re: Junior College doesn’t count anymore.

quote:

---

Who says we can’t bring guys back from the NFL or UFL now that getting paid doesn’t mean anything?

---

quote:

---

For starters, far as I know at least, no has asked yet. However, NJCAA is a separate organization, so the argument in court was I was not in the NCAA, therefore I should not lose NCAA time, D2, D3 would not have the same merits, NAIA would however.

---

quote:

---

NCAA video games using players names, etc. was a huge cash grab.

---

quote:

---

Friday filed an opening brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, seeking a reversal of the decision that has paved the way for Pavia’s sixth collegiate season.

The brief states that “the court … upended judicial consensus to allow [Pavia] to have a sixth season of competition in college football. In doing so, the court broke from the text, history, and consistent judicial understanding of the Sherman Act in sweeping aside longstanding eligibility rules based on deeply flawed reasoning.”

Pavia originally sued the NCAA to gain additional eligibility, arguing that two years spent at junior college New Mexico Military Institute (2020 and 2021) should not count toward his overall eligibility. Pavia later played for New Mexico State in 2022 and 2023 before quarterbacking Vanderbilt’s team in 2024.

In its brief, the NCAA argues several points:

• First, it reads, “the district court ignored this Court’s binding precedent affirming NCAA eligibility rules against antitrust challenges.”

• Second, the brief states that the court wrongly invalidated the NCAA’s traditional five years of eligibility rule by “quick look” antitrust review, despite the Supreme Court having made clear that challenges to NCAA rules must be evaluated under the so-called rule of reason (in antitrust law, rule of reason means a business practice is illegal only if it unreasonably restricts competition, requiring courts to consider both pro- and anti-competitive effects, rather than automatically deeming certain practices illegal).

• Third, the NCAA argues the district court committed "multiple substantive errors of antitrust law beyond its misapprehension of the governing legal standards. The plaintiff claims that Pavia "failed to offer any economic evidence or analysis in support of his motion for preliminary injunction, and only on reply, through an improper rebuttal expert declaration, offered new allegations of harm unrelated to what he pleaded in his complaint and argued in his motion.”

• Fourth, the brief reads, “the court accepted Pavia’s claim of irreparable harm despite uncontroverted evidence that Pavia waited years to bring his claim, quantified his alleged harm to be $1 million, and failed to show an actual emergency warranting expedited relief."

The NCAA alleges multiple student-athletes have since filed similar lawsuits seeking to extend their exhausted eligibility, "often citing nothing more than the [Pavia] decision in support of their claims; and more cases are sure to come.”

---

quote:

---

I can’t believe I missed all this nonsense.

---