Diego Pavia Court Rules on Another Potentially Hard Blow for NCAA: ‘This Won’t End Until We Bargain Collectively’ (Video)

Last season at Vanderbilt, Diego Pavia killed Alabama.

Last year while at New Mexico State he beat Auburn.

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 related to eligibility seasons.

Pavie, exhausted by eligibility after playing two years of junior college and three years in Division I, is challenging the NCAA policy that counts a stint at junior college on a player’s eligibility clock. NCAA athletes have five calendar years to play four seasons. College counts as one season of play – a policy at the heart of the matter.

The court, at least temporarily, agreed with the quarterback: Junior college, which is not an NCAA institution, should not count toward a player’s NCAA eligibility. According to the court’s ruling, the NCAA cannot enforce its eligibility rules that would normally prohibit Pavia from playing an additional season of Division I football.

He is, for now, eligible to play next season.

The NCAA can still appeal the decision, but the association’s chances are slim based on track record alone. And yes, the judge, perhaps the same one, could rule in favor of the NCAA once the trial is over. Given the preliminary ruling, not only is this unlikely, but by the end of the trial, Pavie will have finished his season next fall.

Wednesday’s decision constitutes a historic moment. Not only does this clear the way for all junior college players to gain an additional year of eligibility, but it could also give rise to future legal challenges to the NCAA’s traditional eligibility policy, even for non-junior varsity athletes – the five-year period to play four years. ruler.

The 30,000 foot view of it all? It’s another court ruling that cripples a longstanding NCAA policy — at the very least, the third major court ruling in the last year barring the association from enforcing a rule.

A West Virginia field allowed athletes transferring a second time or more to play immediately. A ruling by a federal court in Tennessee rendered the NCAA’s interim NIL policy virtually moot, allowing boosters and booster-led collectives to negotiate with athletes before registering.

And, now, the eligibility seasons are about to be cut or changed.

“My lawyers are legit,” Pavie tweeted in a message posted Wednesday evening. “Ryan and Sal, I appreciate you all! God is good, all the time.

In college athletics, Wednesday’s decision sparked somewhat panicked reactions as administrators and coaches sought to understand the decision.

Do all former junior college players now have their eligibility expanded?

The NCAA has not provided clarity on the decision because it concerns other players in a similar position to Pavie. At least for now, there are no changes to eligibility rules that would affect all athletes. The order only applies to Pavia — for now.

“Can all our college guys come back? » asked a sports administrator. “Well, they have a pretty good argument.”

In other court cases in the past, the NCAA ultimately provided some sort of clarity. In the West Virginia ruling, the association fundamentally changed its transfer rules to comply with the court’s ruling. In the Tennessee NIL case, the organization essentially stopped enforcing or investigating name, image and likeness cases.

Pavie’s attorney, Ryan Downton of the Texas Trial Group, said the hope is the ruling “may open the door for other former junior college players to get an additional year of eligibility without filing a lawsuit.” .

And what about Pavia’s future at Vanderbilt?

“While the Court’s decision does not limit where Diego can play next season, he likes Vanderbilt and Coach Lea,” Downton said in the release. “As long as he receives a proper NIL package, I expect to see him in the black and gold for as long as he has remaining eligibility and Jerry Kill and Tim Beck training in Nashville.”

The NCAA released a statement expressing its disappointment with the court’s decision 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 makes clear that a partnership with Congress is essential to ensuring stability for the future of all college athletes,” the statement said.

Note the mention of Congress. It’s not by chance.

For five years now, the NCAA has steadily lobbied Congress for help, first for NIL safeguards, then to prevent athletes from being employed, and most recently to codify the settlement case of the House in order to give it the necessary protection to enforce the rules.

Some actually believe that the Pavie decision is helpful to Congressional action.

“On the positive side for the NCAA, this could strengthen its case for Congressional intervention,” said Gabe Feldman, a sports law professor at Tulane familiar with NCAA affairs.

He’s right. It’s one thing for courts to target the NCAA’s rules – restrictive and punitive – regarding athlete transfers and compensation.

Now they’re attacking, among other things, NCAA rules regarding eligibility?

“The NCAA is in an antitrust vortex,” Feldman said.

In its ruling Wednesday, the court rejected all arguments made by the NCAA in favor of its eligibility rules. Such rules, the NCAA asserts, preserve the character and uniqueness of the university, create open opportunities for future athletes, and prevent disparities in age and experience among athletes.

The Court “is not convinced,” the judge wrote. The arguments “fall flat.”

Money is at the center of Pavie’s argument. He is expected to earn at least $1 million next year in college, he says in the filing. Starting in July, schools are allowed to share revenue directly with athletes under the House antitrust rule. This paves the way for millions of dollars – up to $20.5 million per year per school – to be shared with athletes in a giant leap as major college sports move from a model of amateurism to a professionalized concept.

This is a good reason for athletes – especially undrafted players – to stay in college as long as they can. Can you get $300,000 salary in the Canadian Football League? Because that’s how much a Power School football team’s starters will likely make next fall.

Among football’s elite powers, their star players could command salaries in excess of $500,000 and highly touted quarterbacks are in the seven figures.

There are now millions of reasons why athletes stay in college as long as possible.

The next trial is invariably around the corner. Instead of getting five years to play four seasons, why not get six years to play five?

Or seven to play six?

Eight to play seven?

“This will not end,” said one administrator, “until we bargain collectively.” »