missouri spent about $12.4 million in NIL funds with about 64.3 percent going to football, 23.5 percent going to basketball, 3.9 percent going to baseball, 2.8 percent going to women’s basketball, 1.5 percent going to softball, 1.2 percent going to wrestling, 1.1 percent going to track and field, 0.8 percent going to gymnastics, 0.3 percent going to volleyball, 0.2 percent going to golf and soccer and less than 0.1 percent going to tennis.
I don’t think that’s exactly how the revenue sharing will break down, but it gives an idea.
Football and men’s basketball will certainly receive the lion’s share.
I expect the football percentage to rise closer to 70 or 75 percent moving forward, especially after a flurry of increased spending in December and January this past winter, which Eli lays out directly and you should check out his story for more specifics.
I was surprised that baseball was third, that feels crazy, but also I guess I’m not sure what exactly I was expecting after men’s basketball.
I think the women’s basketball percentage will go up a little following the investment to get Kellie Harper and build a bigger staff. So I wouldn’t be surprised if women’s basketball takes up some of those smaller percentages as some of the other programs drop out and maybe get only some NIL here and there instead of revenue sharing money in the new system.
Those numbers were all based around a full budget much smaller than the $18 million the Tigers will get to play with (of the total $20.5 million number allowed in the House settlement, $2.5 million is being spent on increasing scholarships, so $18 million will be available for direct payments).
So the football percentage can increase, while the basketball percentage might decrease, but the basketball overall pot doesn’t have to decrease to make that happen.
Same with the women’s basketball pot, that can grow significantly without the percentage taking up much more than the 3ish percent it got in 2024.
Those numbers also cover the calendar year of 2024, not the seasons of the 2023-24 or 2024-25 school year, so it’s imperfect. But once again, I think it provides a good idea of what Mizzou valued and where it wanted its money to go very recently.
Once again, I’m going to direct you to Eli’s story. Please go here and read it, it’s excellent work and he deserves his recognition for doing it.
Question
I’m going to go a little off topic with the question this week. We talked about a lot of lawsuits and legal work, so let’s have a little fun.
What are you most looking forward to about Mizzou sports in 2025-26 and what is your realistic expectation for Tiger sports in the coming school year?
1. Wisconsin is suing Miami.
That’s an interesting thing to type.
But more importantly, the University of Wisconsin and its NIL collective are suing the University of Miami for tampering. We’ve heard a lot of coaches complain about tampering the past few years as the transfer portal has gotten ever more active each season, but nobody has ever done anything about it.
But now the Badgers have decided rising sophomore defensive back Xavier Lucas is the guy to make this a big issue about.
For some context, Lucas was a four-star corner in the class of 2024, we had him rated as the No. 45 cornerback in the country coming out of Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
He played in all 12 Wisconsin games last year, making 18 tackles, a sack and an interception.
He transferred during the winter portal, but there were issues with his transfer because he claimed the Wisconsin staff refused to file the proper paperwork to enter his name in the portal.
I guess we know why now.
Wisconsin claimed a Miami staffer and “prominent alumnus” met with Lucas at a relative’s home in Florida and offered him money to transfer, which was shortly after Lucas had apparently signed a two-year contract with the Badgers' NIL collective in December.
So the argument is Miami sent a staffer to offer money to knowingly break the contract.
Definitely tampering.
The question isn’t whether tampering has been happening. It has.
There have been reports from baseball coaches whose team’s are in the College World Series that their players are receiving texts and calls from other coaches while they’re still playing to get them to transfer. Same with softball, same with both men's and women's basketball. Football was happening through bowl prep. That's one of the major reasons why there's been talk about moving the portal windows after the postseason in each sport.
We all knew tampering was happening.
But, finally, we’re going to find out if it’s actually against the rules.
2. The timing is fascinating to me.
Why did Wisconsin wait until after the House settlement passed to file this lawsuit?
The Badgers could have filed back in February and had everything very actively on people’s minds, but they specifically waited until after contracts with schools were a more direct thing.
“While we reluctantly bring this case, we stand by our position that respecting and enforcing contractual obligations is essential to maintaining a level playing field,” Wisconsin said in a statement on Friday.
Well, there’s a lot more direct contractual obligations that will begin July 1 around college sports and setting this precedent could have major, major implications.
And according to the complaint, Wisconsin did decide to wait until those implications were more clear.
“During this watershed time for college athletics, this case will advance the overall integrity of the game by holding programs legally accountable when they wrongfully interfere with contractual commitments,” Wisconsin said in the statement.
I understand the idea of waiting until the House settlement and contracts with players becoming a much more common, direct aspect of the sport, but this is still a contract from before the House settlement, one signed with an NIL collective instead of a university. I don’t see the advantage to waiting for this one specifically when it could have been filed at a point where all the tampering was freshly on coaches minds and it could have gotten more support from across the sport.
3. Overall, in theory, I'm very glad this case is being brought.
I think tampering is bad.
When players agree to a contract, other schools shouldn’t be able to talk them out of that contract by just offering more money and a promise that no consequences will be faced.
For there to be any semblance of stability, there have to be consequences when things like this happen.
What worries me is the NIL factor of this case.
The contract was not with Wisconsin as a school/athletic department/football team. It couldn’t be last December. It was with an NIL collective.
That doesn’t mean I think the contract shouldn’t be enforceable or anything like that. But I worry since Wisconsin is part of the entity bringing the suit that this suit is going to be beaten by Miami and it’s going to set a precedent that tampering rules can’t be enforced.
I kind of wish everyone would have waited until it happened again this December. It was certainly going to. But at that point you’d have players on contracts with the schools/athletic departments directly because of the House settlement instead of through a third party that technically isn’t supposed to be connected to the school directly.
And I want to make clear, I’m not a lawyer. I don’t understand a lot of what’s going to happen here legally. But that’s the impression I get. Lawdog83 had a good breakdown of why the suit isn't aimed correctly over in another thread, which you can find here.
Now, if the collective sued on its own, then sure I think that would have more bearing (again, not a lawyer, I don’t know for sure, this is my interpretation) but the school is supposed to be unconnected from the group that the player signed the contract with, which feels like the perfect reasoning around the school being part of the suit for breach of that specific contract.
Lucas was not an employee of the school, he was in an agreement through an NIL collective that paid him to be part of the team. But in less than a month, players will start being direct employees of the school and that feels a lot more enforceable when something inevitably happens the next time the portal rolls around.
I think tampering rules have to be enforceable, but I worry that Wisconsin jumped the gun a little bit when a more sure thing could have been in play in just a few months.
4. I hope Wisconsin wins.
I was asked for yesterday’s Ask the Editor (which you can find here) if I thought the new rules around the House settlement would affect how many players enter the transfer portal.
I don’t know if a salary cap really does that much, I hope it does, but I think there will still be paydays to have and players looking for more of an opportunity at other schools.
But I think a strict enforcement of tampering could actually make a difference. Especially with the possibility of multi-year contracts signed with players.
If you can sign a guy for two or even three or four years, and tampering is actually dealt with, then yes, there will be fewer players hitting the portal.
Players will get paid for the value they’re providing schools, there will be possible buyouts if a player is still desperate to leave, teams can still add through the portal but not every single player is a free agent every six months.
We could live in a utopia! Or maybe I’m exaggerating just a little bit and there would still be definite problems with whatever the system becomes because there are always problems with a system that large and difficult to control.
I don't know what's going to happen or how each lawsuit is going to change the sports landscape next, but I think putting down some precedent that tampering is bad and there are enforceable rules around it is an important next step, especially now that contracts are happening directly with schools/athletic departments/teams.
5. We're going to change topics slightly, but stick with lawsuits. Zakai Zeigler's motion to get a fifth year of eligibility was initially denied.
For those who don’t remember, I’ll run through some basics of this case.
Zakai Zeigler, a point guard who has played the past four seasons at Tennessee, sued to try to get a fifth year of eligibility because the rule that you can only play four seasons in a five-year period is supposedly unfair to players who don’t redshirt because it takes away a player’s most lucrative season based on NIL valuations.
He’s not wrong about the money aspect, if Zeigler were to get an extra year, he would make more money for his extra season than he had in any previous year, but he’s only doing it because he doesn’t have much of an NBA future.
He did instantly appeal the decision, so it’s not over yet, but the initial denial is probably a good thing.
This kind of goes along with me wanting a less crazy transfer portal, I am desperate to get back to knowing how many years of eligibility players have available.
I get why the decision was made with the COVID years, I don’t love where I think we’re heading with JUCO years, but those are both at least somewhat knowable.
Especially now that we’re moving further and further away from players who were in college sports in 2020, we should be getting back to four years available, plus a redshirt. There are still a few guys around such as Jalen Catalon (about to start his seventh season of college football) and Keagan Trost (also about to start Year 7), but the majority of college athletes currently playing started their careers after 2020, including Ziegler.
But if this appeal ends up going his way, we’re looking at a situation where it’s reasonable to say there can be no limit on eligibility. The rules have to matter at some point.
I’m glad his initial motion was denied, I hope the appeal is as well.
6. I don't often shout out other guys on the beat, but Eli Hoff did some excellent reporting this past week on Mizzou's NIL usage.
I’m not going to go through every piece of his reporting. If you want to read the full thing, go here.
It’s an excellent piece, Eli does really great work for the Post-Dispatch.
And it gives an idea of what is likely for Mizzou’s revenue-sharing split moving forward.
As athletic director Laird Veatch said in a press conference, not every Tiger team will receive revenue sharing funds, but more than just football and men’s basketball will.
For the 2024 calendar year, Missouri spent about $12.4 million in NIL funds with about 64.3 percent going to football, 23.5 percent going to basketball, 3.9 percent going to baseball, 2.8 percent going to women’s basketball, 1.5 percent going to softball, 1.2 percent going to wrestling, 1.1 percent going to track and field, 0.8 percent going to gymnastics, 0.3 percent going to volleyball, 0.2 percent going to golf and soccer and less than 0.1 percent going to tennis.
I don’t think that’s exactly how the revenue sharing will break down, but it gives an idea.
Football and men’s basketball will certainly receive the lion’s share.
I expect the football percentage to rise closer to 70 or 75 percent moving forward, especially after a flurry of increased spending in December and January this past winter, which Eli lays out directly and you should check out his story for more specifics.
I was surprised that baseball was third, that feels crazy, but also I guess I’m not sure what exactly I was expecting after men’s basketball.
I think the women’s basketball percentage will go up a little following the investment to get Kellie Harper and build a bigger staff. So I wouldn’t be surprised if women’s basketball takes up some of those smaller percentages as some of the other programs drop out and maybe get only some NIL here and there instead of revenue sharing money in the new system.
Those numbers were all based around a full budget much smaller than the $18 million the Tigers will get to play with (of the total $20.5 million number allowed in the House settlement, $2.5 million is being spent on increasing scholarships, so $18 million will be available for direct payments).
So the football percentage can increase, while the basketball percentage might decrease, but the basketball overall pot doesn’t have to decrease to make that happen.
Same with the women’s basketball pot, that can grow significantly without the percentage taking up much more than the 3ish percent it got in 2024.
Those numbers also cover the calendar year of 2024, not the seasons of the 2023-24 or 2024-25 school year, so it’s imperfect. But once again, I think it provides a good idea of what Mizzou valued and where it wanted its money to go very recently.
Once again, I’m going to direct you to Eli’s story. Please go here and read it, it’s excellent work and he deserves his recognition for doing it.
Question
I’m going to go a little off topic with the question this week. We talked about a lot of lawsuits and legal work, so let’s have a little fun.
What are you most looking forward to about Mizzou sports in 2025-26 and what is your realistic expectation for Tiger sports in the coming school year?
