A federal court has barred the NCAA from enforcing its four-year rule against Vandy QB Diego Pavia for the 2025 season. The immediate effect is minimal, because Pavia only sought relief for himself, not a class. But the logic of the ruling applies NCAA-wide.
In brief, Pavia argued it violates antitrust laws for the NCAA to count time spent at non-member institutions (in Pavia’s case, two years of juco) against the four years a player can be eligible for NCAA competition. The court agreed for purposes of a preliminary injunction that will apply to the 2025 season while the parties litigate the merits in full.
I think it’s funny that the NCAA has a rule to say that games played with an ineligible player deemed eligible by court injunction can retroactively be vacated if the injunction is overturned, and that the judge also granted an injunction against that.
I think this could cut both ways for the MAC (good and bad). Sure, you’ll get some players that want to spend time in JUCO rather than the MAC and look to transfer up. But you will also have a whole lot of players that play 2, 3, hell even 4 years at JUCO and want to continue playing football that will be perfect MAC players that wouldn’t have sniffed Div I ball as 19 year olds.
The real impact of this ruling would be felt in basketball where JUCO is a much bigger deal. Imagine if players could play 4 years of JUCO ball and then move up to NCAA for 4 more years.
I agree with the author this is the obvious next step. Someone is going to sue and say there should be no limit on number of years of eligibility.
In Wednesday’s ruling, the court shot down all of the NCAA’s arguments for its rules around eligibility. Such rules, the NCAA contends, preserve the character and uniqueness of college, create open opportunities for future athletes, and prevent age and experience disparities among athletes.
The Court “is not persuaded,” the judge wrote. The arguments “fall flat.”
There are now millions of reasons for athletes to remain in college as long as possible.
The next court case is invariably right around the corner. Instead of receiving five years to play four seasons, why isn’t it six years to play five?
Given all the rulings and the general direction, if Aaron Rodgers sued and said he wanted to go play a farewell tour at Cal next year, I’m not certain how the ruling would go, but I think there’d be a real possibly he’d win and be allowed to play as a Hall of Fame NFL QB.
Obviously the more realistic scenario (and more sympathetic plaintiff) would be someone who washed out of the NFL wanting to go back and make millions playing in the SEC/Big 10 (think someone like Bryce Young or even more sympathetic, a late round draft pick who only made NFL minimum for a year)
Maybe that would actually help us and every other school in our situ. Suddenly our talent pool grows exponentially. The big guys can’t keep everyone unless there become no roster limits…
And on cue: Syracuse’s Kyle McCord has started the process to argue for a 5th year of eligibility. He is going through the ncaa appeal process right now, but could be the case that eventually ends the 4 seasons in 5 years rule if he takes it to court.
There hasn’t been a court willing to side with the ncaa on pretty much anything eligibility limiting.
Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. In this case however most of the coaches, admin, TV execs, etc. who benefitted from the system for years are old and wealthy enough now that they won’t face any real consequences, and that sucks.
The next shoe likely to drop here with a decision expected next week in the Rutgers Jett Elad case.
To summarize, the Pavia decision last year said juco years don’t count against your 4 years of NCAA play, but you still had 5 years to play 4 (with Covid year not counting still).
This case expected to have a decision next week seeks to overturn the 5 year limit. In this specific case involving a former Bobcat, he has played 3 years at NCAA level (again, ignoring Covid year), but his 5 year window has expired:
2019: Ohio (redshirt)
2020: Ohio (Covid, doesn’t count for both 4 or 5 year limit)
2021: Ohio
2022: Juco (Pavia decision says this doesn’t count towards 4 year limit but does towards 5)
2023: UNLV
2024: UNLV
He is trying to play at Rutgers in 2025. Once this shoe drops, the next frontier will surely be the 4 year limit for number of years you can play.
Edit: Correction, the action next week would be an injunction allowing him to play, not the decision, but would the NCAA then allow a waiver for all in similar circumstances like they did Pavia?
Correct, Pavia at Vandy opened the door for juco years not counting as a year of play (the 4 year limit). This new case is Jett Elad who played at OU and UNLV and now wants to play at Rutgers.
The Pavia decision clears Elad of the 4 years of NCAA play limit (as his juco year no longer counts now), but he is still being stopped because of the 5 year limit for those 4 years to occur. That is what is hanging in the balance now.
And to me, this is actually a much more impactful decision than Pavia’s case, as Pavia really just relates to juco.
If the 5 year rule is eliminated, you could in theory have a kid redshirt, play a year, redshirt another year, play a year, red shirt another year, then play his last two years.
You could have players on the team for 6, 7, or 8 years as long as they only play in games in 4 years (mostly this would happen due to injuries).