This past season, Diego Pavia defeated Alabama at Vanderbilt.
Last year he defeated Auburn in New Mexico State.
The brash, playmaking quarterback appears to have a new victim: the NCAA.
On Wednesday, a Tennessee judge granted Pavia’s request for a temporary injunction against the NCAA and its rules regarding seasons of eligibility.
Pavia, who is ineligible after playing two years of junior college and three years in Division I, is challenging the NCAA’s policy that allows a junior college stint to count against a player’s eligibility clock. NCAA athletes are given five calendar years to play four seasons. Junior college counts as a playing season – a policy at the heart of the matter.
The court, at least temporarily, agrees with the quarterback: junior college, which is not an NCAA institution, should not count toward a player’s NCAA eligibility. Under the court’s ruling, the NCAA cannot enforce eligibility rules that would normally prohibit Pavia from playing another season of Division I football.
He is provisionally eligible to play for next season.
The NCAA can still appeal the decision, but the association’s chances are slim based on its track record alone. And yes, the judge, perhaps the same one, could rule in the NCAA’s favor after a trial concludes. Not only is that unlikely given the preliminary ruling, but by the time a trial ends, Pavia will have completed its season next fall.
Wednesday’s ruling is a milestone. Not only does it clear the way for all junior college players to have an additional year of eligibility, but it could also bring future legal challenges over the NCAA’s traditional eligibility policy, even for non-junior college athletes – the five years-to-play four. rule.
The 30,000-foot view of this? It’s yet another court decision to cripple a longstanding NCAA policy — at least the third major court decision in the past year to ban the association from enforcing a rule.
A West Virginia court allowed athletes who transfer for the second or more times to play immediately. A ruling by a federal court in Tennessee largely mooted the NCAA’s interim NIL policy, which allowed boosters and booster-led collectives to negotiate with athletes before they enrolled.
And now your eligible seasons are on the chop or swap block.
“My lawyers are legit,” Pavia tweeted in a post Wednesday evening. “Ryan and Sal, I appreciate you all! God is good, always.”
In college athletics, Wednesday’s ruling sparked somewhat panicky reactions as administrators and coaches tried to make sense of the move.
Will all former junior college players have their eligibility extended now?
The NCAA has not clarified the ruling as it concerns other players in a similar position to Pavia. At least for the time being, there is no change in the participation rules that would affect all athletes. The order only applies to Pavia — for now.
“Can all our junior college guys come back?” an athletics administrator asked. “Well, they make a pretty good argument.”
In other past lawsuits, the NCAA has ultimately provided some clarity. In the West Virginia ruling, the association actually changed its transfer rules to comply with the court’s decision. In the Tennessee NIL case, the organization largely stopped enforcing or investigating matters related to name, image and likeness.
Pavia’s attorney, Ryan Downton of the Texas Trial Group, said the hope is that the ruling “can open the door for other former junior college players to gain an additional year of eligibility without filing a lawsuit.”
And what about Pavia’s future at Vanderbilt?
“While the Court’s ruling does not limit where Diego may play next season, he loves Vanderbilt and Coach Lea,” Downton said in the statement. “As long as he receives an appropriate NIL package, I expect to see him in black and gold while he is still eligible and Jerry Kill and Tim Beck are coaching in Nashville.”
The NCAA released a statement expressing its disappointment in the court’s ruling and reminding us that the eligibility rules are “overwhelmingly supported” by NCAA member schools.
“The NCAA is making changes to provide more benefits to student-athletes, but a patchwork of state laws and court opinions make it clear that working with Congress is essential to provide stability for the future of all college athletes,” the statement said.
Note the mention of Congress. It’s not by accident.
The NCAA has been regularly lobbying Congress for relief for five years now, first for NIL guardrails, then to prevent athlete employment and, most recently, to codify the House of Representatives settlement case to provide these protections in the enforcing rules.
Some even believe the Pavia ruling is helpful for congressional action.
“The good news for the NCAA is that this could strengthen their case for congressional intervention,” said Gabe Feldman, a Tulane sports law professor well-versed in such NCAA cases.
He has a point. It’s one thing for the courts to focus on the NCAA rules — restrictive and punitive — around transfers and around athlete compensation.
Now they’re going after the NCAA rules around eligibility?
“The NCAA is in an antitrust vortex,” Feldman said.
In Wednesday’s ruling, the court dismissed all of the NCAA’s arguments for its eligibility rules. Such rules, the NCAA states, preserve the character and uniqueness of the university, create open opportunities for future athletes, and prevent age and experience gaps among athletes.
The Court “is not convinced,” the judge wrote. The arguments ‘fall flat’.
Money is central to Pavia’s argument. He will earn at least $1 million in college next year, he said in the filing. Starting in July, schools will be allowed to share revenue directly with athletes as part of the House of Representatives’ antitrust ruling. It paves the way for millions of dollars – as much as $20.5 million per school per year – to be shared with athletes, in a giant step as major college sports evolve from an amateur model to a professionalized concept.
It’s a good reason for athletes – especially those who haven’t been drafted yet – to stay in college as long as possible. Can you get $300,000 in salary in the Canadian Football League? Because that’s the amount starters on a power college football team will likely make next fall.
At the elite football powers, their star players can command salaries of more than half a million, and highly touted quarterbacks are in the seven figures.
There are now a million reasons for athletes to stay in college as long as possible.
The next lawsuit is always around the corner. Why isn’t it six years to play five seasons, instead of five years to play four seasons?
Or seven to play six?
Eight to seven?
“There will be no end to this,” says one director, “until we collectively negotiate.”
