Jaxbuck said:

Wisconsin went after someone for tampering I think (Miami?).

I'm talking about anyone who wants to be a player on the NIL recruitment stage. You have a choice as the school, you can say

we pay market rate and give market optionality to you (not restricted)
or
we pay above market rate because we restrict your optionality

Good fucking luck on trying to sell market rate with restricted optionality

so unless the market starts restricting optionality across the board, you are going to be at a disadvantage if you do it first (or even early)


EDIT

and by the way if UW doesn't have specific language in the NIL deal linking portal entry to financial penalty or some kind of a "good standing " clause they don't have much firm legal ground to stand on.

If they do have a clawback clause, he should just need to pay it and then they have to let him enter the portal.

I don't think any school wants to be the test case for limiting a players freedom via a portal denial.

Click to expand...

Crump's brother said:

In the portal

Click to expand...

dragurd said:

Well if they aren't releasing him to the transfer portal they think their is something in the contract that says something enforceable. Besides they aren't first movers didn't Wisoconsin already do this with someone?

Click to expand...

Jaxbuck said:

IF that's what the contract actually said.

But who's going to put that kind of strict language in an NIL contract when no one else is doing it? You are the first mover on that particular effort and you won't get anyone to sign (that has options).

Click to expand...

TampaBuckeyes said:

I think it’s more of you signed a 1 year contract so you can play for us or you can play for no one.

Click to expand...

dragurd said:

Yep it's essentially enforcing a contract and someone has to see if they are enforceable or not. It maybe they can't keep or nor would want to but they want to know if there is at least a financial penalty for breaking contract or is full on wild west.

Click to expand...