Diego Pavia has sued the NCAA for another year of eligibility. Hokies would have to see him again next year WHEN he gets it.
Trying to fight JUCO counting because JUCO not eligible for NIL.
https://vanderbilt.rivals.com/news/diego-pavia-sues-the-ncaa-for-another...
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
I'm only okay with this if Vandy plays Auburn again. I want Pavia to haunt Freeze's dreams.
This is getting beyond old.
You've had your year in the Sun, dude.
You have Zero skills that will make you an NFL QB.
Accept it and move on with your life. This endless extension of college eligibility needs to stop.
These kids need to meet the real world--you ain't gonna make a lifestyle playing football...go find a real job.
That's exactly why. No hope of NFL career but another year in college could set him up for life with NIL.
I'll drink.
Not because I double posted you but because:
1) I would have posted this if you hadn't.
2) I want to drink.
I like your style. Leg and a beer for me.
And in turn he's costing another player the opportunity to start at QB for an SEC school.
But that's just where we are now. Short term money grab now with no care about what this means for the future. Only a matter of time before the 4 year eligibility standards get dissolved effectively establishing college players for life, and eliminating the reality of college sports for the vast majority of athletes who would normally be able to play.
Who cares? This isn't charity.
lololololol. Nothing says "not charity" like millionaire boosters paying Diego Pavia for everything BUT his "value" for his name and image- which is worth relatively- nothing. The list of things in Nashville that are actually marketable to people is a million entries long before you get to this Rudy QB story. Fact. Pavia is the biggest charity on earth.
You're making a strawman argument. I'm commenting that I don't think Pavia is taking away the opportunity of some "poor kid who has dreams to start at QB in the SEC." You don't like that the money the players get paid isn't actually for Name, Image, Likeness. Which is a legitimate opinion, but it has nothing to do with my point.
Players are clearly being paid to play football, and the courts and state legislatures keep ruling that players do in fact have that right. I don't really see the point in railing about what they "say" players are being paid for. It's just semantics.
As far as boosters, I'm not a fan of "dark money" supporting programs. I'd like to see transparency with salaries, and frankly I'd like to see a salary cap. But since college athletics has no regulatory agency, I'm not sure either will happen.
It's a job. Anyone holding any job is getting in the way of someone else getting to have that job. What a weird argument.
But we aren't talking about some corporate world job. Right now there is a 4 year limit on that position that requires you to move on and allows others to have an opportunity before moving on. What they are pushing for in the inevitable end game is to eliminate that limit, effectively ending that opportunity for the vast majority going forward.
We just haven't seen this happen. How many people would be affected by an extra year of eligibility for JUCO players who were specifically denied NIL money in their JUCO year? Every time something like this happens there's a giant slippery slope argument, fifteen people get a single extra year of playing, and then the system keeps chugging along.
If you don't recognize the end game here is legally challenging the 4 year limits for college athletes, I don't know what to tell you.
I mean if you're going to say JUCO transfers should be able to play 4 years in college, then why should students going for a Masters or PhD not be allowed? Hell, for that matter, why shouldn't any employee of the school be able to play as long as they're with the school?
Comparing Juco transfers to regular students is apples to spaghetti.
And, in case you missed, it, they've changed the red-shirt rules so you can literally play across 5 seasons easily now. That's already on the books. Add in a medical redshirt, and currently you still have that pandemic year messing with things (don't worry, that will be gone soon so you don't have to remember it any longer...)
There's also nothing stopping masters or PHD students from playing, other than, most likely, their athletic ability.
What should the eligibility number be? How long should you be able to play college football? How many years? 10? Take everything into account / juco/injuries/ nil entitlement /pandemics... how many years post high school should you get to play college football? 7? 8?
Why limit it at all? If you're a student and good enough to keep playing, why should you have to quit?
Ok so VTCC A 99 tallies his vote for unlimited eligibility
No, VTCCA99 asked a question. One you didn't answer.
I've answered it before. Many times. You couldn't name one UFL franchise and have never watched it. That's why there should be some fucking semblance of amateurism rules and competitive balance. When you buy G league tickets I'll shut up about it
No, you probably won't.
College football isn't popular because players can only play for four years, it's popular because of regional rivalries. If college football is doomed, it's because of the super conference cash grab diluting the importance of regional rivalries (which, if we're being honest, has been going on for decades). Whinging about people getting a COVID year doesn't move the needle for me.
Also, address my point, don't fucking call me out by name. You are a bully and I, for one, am sick of it. Stop browbeating and attacking people who disagree with you. You make a lot of good points on here, but the whole acerbic know-it-all schtick has worn pretty thin.
If you can't answer a simple question with a simple, well reasoned response, then feel free to just skip hitting "reply" altogether.
I answered you, you didn't like the answer. That Schtik is equally tiresome. Spare me the high ground - you attack me yet that's taboo. I'll answer for the 59th fucking time. Students should not have unlimited eligibility. Why? Because this is not the ufl. Also because 6th year players are bigger stronger and faster than freshman. You give Alabama unlimited eligibility they will never lose a game. And your bullet proof regional sport becomes unwatchable - like every other watered down nfl is.
So, you think that fans will leave the sport if 'eligibility' is not restricted to 4/5 years (the time it takes a typical student to finish a degree at a top ~300 university).
I never said that. I said fans will leave the sport when it's nothing more than the UFL. We are getting there.
Right now you have 5 to play 4. And even in that 5th year you can play 4 games and can be red shirt. Always been able to request the medical redshirt.
Complaining about 4 or 5 guys that are happening currently, forgetting about covid year, and the changing landscape right in front of our eyes is blowing it way out of proportion. And you have to remember, they are only playing because someone gave them a roster spot...the players aren't bullying their way onto a team or taking something away personally from another. They are there for that long because it's provided to them.
Rules like the post you just accurately typed are meaningless of course without enforcement. 5 to play 4 is a fucking joke as I watch hunter Dickinson play for Kansas against duke , a joke
What year is this for Hunter Dickinson suiting up? Is he within the rules to play this season, per the NCAA?
(And I realize now I didn't include the bonus 5th year for transferring to a school post-graduation..)
Dickinson is 5 to play 5... never redshirted- played all of his first year, used his Covid year as the 5th year I Guess
There are always players and their lawyers trying to challenge every limit in college football.
And that's a limited few each year. Everyone makes fun of the NCAA but when an individual challenges the old guard, and wins, they are chastised as well.
The ncaa can allow Cam Rising to play next year. I can call the bullshit out on here as a joke. That's really all this is. Or they can have some semblance of fairness and competitive balance. Don't hold your breath
If he can play next year, then he can play for anyone. Fairness and competitive balance? One kid upsets everything for you?
The NCAA probably has to give up JuCo as taking time away from NCAA eligibility. And that will affect Pavia, but they could still keep the 5 years from start of college in the NCAA so that very few players would actually use this to play longer. This would open the least amount of flood gates.
Is this really any different than a guy that stays in school and continues to get advanced degrees in French watercolor artists circa 642 AD while earning $$ via his school-specific Tik Tok channel?
It is different in that the University's football team provides him with the showcase for his "NIL talents"
If the guy wants to go make the "Diego Pavia QBing" Youtube Channel...more power to him.
Except nobody would watch.
That's the point here..his NIL value is intrinsically tied to the University (and more so the Universities he is competing against). Nobody knew who Pavia was before NMSU beat Auburn in '23 and the casual CFB fan didn't know who he was until Vandy beat Bama.
You're a 5'10 QB with subpar arm strength...you reached beyond your expected peak...now move on with life. Thanks.
How about we let more 18 year olds play and stop artificially inflating the egos of 28 year-olds who can't let it go?
This argument doesn't hit the same when we're talking about... VANDERBILT football?!
Diego Pavia is absolutely bringing notoriety and eyeballs to that historical doormat. He's not the only piece to the puzzle but he's a big one.
Yes, Pavia has clearly brought notoriety and probably a decent amount of money to Vandy.
I'm also betting he is making vastly more NIL @ Vandy than NMSU to correlate to that.
Thats not really the issue at hand here...the real question is do we want 33 year-olds to be playing CFB because they aren't good enough to play in the NFL? I don't...maybe others do.
There are places for guys like Pavia to go exercise their "brand"---CFL, UFL, ect. The problem is there's not nearly as much money there. And that's the Crux of the issue-- these guys want to hang around and suspend their adulthood as "college football players" when the truth of the matter is they simply are not economically viable as professionals.
Well said.
I heard Uncle Rico is still trying to land an NIL deal
Everyone treats every version of this argument like it's a push to remove all eligibility caps from college sports. That's not what's happening. The current system is in shambles because no one felt the need to work towards system that allowed for people generating money to get some of that money. Then acted SHOCKED when the ruling that had clearly been coming for years finally came. Because of that, and the amount of money involved, we're now working through every edge case that exists. The result of this is going to be that he and a (very small) cohort of other folks get an extra year, and whatever restriction exists on JUCO NIL evaporates. Then we'll all move on and forget the name Diego Pavia.
While you are correct that it is tied to the university, that is legally murky. The university and NCAA are not paying him. Preventing some one from making money from outside an activity while they participate in said activity is illegal. But this is not that, this is like how odd it would be if the boy scouts would allow me to do commercials for a car dealerships, in my BSA uniform. But at 18 I had to quit (well transition to a leader or venture) and couldnt wear the uniform any more.
Now (not a lawyer) is this is really a non-compete issue. He is suing the NCAA because they have some semblance of a non-compete clause. The NJCAA, a different organization than the NCAA, allegedly broke they law and did not allow NIL. Now the NCAA says that time spent in the NJCAA counts against time in the NCAA. So that is sort of a non-compete (again not a lawyer). Now non-competes are for employment and so far he is not an employee so this is murky. Volunteers (the closest thing he is ... maybe) follow the same rulings and can't have non-competes (Apr '24 ruling). So the fact that he isn't allow to play for the year he played at another organization has some merit, but that is for companies not amateur athletics. This would be interesting because then amateur organizations couldn't keep ex-pros out. The pros can have that in their contract, but if they flame out of the NFL then they could come back if they have eligibility. Pro golfers could quit the tour and go around to club championships and just whip up on amateurs.
So this is not an attack on length eligibility just yet, but on counting edibility from different organizations.
Diego could secure a high six- or even seven-figure NIL deal from Vanderbilt if he gets an additional year, along with a one-year scholarship to finish his MBA at a prestigious institution. He's setting himself up for a better career start than 99% of college graduates, all while enjoying a final season as a SEC quarterback in one of the best cities to be one.
Yet, you'd prefer to see an 18-year-old freshman, who likely won't even get playtime, take his spot.
Let's be real—this isn't about fairness; you're just hating.
Or he could use his accumulated NIL money to pay for his final year of MBA school...you know, like everyone else does. Or wallow away as a GTA to offset the cost, also like everyone else.
Yeah....he's doing that already...this year.
And that's really the point of contention here. Once these guys playing careers are over, that's what they are...regular people swimming in the same economic pool as everyone else.
But they have people convinced that that is somehow wrong...that they should get to play in "NIL Land" indefinitely because they can run fast or throw a ball well.
Diego: "but I beat Bama and Auburn...both!!"
Boss: "that is fascinating....the report is due on Friday"
No other entitlement on earth compares to 17-24 year old "baller" in the United States. Nothing else in the world compares. Nothing. They are entitled to school, money, food, private jets, medical care, unlimited transfers, TV appearances, not having to attend academic courses, people filming other schools signals for them, multi million dollar apparel deals, not being criticized for performance, etc, etc etc. Name another part of society with that level of entitlement. I'll wait.
I'm out, have a great weekend boomers! Enjoy disapproving of athletes trying to build generational wealth. Weird hill to die on.
They do that in the NFL. Until 6 months ago there were amateurism rules. Again... what other college kid is entitled to generational wealth with no rules or an actual employment contract? none.
It's a valid point, whether you like it or not. Who was anyone to say I don't get to build generational wealth for making Dean's List more than once? The subsidization of the athlete in this country is so far out of whack
It just isn't though. There are BILLIONS of dollars tied up in college sports. There's no outside money tied up in your academic success. There is no parallel here. They're not entitled to anything, but they are getting what the market says they get. There was a chance to control and build that market in a not insane way. That's passed. Somehow all the hate falls on the kid trying to get his bag while he can rather than the idiots who brought us to this point.
Yeah, I had a feeling I might get some pushback on this one. I still think the market is completely out of whack, but it is what it is now.
I don't think any of what I said counts as hating on the kid. And at the time I made that comment, I didn't think anyone in the thread was hating and thought 7LoP was being a bit bad faith.
at the time I made that comment being the key words here.
Not saying you did this - but I consider it 'hating on the kid(s)' when people call college athletes 'entitled' for making a financial decision instead of (or in addition to) an emotional one.
You can be upset with the Conferences and the NCAA for letting external interest ruin the sport you love. You can hate the LSU boosters who are willing to pay millions to players, but refuse to fixing a collapsing library. But, I don't think it's fair to disparage players who trying to maximize their own outcomes in a broken system. BlueBloodU is going to pay whatever players however much they can. If 4-star recruit X takes $100k from BlueBloodU, that recruit isn't hurting anyone. There's no victims.
I recently read It Never Rains in Tiger Stadium, and it was so obvious to me that John Ed is the player that every old school college football fan thinks every player to be. But that hasn't been the reality for decades now... John Ed played at LSU nearly a half century ago.
Well said. People are always going to try and do the best they can for themselves and their families subject to the constraints of the system they're living under. If you don't like the system, blame the system and its architects rather than hatin' on literal teenagers.
Like with most things, advocating that the rules be enforced for everyone isn't "hating on teenagers".
It's OK for everyone to advocate for themselves. When someone hires a lawyer and insist that their situation should be an exception to the established rules, it's fair to debate the issue, particularly when any semblance of rules in a given system is crumbling.
Every rule in college football at some point gets the "what about the children?" test, when in fact professional profits will arrive in high school sports in short enough order. Seems to me every shift SHOULD be scrutinized, and it's not evil to do so.
I think it's less "there should be an exception for our case" and more "we think your rule is illegal and shouldnt exist"
It's certainly fair to debate that.
But it does look like a case of an individual arguing for their own situation out of self-interest.
of course it's an individual arguing for their own situation out of self-interest. because they feel the rules are illegal and unfair to them
Correct. This killed the bowl system outside of the playoffs. That's why bowls are 1/3 full with tarped seats. If the Cotton Bowl is meaningless to Christian McCaffery - its meaningless to me. If the orange bowl is meaningless to all of FSU's good players, it should be meaningless to you and all FSU fans. The players don't want to get hurt before the NFL combine. It's not about the team, it's about them. If the bowls are meaningless and you can get hurt, then so are non-con games. Sit them out too. Or if you are McCaffrey- don't play college football. You might get hurt. I understand players looking out for their self interests and the life changing generational wealth of 50K thousand dollars on average. Just call it what it is.
I mean, bowls were never meant to be alive. They were designed to be exhibitions. For the majority of CFB history, the national champion was decided before bowl invites were even announced, stats from bowls weren't included in player stats. Hell, at one point, the NFL Draft took place before bowl season.
Anyways, this all changed when the Bowl Coalition was established in 1992 (as a way for Bowl games to maximize their revenue).
All this to say, bowls were 'meaningful' for only about 20% of this sport's history
This doesn't bother me. I think the best organizations are able to align their collective goals with the individual goals of their members. This is what college football should strive to do.
"majority of CFB history, the national champion was decided before bowl invites were even announced"- yeah this hasn't been a thing since 1964- most on this board weren't alive. and correct- bowls - and anything else that makes college football unique should go away - the UFL is what we all want /S
this is an honest question that i'm all ears for wrt your answer -- is there a good reason aside from tradition for why the american higher education system should be responsible for athletic development?
the coupling of "professional pipeline" with "higher education" has always been a little weird to me when it comes to athletics
There is no good reason. I agree. The reasons are obvious-look no further than VT. The entire region exploded after Michael Vick - Christiansburg built new hotels, blackburg built new restaurants. The association with winning athletics is a financial one. Boosters literally light money on fire to try to make their school "good". Many have so much money, they aren't even alums and they donate large sums of cash. Why? Go Hokies- which I think is beyond fucked up. It's not reality. Most people in the world don't have millions to throw away on a cotton bowl appearance. But as long as some do, the two are going to be tied at the hip. T Boone Pickens family is not going to donate money to a UFL team in Stillwater. They aren't. So follow the money. Now would I support a true NFL minor league system not affiliated with VT? 100% I would. Let VT field a team of student athletes against others playing by the same rules. Have an NFL minor league separately. I would love that.
I mean, if you assume that the goal of HigherEd is to create well rounded individuals who are particularly knowledgable about a given profession/industry, then does make sense (philosophically that is; clearly, it makes no sense in its current implementation).
How many players have multi-million dollar apparel deals? Five? Ten? Should they not be allowed to?
Anybody can transfer as many times as they want in college. It was only athletes who couldn't before. That doesn't feel like entitlement.
Not sure what to say about how these greedy kids feel entitled to food and medical care, especially when they're injured playing. The nerve of them.
I feel like you've taken something that's real, that there are entitled, spoiled kids who play sports, who grew up their whole lives being told they're special because they can catch a ball, and let it take you to an absolutely crazy place. Because some of them suck, none of them deserve to profit off of a system that has been profiting off of them for years? You take the worst of the worst example and apply it to every kid who's playing. Beyond that, the examples get more and more wild each time. They feel entitled to TV appearances? What does that mean? College kids have been on SC or the radio broadcasts post-game forever. That's not an entitlement, that's a requirement of the job. Who is saying they're immune to criticism? Because *scans thread* that's clearly not true. This world you've built up in your head just doesn't seem to reflect the way things are handled in the real world all that well.
You say this and yet Vandy's QB sues the ncaa and a clear cut established rule for... checks notes- more money. He sues them. You say this and Cam Rising will play his 8th year next year. McCormick for Miami could come back for his 10th season. What should the eligibility number be? And should Tyrod sue to come back and play? Why not?
There are half a million NCAA athletes. You've named three. This isn't a widespread issue. A single player trying to redress/clarify a weird corner of the rules doesn't make it one.
And even aside from that, is it a clear cut rule? The surrounding rules have changed massively over the last five years, if no one has revisited this JUCO rule in the wake of that, is it definitely clear?
The entitlement come from this....
Diego Pavia has played 5 years post High School. He went from a nobody JUCO to low-level D1 to playing at an SEC school and being known by the greater CFB world.
He's clearly cashed in to whatever extent he can this year. Great story, no problem with it.
But now...the writing is on the wall. His career is over and the money is going to dry up. And he's suing to try to artificially extend his career. That's entitlement.
Nobody wants to pay Diego Pavia millions of dollars to play professional football. NOBODY.
Just as much no one is stopping Pavia from continuing his career in the CFL or any other non-NFL league...he just doesn't want to. Entitlement
Yes, the system is broken, yes the "adults in the room" could have actually been proactive to prevent this from becoming the Wild West that it is.
But the solution to a system that is already broken is to let players sue to be granted endless eligibility so there are even less actual rules? I fail to see the logic here....
When does it end then??? We already have former players suing for "NIL reparations." Do we need to establish a fund to pay them until they are 26? 28? 30? Are we going to have them file lawsuits that they have become "accustomed to" NIL? The insanity has to stop at some point.
The problem is that you've already awarded him the extra year before the lawsuit is ruled upon.
And also assume that someone will pay him a hefty amount for next year.
Neither of those is guaranteed.
Also when he first entered post high school football, NIL didn't exist. It's an entirely different landscape that is changing rapidly. In a few years when everyone entered college sports under the NIL age they won't be able to claim what he has in this current suit.
From Athlon Sports in Aug 2024...
The average is skewed high because the BIG deals held by a few. The median number is what shows what the everyday kid, most likely the #17-22 starter on the field are pulling down. In order for these kids to be making the dollars, someone has to pony it up. It's a 2-way street. None of them are robbing the bank for the NIL deals, it's being offered to them. In the situation of the kid making $10k a year, he's not wanting to come back for a 5th or 6th year because of NIL.
Just because someone asks for a large amount doesn't mean they will get it, or are worth it. In a free market they are allowed to make that decision on their own. Someone might pay them $100k, which is most likely more than they would make in the real world first year out, someone might not. But the team that will pay a 6th year kid that $100k most likely isn't pulling a freshman for that (they'll be outbid by a bigger fish) or simply don't have the staff to develop younger talent and have made that "business" decision.
I missed this Athlon piece, but this is fascinating:
I knew the distribution would be skewed and inequitable, but I had no idea what sort of numbers to expect here. Seeing it is kind of eye popping.
The top 10 are over $21mil combined.
If you roughly take 130 teams at 85 players, that averages to $1,900 per player without a single extra dollar.
"Across all levels and positions, college football players make an average of $39,944 per year in NIL revenue"- So let me get this straight, VT hoops 40K times 12 players = 480K. We couldn't come up with that?- less than Lynn Kidd's deal? We had to give it all to football? What a fucking joke.
Football =/= basketball
Ave of ALL players =/= per player in real life
You are right the presence of one key Basketball player is more season defining and important than 1 player on a football team. Therefore by that reasoning BB should get more NIL money.
Across all D1 basketball the average (skewed w the higher payouts) is $65,853 and the median is $3,700.
Since we have 12 median players that's $3,700 x 12 or $44,400 for the team. Give a little plus to portal guys coming in and maybe Poteat as our 'returning star' and we should be to NIL this team with $100K. Pedulla, Collins and Nickel were too expensive to keep under the budget, so gone for the bigger bag.
You pivot so seamlessly mid rant that I'm not sure even you noticed it. He's suing to try and extend his career by one year. Not endlessly. You don't get to just assume the second because of the first. It's a weird example of a single player who went from one situation to another at a time where it mattered that he did because the whole system got shaken. Doesn't seem like a bellwether for the whole country, definitely not a path that other players have easy access to.
The other side of this is that he's not sitting and pouting about how the world isn't fair, he's going to the system that we have established in this country for validating rights. If the courts decide he doesn't get another year, then he doesn't. If they decide he does, then he was, by definition, entitled to another season. I suppose that is a definition of entitlement, but I don't think that's what you mean by it.
So...in the legal word there is a concept called precedent.
So if Pavia gets an extra year pretty much "just because" then so does every other player who's ever played at JUCO level.
And why stop at one...if you played 2 years of JUCO..why don't you get 2 years of eligibility??
The guy has used up all his eligibility. Its gone. He's done well for himself, no one should feel sorry for him and he deserves nothing additional. This isn't a difficult concept...I don't know why we're making it one.
Because some are assuming that the extra year will automatically be granted as a forgone conclusion without seeing the trial or any of the information presented.
The precedent will run out shortly because those in the JUCO system now entered under NIL rules. Pavia is in the transition of entering prior to and now playing D1 with the rules in effect. Once NIL has been around for a bit, nobody can claim what he is because it won't exist.
Not any one that played Juco, anyone that started in JuCo. If you start in the NCAA then your 5 year clock starts, but if you start in JuCo then it's hard to say that those years should count against the NCAA eligibility unless there is some odd contractual agreement between the NCAA and the NJCAA
Conceptually what is the difference between someone who starts at JUCO or someone who starts D1 and has to go to JUCO?
If JUCO truly " limits NIL potential" as is apparently the basis for this lawsuit...doesn't that apply to everyone in JUCO....?? That's the slippery slope here.
Never mind the complete flimsiness of the argument. First off, there are no rules that I can find anywhere that says JUCo players cannot receive NIL. They're simply isn't any interest or impetus to provide NIL money at that level.
Secondly, there's almost always a reason a player ends up at the JUCO level...grades, talent, off-field issues, ect. In Pavia's case, the guy simply was not a D1 level athlete out of high school. No one was interested. No one at all. The limit to his NIL potential was his own ability and nothing more.
And the courts to-date have been heavily favorable to players in anything vs. the NCAA. Paraphrasing here, but the judge in the House vs. NCAA case said something along the lines of she "hesitates to make any decision that doesn't support the players." Which seems like a very odd statement from someone who supposedly should be making decisions based on the facts and legal merits
So let's say Pavia wins:
1. Doesn't he then get 2 years additional years of eligiblilty?
2. It's hard to imagine that the same strandard wouldn't be applied to all JUCO players-- anything otherwise would be capricious
3. What's to stop programs like Auburn and Alabama from "stashing" players at the JUCO level for 2 years, knowing their eligibility won't be effected
The NCAA has fucked up alot of things, but their worst decision ever was giving a "free" eligibility year for Covid. It's fucked up the rules for an 8 year period. The logical and sane ruling would have been to treat it like a redshirt year- done. If you play, you play- if you don't it's your redshirt year. But that would make too much sense. In addition, when you abandon the simple 5 years post HS graduation to play 4 years, you have situations like that. In America it's a national travesty if a kid can't play college football for 7 years, so we must waiver everything. 5 to play 4- strictly enforced - solves all of these issues. JUCO, injuries, fuck all of that- 5 years post HS graduation, you are done. Get a job. Let a freshman have a scholarship and get HIS chance to live the same dream.
This is a gross mischaracterization of what was said, as well as the general challenges the judge is facing.
As negotiations have been going back and forth between House (players) and NCAA, the NCAA proposed the rule that any financial support from boosters must serve a "valid business purpose." Judge Wilken pointed out a variety of issues with this, including:
The first bullet point really above hits on the challenge Judge Wilken is facing - the current anti trust laws are designed to prevent exactly what the NCAA does/wants to do to athletes (artificially limiting compensation). If the NCAA believes that they need special rules, that has to come from congress (in the form of an Anti-trust exemption, similar to what the NFL, MLB, etc have), not the courts. So Judge Wilken is being pro-player because that's how the current laws are designed, and she is 1000% "making decisions based on the facts and legal merits."
So the difference in my mind is that the NCAA can limit your elligibility, they can say you have 5 years to play and that starts when you start when you sign your LOI. Many organizations limit time in them and it would really mess up a lot of things if you couldn't set a time limit.
Now if you start with the NJCAA, it's tough to say the NCAA can limit your time their as that is a different organization. That to me has to be the argument. The NCAA didn't limit anyone's ability to make money while playing in the NCAA, but they limited Pavia's ability to play in the NCAA to less time that what is normal.
Wasn't it Pavia's decision to play JUCO under the rules that were in place?
when NIL didn't exist...
Yes, but like I said before, not a lawyer, there isn't such a thing as a non compete, so using time spent in another organization would to my idiot self be a non-compete issue
"So if Pavia gets an extra year pretty much "just because" yeah this ship has already sailed.
Man. We go from some aggressively snarky nonsense about the legal world to the deep analysis of "pretty much "just because"" quickly there, huh?
His argument is that he was denied an opportunity to make money because the rules changed at different times across different levels of football. So the precedent that's being set ends once those rules are normalized. FWIW, the idea that he was denied the opportunity to profit off his name, image and likeness while at a junior college seems kinda silly. I'm just saying that the pearl clutching about infinite eligibility every time something like this comes up gets tiring.
Also, the judge didn't grant his request for a TRO granting him immediate eligibility for next year. Not over, but probably not a great sign.
You know, you've sort of changed my mind in this particular case.
While still don't believe that your 'typical' player who is selecting a school based on compensation, or is transferring to increase compensation is by definition entitled, I do see how Pavia suing to get an extra year of eligibility is 'artificially extending his career.'
I still don't like calling him 'entitled', but it is aggressively opportunistic.
That's kind of my thought on this...if Vanderbilt thought it had an 18 year old QB coming in that would replace Pavia they would do it. If the coaches have indicated he is the best they have and want him back, I can't blame anyone for taking that bag. The comments about packing it in, paying for it by himself or going the GTA route are idealistic bullshit. You get offered the chance to bank hundreds of thousands or possibly million plus as a 24 year old versus getting squat you take it 100 times out of 100. Life isn't fair, and few people get an option like that. If the law let's him do it then do it. Just because a year ago, five years, ten years they couldn't, right now they can. Hate the game, not the player.
He's 23.
Yep- its 100% different. Pavia has his fucking degree... he's pursuing endless football, not an education. That's the difference.
He's working on his MBA at Vandy, needs another year to finish.
I'm not even sure why eligibility is a thing anymore. It makes sense for amateur sports, but why does it matter now that college football players are professionals?
Pavia could probably make $2 million next year on the market playing college football, or zero if he's not eligible. I hope he wins his suit, even if VT does have to play him again next season.
Yeah this is where I'm at. Or as long as you're in school you can play. Phd? Eligible. Law school? Eligible. Med school eligible. New masters degree every year or two? Eligible.
So where does it end? Should Pavia be allowed 10 years to play? Put a number on it- what is the rule/lawsuit threshold now? What rule can you put in place in 2024 and not be sued? Anything? Why don't former NFL players sue to come back to college? People on this board would support that sadly. Fuck all of this. You guys mocked me for laughing at people pretending there are eligibility rules 2 years ago. This fucking prick is arguing that JUCO doesn't count- when its ALWAYS counted as playing post high school. Fuck this guy. If you are going to re-write the 100 year old rules for him, I want Tyrod at QB for the hokies next year. why the fuck not? He should sue for another year- because playing d1 football doesn't count. The same thing Pavia is suing for. Hey - yeah I played JUCO but for ME that doesn't count. Fuck this guy. Go get a job.
I know this is tongue in cheek but can you imagine tyrod suddenly starting at qb next year? Sign me the fuck up
Uh, I'm pretty sure Michael Vick has 2-3 years of eligibility left. I'll take him, gray hairs and all.
Only a matter of time until anyone can play CFB without an anti trust exemption.
Without it Bryce Young will be Bama's QB in 2027.
Collective bargaining plz
This is not far feteched. It's not sadly... because no other industry is like college football. No company, no business deals with this fucking nonsense.
when he wins, will he even play for vanderbilt next year?
If we can afford him, would you take him? I don't know if he's better than Drones, but I think VT could win with him.
Yes. Hopefully we keep Drones next year, but I would trade him for Pavia just like I would've traded him for Nuss last off-season.
Absolutely.
Maybe him and Tim Beck want to transfer here lol
Jk, i too am getting annoyed with the never ending eligibility appeals.
I see you are coming to the dark side. lol. ANy normal person is sick of this fucking bullshit
I mean, I'm 100% all for paying players. I think the transfer portal stuff could/should be limited a bit more than it is today (but not eliminated). The never ending eligibility was fine at first, but now it's just taking an opportunity away from a high school recruit.
What does another year get him? Unless he transfers to a big name school with deep pockets so he can make a 7-figure NIL deal there's nothing to gain. He's done everything he can do to proven he's capable of being drafted.
He isn't getting drafted so if this doesn't work, next year he is out of football or trying for the CFL or something. Definitely way more money to be made by one more year at an SEC school then any of the other non-NFL leagues.
I'm not a draft expert, but he's taken down some really good opponents this year, and outplayed Milroe in their head-to-head tilt. Now I'm not advocating that he's a first round pick, but this kid has Vanderbilt bowl eligible and has been resilient AF on the field. Why wouldn't a team in need a developmental backup take him?
5'10 and scrappy can work in college but not much in the NFL
Sure it can...if you convert to wide receiver, play for Beel Beelichick, and have Tom Brady under center.
Screw him. It's not the NCAAs fault he wasn't good enough for teams to give a crap for two years
He should get nothing and like it, but that's generally not how the NCAA rolls.
Aight, I think this every time I open the Forum.
I can't be the only one that keeps reading his name as Pavlova.
Endamawie
https://www.on3.com/nil/news/vanderbilt-quarterback-diego-pavia-temproary-restraining-order-against-ncaa-denied/
Update....
TRO..denied. Doesn't mean case is entirely over, but slows process and allows NCAA to counter.
Common sense prevails (at least for now).
Also, if Diego wants to maximize his NIL take-home, utilizing it on Billable Hours would seem antithetical to that.
I would assume that Pavia is paying zero dollars for his attorney, at least at this time. This seems like something a a Vandy law school alum would take on "pro bono" or a big-time donor would pay the legal fees. There may also be a conditional payment that Pavia would have to make if they win and he gets NIL payment for next season.
Sure, I wouldn't be surprised at all if this is a pro bono scenario and was partly kidding.
I did find it difficult to understand how Pavia could make any reasonable argument to require a TRO as he has known about his eligibility expiring since..well he entered college..and chose to make this a "pressing issue" a few weeks before the end of his final year.
The judge noted this in his decision. I still think its 50/50 whether he gets granted an Injunction despite what I think is a very weak argument.
cats out the bag now. it's the age of money. let him play and get that NIL
Pavia received his injunction today clearing the way to another year.
Awesome. But not surprising in the least.
Great for the sport. Pretty much opens the gate to extend eligibility really for any reason.
Why do you deserve more eligibility?
Because I want it and I'm not a nearly good enough football player to make the NFL.
I have so much "value" that 0/32 NFL teams have any interest in me. I could go play in the UFL but no one actually gives a shit about minor league football...its almost like the name on the front of the Jersey is a huge part of any players actual "value". But acknowlegeing that would poke holes in the fallacy that is NIL. If this all wasn't so incredibly illogical and utterly asisnine, it might actually be funny.
Edit: yes, this is a Preliminary Injunction and not a final ruling but for all intents, this is over. The NCAA hasn't challenged PI in the past and probably won't this time.
Any low 3 star would be stupid not to go JUCO. Develop for a couple more years then start your eligibility "clock".
Do I agree he needs or deserves another year of eligibility? No.
Do I fault him for pushing for it? Also no.
He was grounded enough to admit to himself there is very little interest in a poor man's Tim Tebow in the NFL. But Vandy will happily pay him to play there. Kid made a smart business decision. Regardless of how I feel about the whole thing. I ain't mad at him for making the best play for his finances.
Blame him personally??
No, not really. Because if it wasn't him, it would just be someone else.
But I think we all have to agree that the premise here is totally illogical.
Essentially, Diego wasn't good enough to even get a sniff as a D1 prospect out of highschool. Because of that, he apparently deserves to extend his eligibility because his own lack of talent/size/ability "limited his NIL potential."
He deserves plenty of credit for the effort and work he has done to make himself a D1 QB. He has been rewarded for that-by Vanderbilt. He has options to continue to play football (probably UFL or Canada) so denying him further eligibility does not limit his ability to continue to make money (albeit likely less) playing football.
At some point basic rationale and logic has to win out here....but it just never does... and that's what's so frustrating.
Meanwhile, judgments like this continue to open Pandora's Box even further to situations like I posted about in other parts of this thread.
"But I think we all have to agree that the premise here is totally illogical."- Of course it is illogical and 100% bullshit - IFFFFFFFF you are an alleged amateur sport aligned to higher education universities. No brainer it makes no sense. But you see, today- thanks to the machine fueled by ESPN and fans with a mentality that ballers are entitled to millions of dollars - you don't have that. You don't have any rules anymore. If you do, like this case, you get sued. Pavia saw this blood in the water. He woke up one day and said... there are no fucking amateurism rules anymore and we are pro's- with more freedom and movement than fucking NFL players- so fuck it. The only thing missing yet is the NCAA (LMFAO) actually denying a waiver and the kids playing anyway. Why not? Pavia gets denied, and starts game 1 for Vandy. Who is going to stop him? The NCAA? nope they will review the case in 2 years when Pavia is ling gone, and they will accept Vandy's self imposed one year bowl ban when they are 4-8. Is the SEC going to police it? lolololol. Is Vandy going to have to forfeit games? no. Nobody that matters is interested in amateurism, competitive balance, scholarship conditions, making progress toward a degree from said school. Nobody of importance. And the idiot fans/public who cry for these ballers not getting their bag fuels the entitlement. I remember this shit started with Jeremy Bloom who called a press conference to state that beacuse he signed a letter of intent to play football at colorado, he couldn't accept endorsement money from his mogul skiing career. Stop right fucking there. Yes Jeremy, that is true... so shut the fuck up or not sign a scholarship for football or go to the fucking NFL... but you nailed it asshole... there are rules to play college football... well now there are none. none. If you make one, you get sued. The sport is dead in terms of being associated with higher education.
Basic rationale and logic in college football? In 2024? 🤣 Happy hunting.
For anyone who doesn't see why and how this maybe isn't a great thing...there's this...
One of the major feaured players of Last Chance U season 1 was De'andre Johnson.
Deandre was a former starting QB candidate at FSU who was kicked out of school after he decided it would be a good idea to punch a woman in the face at a Tallahassee bar. This was his path to JUCO.
This ruling would allow people like Deandre to extend his playing career ostensibly for assaulting a Co-Ed. Fuckin fantastic lesson for society there.
There are generally reasons why players start at JUCO--grades, behavior issues, or that they simply aren't good enough to play at a D1 level. In ANY of these scenarios...they don't have any NIL potential...the JUCO isn't limiting them--they are the limit.
This is a completely bullshit premise from the start.
This is the problem with the "players are exploited", pro-NIL and unlimited transfer crowd--they love to ignore the potential long-term consequences of a system with zero regulation.
I mean let's be honest the end game here is to eliminate eligibility limits, and those pushing for it will use any and every case possible to push it rapidly down that path
Yep...there is a vociferous group on Reddit /CFB that is 100% players should get to play until no one is willing to pay them anymore.
Can't wait.
Call me an Old Man Yelling at clouds, but I really enjoyed this: watching 18-22 year-olds play football in reasonably sized conferences that featured schools with similar characteristics and natural rivalries. And along the way, a percentage of them received educations that had real, long-term value.
The next obvious domino to fall here is that: academics. If JUCO players who couldn't qualify academically don't expend any eligibility anymore, then how is it fair to require other athletes to maintain a GPA or to go to school at all? So now, instead of a degree, the vast majority of players will be left with whatever remnants of NIL they have left. And I get to watch the scintillating Match-up between Rutgers and their 28 y/o QB and UCLA and their mid-30's DT.
I call that a shit trade.
This circus is just getting started. We have not yet imagined all the shenanigans that are in the works with all this free money getting thrown around.
Just a few short years ago some of us were getting shit on for pointing out this stuff was going to happen.
Remember, this is Name Image Likeness. This is supposed to be allowing guys to get some pittance for allowing video games to use their representation in football games and so they can make some beer money for doing a local used car lot commercial or schools to sell their jersey to adoring fans.
We were told it was not going to be the open 6 figure bidding for marginal to star players that it has become.
I know how to fix it. Just bring private equity in. I mean with all that money, everyone will be getting paid much better. And we all know - some from personal experience - how private equity involvement makes everything better.
I trust I don't need to add the sarcasm symbol.
I know this is sarcasm, but it is a very real possibility IMHO.
Especially for the Big12 and ACC which are already at a huge financial disadvantage to the P2.
Nothing like a little Saudi Oil money to close that gap quickly. The PIF in Saudi has made it clear that they are interested in Sports Teams and Markets.
Pretty soon, we'll have NFL retreads coming back to College, transferring mid-season, and every other game on a different streaming service so you have to maintain 9 subscriptions just to watch a seasons worth of games. All so we can help the Royal Prince buy his 12th SuperYacht.
Super. NIL was such a great idea. Nice job guys.
Big10 and SEC were already in discussions with private equity. It ended with push back by both conferences.
RedBird Capital and Weatherford Capital, who have formed Collegiate Athletic Solutions (CAS) which was trying to get the Super League proposal through made pitches to both conferences.
My very last hope is that before this turns into fucking LIV golf, that university presidents use the power of the front of the jersey to bring some sanity back to college football. The president of Alabama has that power. Fuck Greg Sankey who is just a whore for ESPN. Fuck him. He doesn't run a major university. There are people with more power than him that can pull the plug on their school and the state tax payers getting in bed with the fucking saudis for fuck sake. It will take the presidents to fix this. The NCAA is a myth, a hologram, AI at this point. Fake.
It's whatever the lawyers can ask for an get in a court of law, because there's no entity willing to step up to create a fair framework to operate in. The NCAA doubled-down on the amateurism concept for so long, sticking their head into the sand upon any mention of change, that it took legal avenues to effect any real change. The only problem is that now the lawyers are leading the charge, and any semblance of normality is ripped to shreds.
Congress has been asked to provide the NCAA an Antitrust Exemption for over three years now and has refused to move on it. About 80% of the court cases brought against the NCAA have revolved around antitrust issues. NCAA can't set up the framework to pay players directly until it's in place. As for extended eligibility that could be limited by antitrust, contracts but the longer it goes and the more precedents that are established, the harder it will be to put those rails in place.
Antitrust exemptions exist for some classes of industries to get around labor laws that are intended to prevent exploitation by owner/worker power dynamics, but they are not generally granted unless there are some guardrails that exist to prevent that exploitation. The main one that exists in professional sports is collective bargaining. Both the owner and the worker organizations collectively agree on the framework within which the sport will operate, and that collective agreement is what is used in lieu of labor laws to prevent exploitation.
What that antitrust exemption also does is to assist setting up a system that allows for a level competitive playing field, the elements of which would normally be against labor laws (e.g. delayed free agency vs restraint of trade), so I'm not arguing against the antitrust exemption. We're seeing right now what the effect of the imposition of labor laws on the competitive balance in college football, because the nominal overarching organization (the NCAA) has ceded leadership of the game to the lawyers that are actively working, using labor laws, to tear the game apart.
Before any antitrust exemption is going to be granted (or should be, for that matter), you're going to have to have some organization that represents the totality of the players, in order to create the collective bargaining needed to create a stable vision of college football. Historically, those have grown up organically for the professional leagues. (A great read on that is Lords of the Realm by Paul Helyar, which details the labor history of MLB from its beginnings, through the founding of the MLBPA, up to the middle of the 1994 strike.) But they haven't found traction in college sports, mainly due to the transitory nature of the player base. But it's something that's going to be necessary, if there's to be any antitrust exemption, and eventual levelling of the playing field.
Lords of the Realm, by Paul Helyar
Thugs, felons, women beaters should be banned from football and probably should be in prison. Yes, I 100% agree. But if you are a school president, AD, and head coach that signs off on giving this kid a scholarship and salary- you are a bigger part of the problem. This scenario could be solved simply by- drumroll.... not admitting felon/woman abusers into your school. We used to be a civilized society. Attending a major university and playing football is not a birthright. It's a privilege.
As long as the player is good enough, things will be overlooked.
As long as human pieces of excrement like Urban Meyer are in the game, blatant conduct issues will be ignored for the sake of winning.
And since the collective attitude of the College Football world at the current time seems to be "Fuck it, get paid," I have little confidence that anyone is going to step in and do the right thing.
And even one AD or President is willing to stand on principle, there will be 10 or 15 behind them that will be happy to brush things under the rug for a chance to win more.
There was video evidence of Ray Rice beating the shit out of his girlfriend. Steve Bishotti could have cut him, suspended him - even with pay, traded him for a conditional 7th round pick. But nope. He had to be forced to take action. Many many many sad examples. The owners have zero morals
either that, or their moral compasses revolve around the almighty dollar
Correct- Ray Lewis - at minimum was inside the same limo where someone was stabbed to death.... at the NFL's biggest event no less... Leonard Little had a BAC twice the legal limit and plowed over an innocent woman. Both played many years in the NFL after that. I mean if being associated/responsible for murder/manslaughter isn't the line, there is no line.
The Ray Lewis situation is why I will never ever cheer and for the most part despise the organization of the Ravens. They did nothing to discipline him.
One more step towards college football being a career.
Next step is for guys who did not pan out in the NFL to be allowed to come back and play in college again.
"It's only fair..."
Doesn't this decision also effectively kill off FCS, D2 and D3 football? Why would someone go to an NCAA run lower division if it is going to start your eligibility clock?
Un. Fucking. Watchable.
College football just ain't fun anymore folks. I'm sorry, but I just can't do it. There are lots of reasons. It's not just nil. But there are so many different issues that are all driven by the same root cause. Greed. Unchecked greed. It has effectively made this sport unrecognizable in a span of a few short years.
I love this community. I'm not going away. I will continue to watch Hokies when it's convenient. Otherwise I'm completely checked out on cfb. It just isn't the same sport I fell in love with my freshman year.
This is essentially where I'm at
This is 100% where I'm at right now.
Similar with me. I plan to watch the following and nothing else:
Iowa State game - but will leave quickly if they are not doing well
Baylor game - but will leave quickly if they are not doing well
VT game -but will (probably) leave quickly if they are not doing well
If I see someone is destroying Penn State, I'll probably watch that as seeing Penn State lose is about as good as it gets for me at this point.
I am in the same boat, except I will not watch anything. It's now the NFL minor leagues and I have no interest in that.
Meanwhile Landers Nolley, Ty Outlaw, Brock Hoffman.. fuck you guys, we are actually going to TAKE eligibility from you. Fucking farce what this is now.
It's only a matter of time until some recently graduated players that are still in playing shape file suit to retroactively add eligibility back
zero doubt. they have already sued for retroactive NIL- as fucked up as that is- and WON.
The only reason I give this longer than a week is because I'm sure most lawyers and judges won't be working much, if at all, next week with the holidays.
And also because they have to comb through the player pool to find the most extreme edge case that they can use to get sweeping change for the entire infrastructure
Meh... grown men still jerk off to high school recruits in football and basketball. The "5 stars" are still lusted over and obsessed with from grown men in Alabama and Texas. that isn't going anywhere. There is a list of "generational" prospects that went to Kentucky that suck in the pros, that we still talk about.
grown men still jerk off to high school recruits
I think this is a Penn State joke! /s
I think this is the bigger point...even for the players have been exploited crowd.
This isn't helping create opportunities, its taking them away from others.
Its taking a Roster spot from an 18 year-old so a 26 year-old can continue prolonged adolescence as a "college football player" rather than deal with the fact that football is a forever job for 0.001% of the population and they're in the other 99.999%.
.
taking a Roster spot from an 18 year-old so a 26 year-old can continue prolonged adolescence
BYU losing their advantage
so Schick has 2 years of eligibility remaining
Will be troubling if we can't find a better guy to unseat him sometime in those 2 years.
OK, so I was talking to someone about this today, and was informed that JUCO is a completely different organization from the NCAA. Similarly, if you go to a military prep school, then transfer to army or Navy, I guess that doesn't impact your eligibility either?
So with that being said, I kind of understand the decision here.
NAIA is also separate
Military Prep schools (like Hargrave and Fork Union) never counted as eligibility, and players could sign with any school with all their eligibilty in tow; not just service academies. This seemed to be the route of choice for hopeful recruits with either grade or development weaknesses, and parents who could front the money for tuition.
There are 2 organizations that comprise junior colleges in the US- the NJCAA which make up ~2/3 of junior colleges in 49 states. The rest are the California JCs (CCCAA). (Chad Johnson and Steve Smith Sr famously played together at Santa Monica college in 1997).
The Prep school pipeline, which primarily ran through the commonwealth, dried up due to regulations about a decade ago. Similarly, Junior Colleges have been losing their luster since the advent of the transfer portal.
I imagine this will reignite interest in the JUCo pipeline. That's great news for prospects on a budget.
Unfortunately, Virginia Tech and UVa were more affected by the prep school pipeline than anybody in the country. This doesn't help us out at all with that.
Saw someone post a hypothetical 16 year college football career.
Juco: play 2, redshirt, medical redshirt
NAIA: play 4, redshirt, medical redshirt
NCAA: play 4, redshirt, medical redshirt
He'd be ready to retire with full benefits by the time he finishes his college playing days 😂