By Joseph M. Ricco IV
Former Wisconsin football player Xavier Lucas has sparked a legal and NCAA compliance debate after transferring to the University of Miami without entering the transfer portal. His decision challenges existing transfer policies and could set a new precedent in college athletics. The move, arranged by his attorney Darren Heitner, bypassed traditional procedures and led to accusations of tampering from Wisconsin and the Big Ten Conference. The case centers on whether Lucas’ two-year Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) agreement with Wisconsin is legally binding. Wisconsin argues the contract remains in effect, while Lucas’ representation claims the school failed to follow NCAA transfer rules. This article explains how Lucas was able to transfer without entering the portal, examines the legal arguments from both sides, and features expert insight on what this case could mean for future transfer disputes and NIL enforcement.
Lucas’ Transfer and Legal Argument
Wisconsin cornerback Xavier Lucas sought to transfer after his freshman season but encountered resistance when the school refused to enter his name into the NCAA transfer portal. Lucas, a former four-star recruit from American Heritage High School in Florida, appeared in 12 games for the Badgers in 2024, recording 18 tackles, two tackles for loss, a sack, and an interception. Despite showing promise in his first college season, he decided to leave the program and return closer to home. However, Wisconsin did not process his transfer request within the required two-business-day window, blocking his entry into the portal. With his path restricted, Lucas and his attorney, Darren Heitner, pursued an alternative route. Lucas withdrew from Wisconsin entirely, applied to Miami as a regular student, and enrolled without officially entering the portal. Since NCAA rules do not prevent a student-athlete from unenrolling at one institution and enrolling at another, this allowed Lucas to complete his transfer while avoiding the restrictions of the portal system.
Lucas’ legal team argues that Wisconsin had no valid reason to block his transfer request, making their refusal a violation of NCAA bylaws. Heitner contends that since Lucas was not bound by an active contract and had received no compensation under Wisconsin’s Name, Image, and Likeness deal, he was free to leave without financial or legal obligations. Additionally, Lucas’ camp maintains that there was no impermissible contact with Miami’s football program before his transfer, as he independently chose to enroll at the university. They view this as a necessary workaround in response to Wisconsin’s failure to follow NCAA procedures, rather than an attempt to exploit a loophole.
Wisconsin’s Argument and Tampering Allegations
Wisconsin maintains that Lucas’ transfer was not a simple case of a player leaving for another school but a direct violation of contractual agreements and NCAA rules. The university argues that Lucas signed a binding two-year Name, Image, and Likeness agreement on December 2, 2024, which included financial compensation contingent on the pending House v. NCAA settlement. Wisconsin contends that this agreement remained in effect and that Lucas was obligated to honor it. By requesting a transfer after signing the deal, the university claims he acted inconsistently with the agreement’s intent, which justified the school’s refusal to enter his name into the transfer portal. Furthermore, Wisconsin alleges that Miami engaged in impermissible contact with Lucas before he was officially eligible to communicate with other programs, violating NCAA tampering rules.
The Big Ten Conference issued a statement supporting Wisconsin, reinforcing the claim that Lucas’ agreement should be upheld as enforceable. The conference also expressed concern about tampering, calling Miami’s alleged involvement “troubling” and stating that it undermined ongoing efforts to regulate NIL and transfer activity. Wisconsin has not ruled out pursuing legal action against Miami, and with no clear precedent on the enforceability of revenue-sharing agreements, the case could become a key test of how schools handle NIL contracts moving forward.
Expert Opinion
To gain further insight into the legal and NCAA compliance issues surrounding Lucas’ transfer, Dr. B. David Ridpath, a professor of sports business at Ohio University and an expert in NCAA governance, was interviewed for this article. Ridpath, who has extensively studied college athletics regulation, views Lucas’ transfer as a direct challenge to the existing system. He explained that while the transfer portal was designed to streamline the process, players are not required to use it. “If college athletes are truly students first, they should be able to transfer as a regular student, and there is no reason to enter the portal if they do not want to,” Ridpath said. He noted that Lucas’ case exposes the limitations of the portal system, as NCAA rules do not mandate its use for eligibility. While the portal allows coaches and programs to track available players, Ridpath emphasized that Lucas’ ability to enroll at Miami without it reinforces the idea that the system is not legally binding.
Ridpath was also critical of Wisconsin’s efforts to enforce Lucas’ Name, Image, and Likeness agreement. He argued that the school’s stance contradicts its classification of players as student-athletes rather than employees. “You cannot say they are a student and then try to enforce employment agreements,” Ridpath said. He explained that Wisconsin cannot claim Lucas was contractually bound while simultaneously maintaining that he was not an employee. Furthermore, he pointed out that the agreement was contingent on the pending House v. NCAA settlement, which has yet to be finalized. Without an active revenue-sharing system in place, he believes Wisconsin does not have a strong case for enforcing the contract. He suggested that until college athletes gain full employee status with collective bargaining rights, similar disputes will continue to emerge.
Regarding Wisconsin’s tampering accusations, Ridpath questioned their legitimacy and the NCAA’s ability to regulate such claims. He argued that the concept of tampering is inconsistent when applied to student-athletes who are not considered employees. “You cannot tamper with a non-employee student,” he said, comparing the situation to academic recruitment, where universities openly pursue top students from other institutions. He believes that if schools want to prevent unrestricted player movement, they will need to negotiate enforceable contracts through collective bargaining rather than relying on outdated NCAA rules. As college athletics continues to evolve, Ridpath sees cases like Lucas’ as evidence that NIL policies and transfer regulations are still in flux, with legal challenges likely to play a growing role in shaping future policy.
Up Next: House v. NCAA
The Xavier Lucas case highlights the growing legal challenges surrounding Name, Image, and Likeness agreements, transfer policies, and player rights in college athletics. His decision to bypass the portal exposed a potential loophole in NCAA rules, while Wisconsin’s response raised questions about the enforceability of revenue-sharing agreements. As the House v. NCAA settlement awaits final approval, this case serves as an early test of how schools will handle NIL contracts and player mobility in a changing system. If Lucas’ transfer stands without penalty, other athletes may follow a similar path, forcing schools and conferences to reconsider how they regulate transfers. On the other hand, if Wisconsin or the NCAA successfully challenges the move, it could prompt stricter enforcement of NIL contracts and tampering rules. With House v. NCAA set to reshape how athletes are compensated, cases like this will likely shape future policies, with schools, athletes, and legal experts closely watching how governance adapts to the shifting landscape.
Joseph Ricco is a junior at the University of Texas at Austin, double majoring in sport management and government. He has experience in recruiting operations with Texas Football, training camp operations with the Kansas City Chiefs, and football analytics with Pro Football Focus. He has also published work on sports law topics, including salary cap, NIL, and CBAs. Joseph plans to attend law school and pursue a career in football operations, player personnel, or administration.
References
Bachar, Z. (2025, January 19). Xavier Lucas joins Miami after Wisconsin refused to enter him in CFB Transfer Portal. Bleacher Report. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10151285-xavier-lucas-joins-miami-after-wisconsin-refused-to-enter-him-in-cfb-transfer-portal
Jeyarajah, S. (2025, January 19). Why Wisconsin DB Xavier Lucas’ transfer to Miami triggered tampering accusations, potential legal battle. CBSSports.com. https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/why-wisconsin-db-xavier-lucas-transfer-to-miami-triggered-tampering-accusations-potential-legal-battle/
Kenney, B. (2025, February 6). New College athletics structure to eliminate conflicts like Wisconsin vs. Xavier Lucas. USA Today. https://badgerswire.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/badgers/football/2025/02/06/wisconsin-football-xavier-lucas-update-new-structure/78291891007/
Lichtenstein, A. (2025, January 22). Is Miami at risk for NCAA, legal punishment for taking transfer Xavier Lucas?. Opelika-Auburn News. https://oanow.com/sports/college/is-miami-at-risk-for-ncaa-legal-punishment-for-taking-transfer-xavier-lucas/article_c362809f-a78e-5760-b8a3-8c49707c75c7.html
McPherson, J. (2025, January 19). Wisconsin, big ten release statements calling out Miami regarding Xavier Lucas Transfer. Miami Herald. https://www.miamiherald.com/sports/college/acc/university-of-miami/article298779388.html
Temple, J. (2025, January 18). Wisconsin alleges Miami had impermissible contact with CB Xavier Lucas. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6071080/2025/01/18/xavier-lucas-transfer-portal-miami-wisconsin/
