NCAA’s Junior College Eligibility Rules Taken to Task by Judges

A panel of Sixth Circuit judges appeared skeptical of the NCAA’s position that its junior-college eligibility rules have “pro-competitive” justifications in a closely watched case that has implications for the organization’s power over college athletes.

During oral arguments Tuesday that lasted over an hour, Judge Whitney D. Hermandorfer cast doubts over the NCAA’s rules, saying junior college students seem to be excluded from name, image, and likeness payments now available at the D-I level.

A key question is when the clock on NCAA rules granting athletes four years of competitive play within a five-year period begins to run—the first year as a “juco” player or at the D-I level.

Diego Pavia, a former juco athlete who is now the starting quarterback at Vanderbilt, was the first to challenge the rules, arguing they unlawfully reduce the number of years that juco transfers can play D-I. A lower court granted him an injunction blocking the NCAA’s rule and allowing him to play this year, leading the NCAA to appeal.

Hermandorfer pushed back on the NCAA’s theory that if older players make a D-I team, it pushes out younger less mature players coming out of high school.

“If that is true, why does that not show by definition that the NIL payment market is going to be suppressed? Because there is some segment of the labor market that is being foreclosed from selling their services to schools that otherwise would be able to,” Hermandorfer asked. “Tell me why that’s the wrong way to think about this.”

The Sixth Circuit’s ruling—and one from the Third Circuit in a similar case—will have major implications for the NCAA’s control over who can play and for how long. It will also help clarify the line between student-athletes and professionals whose performance is monetized.

‘Shutting Down’ Juco Market?

“Why isn’t this just a classic restraint on trade where you are basically shutting down the juco market?” Judge Chad A. Readler asked. “If a player is thinking about maximizing their financial worth, the only option is to go play Division I football if you could.”

NCAA attorney Rakesh Kilaru of Wilkinson Stekloff defended the rules, saying they don’t restrict the juco market, because players can choose to go to juco if they think it will eventually maximize their D-I earnings.

“You may have, for example, a quarterback who has the option to make millions of dollars a year as an immediate freshman at Michigan or Ohio State,” Kilaru said. “But another may say ‘that’s not the best option for me, I’ll go to juco.’”

He added that the rule gives players more time to play than the time frame for finishing a college degree. A core principle of antitrust law also says that businesses get substantial latitude to define and create unique product offerings to create competition, Kilaru said.

“And that is what college sports is—it’s a unique and different college sports offering from professional sports,” he said.

Commercial or Not?

The eligibility rules are “commercial in nature” especially following the NCAA’s $2.8 billion antitrust settlement with student athletes who sued over name, image and likeness compensation, argued Pavia’s attorney Ryan Downton, managing partner of the Texas Trial Group.

Under the deal, NCAA schools can distribute up to 22% of the money they receive from media rights, ticket sales, and sponsorships to athletes. That equates to $20.5 million for the 2025-26 school year per each school in a power conference. The amount could increase to $32 million over the next 10 years.

“The issue of whether the rules are commercial in nature remains a live controversy between these parties,” Downton said. “If you’ve got restrictions that are a barrier to entry when you have commercial transactions involved, it’s commercial in nature.”

Pavia was granted a waiver to continue playing, whether the appellate court overturns the injunction granted to him. Vanderbilt has started the season 3-0, including blowout wins over South Carolina and Virginia Tech.

Judge Amul R. Thapar also sat on the panel.

Pavia is also represented by Riley & Jacobson PLC. NCAA is represented by Wilkinson Stekloff LLP.

The case is Pavia v. NCAA, 6th Cir., No. 24-06153, 9/16/25.