Not NBA, but G-League. Thierry Darlan played for the Ignite team in the G-League, and is now playing for Santa Clara.

There is a suit just filed that will not count JC years against eligibility. Vanderbilt QB Diego Pavis is one of the names attached -> he is trying for a SEVENTH year of eligibility! Tennessee QB Joey Aguilar out of Brentwood/Antioch is also one of the plaintiffs. They are arguing that 'NCAA’s rules “unjustifiably” restrain athletes’ abilities to earn money under name, image and likeness rules.' I believe the gist of the Connors suit is along those lines.

I would be very surprised if Rocko did not release the full content of the NCAA decision on the Conner matter. He has always seemed to me to be a straight shooter and the last thing he wants to see is a full blown Freedom of Information Act request on his desk and the same goes for the NCAA. UC Davis is a public institution and it would have to respond to a FOIA demand if one was served. Ditto for the NCAA. I also expect it will take some time for a response due to the holiday/winter break.

Now that college sports is a profession, courts look at the NCAA rules through the lens of do they deprive an individual plaintiff's earnings.
The Pavia lawsuit was filed in November 2024. The lawyer for Pavia and a bunch of other plaintiffs just filed a document arguing that allowing a former NBA first round draft pick to enroll as a freshman indicates some hypocrisy in limiting JC players years while not imposing similar limits on pro years.
But the case is not new, it led to this last year's grant of another year if eligibility for JC players who would otherwise have exhausted their eligibility. Davis had a couple of players in that category.

this sounds like a new action to allow him (and others) yet another year:

https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2025/diego-pavia-heisman-trophy-nfl-draft-antitrust-lawsuit-ncaa-1234879881/

The case has not been decided yet.
Last year, in several courts, players sought preliminary injunctions. The NCAA, seeing they couldn't enforce the rule evenly, suspended it for a year, making the requests for injunctions moot. Now we are at year 2, plaintiffs seeking another, which I'm guessing they'll get. But will the NCAA extend its suspension of rule so that all JC players get another year, not just the ones who are plaintiffs? Eventually the case will be decided. So far, they are just at the stage of establishing the rules pending a decision on the issue in the case.

got it! Thanks for clarifying.

The G league is not the NBA

I was starting to write my NCAA petition to try to get my year eligibility from Freshman football. I figure the poor NCAA officials need a laugh from the idea of 50-70 old years arguing that Frosh football deprived us of NIL earnings!

I’d buy your jersey.

Reading between the lines, it appears Rex and Porter will not be granted another year. Good for Rex, though. Pretty good exposure for him. https://x.com/VintagePlough/status/2006412459326976339

Are you not able to go to this and come back for one more year?

I don't see why you couldn't return

52 please explain “between the lines” or are we missing the obvious? Really don’t understand your point.

Yeah sorry I was under the impression all invitees were on their last year of eligibility vs. simply eligible for the draft.

As long as it’s only a “list” it’s meaningless and they can return if they have another year. However, to play in college all star games, one would have to be declared for the draft.

Happy New Year guys!

Any word here? Sounded like we'd know soon based off last presser

You know, I thought the same. But when I saw the case was in the hands of outside counsel I knew we probably would never see the denial letter. The case is being negotiated between counsel as we speak so everything is “no comment” at this point until we get a final decision on the negotiations.

On a somewhat related note, FBS recently voted unanimously for the following:

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/47601492/fbs-coaches-vote-unanimously-adjust-sport-redshirt-rule

FBS coaches voted unanimously Tuesday to adjust the redshirt rule to allow players to participate in up to nine games while preserving a full year's eligibility in the sport.

I don't get the coach's vote. Why not just adopt the 5 years to play 5 seasons, period. No more appeals or lawsuits. 9 games is more than the current 4+playoffs, but 12 is the regular season so just give them 5 years to play 5 seasons. I guess, however, that the question still arises: what happens to injured players in the 5-for-5 format? Back to square one, or just say no appeals and it is 5-for-5? Pulling for those kids, the whole thing is heartbreaking.

makes no sense, i agree. might as well go with the 5/5 idea.

"A number of coaches pushed for a more expansive approach -- a full five years of playing time in a five-year window. However, concerns about potential litigation in the wake of some controversial eligibility rulings, chief among them Ole Miss quarterback Trinidad Chambliss -- led the group to the nine-game compromise."

At some point, these young men need to realize that your college football career comes to an end. 5/5 would be a massive upgrade from 5-to-play-4, but is also a lot less than the Covid kids got. In no way do I support players getting six seasons to play college football. Get in, get your degree, play, and move on with your life. Unfortunately, there is too much money to be made in college football by players, agents, coaches, universities, etc.

So, here is what I will call the Pacifico Plan:

A Student-Athlete has five years to play five seasons at any level of college football, including JC

Players will be allowed ONE medical waiver for their career; this allows the student-athlete ONE medical redshirt season IF there is a documented, season-ending injury that occurs in the first 50% of that season's scheduled games. Once the season hits the halfway point, no more medical redshirts accepted. If a student-athlete has already used his approved medical waiver and sustains another injury, tough sh*t. You get one. Take your hopefully multiple degrees and beat it.

If a player takes one snap in one game, that counts as one of his five seasons. If he takes no snaps in a season, it still counts as one of his five seasons. A season is a season is a season. NO REDSHIRTS (except the above medical).

Make the Portal window December 9-December 23. 99% of college football has finished the season. The ones that haven't, they typically have a front office to sort it out. Gives most everyone the opportunity to make post season evaluations and hold their exit meetings, gives kids a chance to enroll at the new school and attend spring ball, and then forces the kids in the Portal who don't get the money, to figure out if they really want to play college football. If they want to play, find a D2/D3/NAIA home. Makes those levels of football better. Any player that remains in the Portal for 365 days is no longer eligible for FBS/FCS. Again, figure out if you really want to play, and if you do, lower division football is a great option.

What am I missing?

You are missing the authority to make rules. You, in your role as rule maker, need legislation restoring authority to the rule making body, and limiting courts jurisdiction . Otherwise courts will decide if non NCAA seasons count, if scheduled games mean games on the schedule, completed or not, etc. There needs to be legislation. Courts don't consider what is best for the college football universe, they decide if the rule making body has the authority to deprive someone from earning money, and they have been deciding it doesn't..

Agree with the basic premise that kids need to get on with their life. It’s beginning to be absurd with some of these players. Obviously in some or many cases money (agents/parents/players with unrealistic hopes) fuel this seemingly never ending train of expanded eligibility.

Sounds a lot like the CIF with the high school transfers. Lawering-up = eligibility

6 years - extreme circumstances, 5 years is more or less standard for a redshirt...some of these guys going on Year 7? Grow up, move on - my two cents

How do you ever get past 6? Isn’t one year redshirt one year injury and that’s how you get to 6?

You get to seven by Covid.year(2020).+ Redshirt year + 4 years playing + medjcal hardship. You get to 8 if you went to a non NCAA school and your eligibility was otherwise expiring last year. So someone could have started college in 2018 and still be eligible last year if things lined up right.

I still think the real simple here issue is: can a non game (Merser) per NCAA rules. Still be deemed a played game for the players eligibility status? Does the NCAA really want that fight over a couple of FCS kids who just want to play their last year of college football?

an argument someone made - I don’t know if it has merit but sounds plausible - is that the NCAA’s conundrum may not really about football, where no contest is pretty rare. The problem may be if used as precedent to apply to other sports where no contest might happen more often. I agree it is still unfair that it counts toward eligibility but not for stats. I wonder if one possible remedy being considered is just to make the stats count rather than change eligibility.