Coach, Don’t Make Me Graduate Yet!

The NIL Era’s Unbelievable Riches Have Student-Athletes Staying in College Longer Than Ever.

In the rapidly evolving world of collegiate sports, some student-athletes are making a bold and unprecedented plea: don’t make me graduate yet.

These young stars, buoyed by the staggering financial opportunities provided by the Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) era, are fighting to extend their college careers—sometimes even taking their battles to court. The stakes are high, with millions of dollars in potential earnings and a growing list of legal challenges to the NCAA's traditional rules on eligibility.

The Case of Diego Pavia: Fighting for NIL Millions

One of the most notable examples is Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia. Recently, Pavia secured a preliminary injunction from the U.S. District Court of Middle Tennessee, enabling him to play in 2025 despite NCAA rules that would have otherwise barred his participation. His case centers around the NCAA's policy of counting junior college seasons toward overall eligibility, which Pavia argued violated antitrust laws.

Pavia’s case has set a precedent that may have far-reaching implications for the NCAA. The quarterback, a former New Mexico State transfer, highlighted that under existing rules, he would be forced to forgo potentially millions in NIL deals due to an arbitrary cap on eligibility. In court filings, Pavia projected he could earn over $1 million during the 2025 season if allowed to continue playing.

“The NCAA’s outdated rules are robbing athletes of their opportunities,” Pavia stated in his legal documents. His injunction challenges the NCAA's long-standing "five-years-to-play-four-seasons" rule, a policy now under scrutiny for potentially limiting the earning potential of student-athletes in the NIL era.

A Legal Storm Brewing

Pavia’s victory in court is just one of many challenges the NCAA is grappling with as it tries to adapt to the seismic changes brought by NIL legislation. Critics argue that the organization's reluctance to modernize its eligibility rules is a violation of antitrust laws, which prohibit organizations from stifling competition or economic opportunities.

Legal experts suggest Pavia’s case could lead to significant changes in how eligibility is calculated, not just for junior college transfers but for all athletes. “This ruling paves the way for additional legal challenges against the NCAA’s traditional eligibility policies,” said Mit Winter, a prominent NIL attorney.

The NCAA's response to the court ruling reflects its deep concern over maintaining control. “The NCAA is disappointed in today’s ruling and wants all student-athletes to maximize their NIL potential without depriving future student-athletes of opportunities,” the organization stated. However, critics argue that the NCAA’s plea for congressional intervention is merely an attempt to secure antitrust exemptions that would allow it to reimpose restrictions struck down by courts.

Stratospheric NIL Earnings

As legal battles rage, the rewards for top-tier athletes have reached astronomical levels. NIL endorsements and deals have transformed college sports into a lucrative platform where some athletes earn more than professional rookies. This financial windfall is prompting many to rethink the traditional timeline of college athletics.

·  Consider LSU gymnast Olivia Dunne, whose NIL endorsements have reportedly earned her millions. Dunne’s unprecedented earnings have cemented her status as one of the top-earning athletes in college sports. Sources close to Dunne suggest that her financial success has influenced her academic timeline, as the incentive to remain in college far outweighs the benefits of an early departure.

·  Then there’s basketball star Armando Bacot of North Carolina, who returned for a fifth season largely because of the NIL earnings he continues to secure.

“Why leave when you’re making more money in college than you’d likely earn as a rookie in the pros?”

Bacot reportedly told teammates. His decision underscores a growing trend: the realization that college can be more lucrative than the pros, at least in the short term.

A Changing Landscape

The NCAA’s rigid eligibility rules have become a flashpoint in this new era. Critics argue that the organization’s unwillingness to adapt is not only unfair to athletes but also detrimental to the future of collegiate sports.

Recent rulings like Pavia’s have highlighted the inherent contradictions in the NCAA’s policies. While the organization claims to support student-athletes’ rights to capitalize on their NIL, its eligibility rules often force players to leave money on the table. For many athletes, this isn’t just about fairness—it’s about survival and seizing the opportunity to create generational wealth.

The ripple effects of these legal challenges are already being felt. Junior college programs, in particular, stand to benefit as more athletes see the value in preserving their NCAA eligibility by starting their careers at two-year schools. Southwestern College coach Oscar Rodriguez summed it up:

“Why wouldn’t you want to go to a junior college, develop, and save all your eligibility?”

What’s Next for the NCAA?

The NCAA faces a pivotal moment. The combination of mounting legal challenges, changing athlete expectations, and the staggering financial realities of the NIL era requires urgent action. While the organization continues to call for congressional intervention, many believe the solution lies in negotiating directly with athletes.

The question remains: can the NCAA adapt quickly enough to remain relevant in this new era of collegiate athletics? For athletes like Diego Pavia, Olivia Dunne, and Armando Bacot, the answer will shape not just their futures but the future of college sports as a whole.

In the meantime, the message from student-athletes is clear:

Coach, don’t make me graduate yet—I’m just getting started.