I was discussing this with some friends of mine. This lawsuit is really interesting when you think of long term ramifications.
The lawsuit at face value is about an entity's ability to limit a person's earning potential. Pavia is basically saying that his JUCO years should not have counted toward eligibility because at the JUCO level he had limited to no earning potential. While now, though his eligibility has ended, he still has earning potential and the NCAA doesn't have the right to limit that.
1.) I think this argument has merit when it comes to antitrust laws. Imagine the Aerospace industry coming down and telling a pilot he can no longer work for Spirit. You either have to go work for American Airlines, Delta, etc. Or go home. Seems kinda ludacris when you think about it.
2.) I think this would be extremely positive for JUCO and FCS schools. "Hey kid, you didn't get the money you were looking for? Don't waste eligibility sitting on the bench for years, come play a couple of years with us, and now it no longer counts towards your eligibility at the D1 level with the potential to increase your overall earning potential."
3.) BUT (and what I don't see other people discussing) I also think if this lawsuit comes out in the favor of Pavia, potentially eligibility years will be completely out the window. It essentially becomes the same antitrust argument. If someone like Jaylen Milroe can stay in college and earn more guaranteed money than he could in the NFL, and chose to make a 10-12 year career at the college level, how could the NCAA legally stop his earning potential?? As long as he had value, and a college is willing to pay him.... It makes for a very interesting can of worms, to say the least.
Just curious on your thoughts @Neal McCready @Chase Parham @tsiskey @Brian Rippee @Jeffrey Wright
and of course anyone else that has opinions.
The lawsuit at face value is about an entity's ability to limit a person's earning potential. Pavia is basically saying that his JUCO years should not have counted toward eligibility because at the JUCO level he had limited to no earning potential. While now, though his eligibility has ended, he still has earning potential and the NCAA doesn't have the right to limit that.
1.) I think this argument has merit when it comes to antitrust laws. Imagine the Aerospace industry coming down and telling a pilot he can no longer work for Spirit. You either have to go work for American Airlines, Delta, etc. Or go home. Seems kinda ludacris when you think about it.
2.) I think this would be extremely positive for JUCO and FCS schools. "Hey kid, you didn't get the money you were looking for? Don't waste eligibility sitting on the bench for years, come play a couple of years with us, and now it no longer counts towards your eligibility at the D1 level with the potential to increase your overall earning potential."
3.) BUT (and what I don't see other people discussing) I also think if this lawsuit comes out in the favor of Pavia, potentially eligibility years will be completely out the window. It essentially becomes the same antitrust argument. If someone like Jaylen Milroe can stay in college and earn more guaranteed money than he could in the NFL, and chose to make a 10-12 year career at the college level, how could the NCAA legally stop his earning potential?? As long as he had value, and a college is willing to pay him.... It makes for a very interesting can of worms, to say the least.
Just curious on your thoughts @Neal McCready @Chase Parham @tsiskey @Brian Rippee @Jeffrey Wright
and of course anyone else that has opinions.
