Diego Pavia granted another year of eligibility

#26
#26
LittleCat said:
Even more of a negative for high schoolers. Why would a team take a chance on a lower rated high schooler that they know will take time to develop when they can go get a 1 or 2 year juco who still has 4 years of eligibility?
Click to expand...
You like a kid and you take them WHEN they’re first available. More a crapshoot when their stock goes up.
 
#28
#28
LittleCat said:
Even more of a negative for high schoolers. Why would a team take a chance on a lower rated high schooler that they know will take time to develop when they can go get a 1 or 2 year juco who still has 4 years of eligibility?
Click to expand...

I see it as an advantage for HSers, it's an opportunity to develop for a couple years without losing eligibility. Some just don't hit that growth spurt until 17-18.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PetrosBoy and Vol in Buckeye Land
#31
#31
hog88 said:
I see it as an advantage for HSers, it's an opportunity to develop for a couple years without losing eligibility. Some just don't hit that growth spurt until 17-18.
Click to expand...

yeah for the dudes that don’t get offers or end up at jucos for other reasons it might be good, but I doubt the average high schooler starts out with the goal of being at a juco.
 
#32
#32
LittleCat said:
yeah for the dudes that don’t get offers or end up at jucos for other reasons it might be good, but I doubt the average high schooler starts out with the goal of being at a juco.
Click to expand...

Of course they don't start out with JUCO as their goal but the average high school player isn't getting a D1 scholly either.
 
#33
#33
Volfan76 said:
I still have trouble wrapping my mind around the mentality of the NCAA. I don't see how they didn't see this coming. Their unwillingness to be reasonable has opened the door for players to challenge any and every rule they come up with. Any judge in America now has a precedent to overturn anything that they deem unfair now. They have really dug their own grave.
Click to expand...
I'm with you, I don't know how they didn't anticipate how chaotic NIL was going to be.

I'm probably giving the NCAA suits entirely too much credit with my comment, but what if they purposely created a free-for-all situation with NIL to prove a point regarding their long held opinions about amateur athletics? For example, they could easily have set a cap on NIL (say $100,000 maximum, cash or items), but they didn't. It would have been easier to monitor without creating a mercenary mentality situation for the athletes. Any proven violations could lead to punishments just like were administered before NIL. But it's probably too late now to put in reasonable regulations because of the situation you mentioned about challenging the rules.
 
#34
#34
HollowaytoSeivers said:
I'm with you, I don't know how they didn't anticipate how chaotic NIL was going to be.

I'm probably giving the NCAA suits entirely too much credit with my comment, but what if they purposely created a free-for-all situation with NIL to prove a point regarding their long held opinions about amateur athletics? For example, they could easily have set a cap on NIL (say $100,000 maximum, cash or items), but they didn't. It would have been easier to monitor without creating a mercenary mentality situation for the athletes. Any proven violations could lead to punishments just like were administered before NIL. But it's probably too late now to put in reasonable regulations because of the situation you mentioned about challenging the rules.
Click to expand...
They could have made athletic scholarships into athletic “fellowships,” with full tuition and a stipend, and made it so division 1 AD’s had to put a certain percentage of their revenue from a given sport into that sport’s fellowship fund, divvied up among players with fellowships. Would have still given an advantage to the bigger programs (including us), but we wouldn’t be seeing high school recruits getting promised 7-figure bags as soon as they step on campus. The players would still be getting a slice of the pie though, and likely a big enough slice that they could buy Momma that new car she always wanted: it might just be a Mazda instead of a Maserati.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HollowaytoSeivers
#35
#35
hog88 said:
Of course they don't start out with JUCO as their goal but the average high school player isn't getting a D1 scholly either.
Click to expand...

I don't mean the average in that sense. I mean that there's probably a segment of guys who might normally get recruited to d1 schools as developmental players who might get passed over for juco players now. Not saying that's a huge number but the transfer market has already changed how high schoolers are recruited and this ruling changes it even more the same way.
 
#36
#36
Vol in Buckeye Land said:
They could have made athletic scholarships into athletic “fellowships,” with full tuition and a stipend, and made it so division 1 AD’s had to put a certain percentage of their revenue from a given sport into that sport’s fellowship fund, divvied up among players with fellowships. Would have still given an advantage to the bigger programs (including us), but we wouldn’t be seeing high school recruits getting promised 7-figure bags as soon as they step on campus. The players would still be getting a slice of the pie though, and likely a big enough slice that they could buy Momma that new car she always wanted: it might just be a Mazda instead of a Maserati.
Click to expand...
I believe a "fellowship" can only be for training, not services. It's going to be hard to say that athletes just get training when that training makes millions for the school.

I'm not an attorney but I recall seeing a situation where a health professional challenged the fellowship vs employment situation and that was part of it.
 
#37
#37
Volfan76 said:
I still have trouble wrapping my mind around the mentality of the NCAA. I don't see how they didn't see this coming. Their unwillingness to be reasonable has opened the door for players to challenge any and every rule they come up with. Any judge in America now has a precedent to overturn anything that they deem unfair now. They have really dug their own grave.
Click to expand...
Well, I guess one reason is that it's insane. It's really saying you (the NCAA) have a monopoly, so therefore anything you do is unfair. A player playing at Tennessee loses a year of eligibility to play for Alabama. A player at Alabama loses a year of eligibility for playing at Georgia, and this is not acceptable.

It's really pretty stupid.

It's possible that the NCAA could do lots of things differently, but none of those things would have been something like not being a monopoly. Nothing they could do would really have any direct impact on something this stupid.
 
#38
#38
butchna said:
You like a kid and you take them WHEN they’re first available. More a crapshoot when their stock goes up.
Click to expand...
Even if you picked them, set them up with your JUCO and a sweet NIL to train them, get weight on them, etc with the idea you'll use them..... they still can sign elsewhere so your JUCO efforts are possibly enjoyed by a rival.

It's all a crapshoot now.
 
#39
#39
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
Yep. The logical next step is someone who can't make it in the NFL but can get a decent NIL, say a QB like Tebow, sues because "the NCAA is limiting his earning potential" by saying he's out of eligibility. As a matter of fact, I'd think Pavia has very limited chances at his size in the NFL so he may sue again next year.
Click to expand...
you aren't guaranteed paid by the ruling. there is nothing saying that some group HAS to give you NIL money if you play in college football, or other sports. the ruling didn't say the NCAA couldn't regulate the sport or its members on the field of play. it only ruled that the NCAA couldn't stop anyone from earning NIL money.

if the players were smart there is nothing stopping them now from having an NIL deal that lasts more than 4/5 years.

eligibility is separate from NIL earnings.
 
#40
#40
LouderVol said:
you aren't guaranteed paid by the ruling. there is nothing saying that some group HAS to give you NIL money if you play in college football, or other sports. the ruling didn't say the NCAA couldn't regulate the sport or its members on the field of play. it only ruled that the NCAA couldn't stop anyone from earning NIL money.

if the players were smart there is nothing stopping them now from having an NIL deal that lasts more than 4/5 years.

eligibility is separate from NIL earnings.
Click to expand...
Ewers kept his "collectible card" NIL even after leaving Ohio State, I believe, though TX also provided more NIL deals for him.

I believe the coming situation is the NCAA setting up "revenue sharing" which they're trying to couch as an "internal NIL" provided by the school. I'm unsure how they'll divide that money between sports or players but I assume everyone on a football team will get SOME money, though nothing that happens now will surprise me.
 
#41
#41
LittleCat said:
I don't mean the average in that sense. I mean that there's probably a segment of guys who might normally get recruited to d1 schools as developmental players who might get passed over for juco players now. Not saying that's a huge number but the transfer market has already changed how high schoolers are recruited and this ruling changes it even more the same way.
Click to expand...

I agree with this but don't see it as a bad thing, those kids can go JUCO for a year or two develop and knock out some classes while keeping their 4years of eligibility. A lot of those marginal guys end up getting lost in the system their first couple of years.
 
#42
#42
Interesting article here. Just another in a long line of defeats for the NCAA. At the end, one administrator says “This won’t end until we collectively bargain”. If the players are deemed employees, I guess that could happen. But I also think they are banking on congressional intervention which I would question. Who knows where this mess is headed.

sports.yahoo.com

Diego Pavia court ruling another potentially massive blow for NCAA — 'It's not going to end until we collectively bargain'

The 30,000-foot view of the Pavia decision: It not only paves the way for all junior college players to gain an additional year, but it may invite even more legal challenges over the NCAA's eligibility rules.
sports.yahoo.com sports.yahoo.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: WillisWG and SayUWantAreVOLution
#45
#45
www.rockytopinsider.com

How Lawsuit Awarding Diego Pavia More Eligibility Could Benefit Tennessee Football | Rocky Top Insider

How the lawsuit awarding Diego Pavia more eligibility could benefit Tennessee football and starting tight end Miles Kitselman.
www.rockytopinsider.com www.rockytopinsider.com

Starting tight end Miles Kitselman is a senior this season but he played his first college season at Hutchinson Community College in Kansas.

Kitselman will still have to apply for the additional year of eligibility but if he chooses to do so he will likely receive the season by the same standard that Pavia is getting an extra season of eligibility.


Affects LJIII also...
 
Last edited:
#50
#50
Wonder how revenue sharing will affect all this? I'm not versed in jurisprudence, but I'd think lawsuits, laws and all the legal rankling will last for years to come. I guess we all agree...NIL is constitutionally correct but sure creates a mess for NCAA sports 🤷‍♂️ 🤷‍♂️
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top