The NCAA has issued guidance to schools on managing a waiver granted to junior college athletes, following a court’s decision supporting Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia’s request for an extra year of eligibility.
This waiver allows athletes who spent at least one year at a non-NCAA institution such as a junior college or NAIA school to be eligible to compete in the 2025-26 academic year, provided they would have otherwise exhausted their eligibility this current academic year. This hinges on them being academically and athletically qualified.
For student-athletes who had attended a non-NCAA college and are presently enrolled in a Division II or III school, and were initially expected to exhaust their eligibility this year, the waiver grants them a chance to compete at a Division I school in the 2025-26 academic year. This is contingent on having participated in competition for at least one season at a non-NCAA school and meeting all additional waiver and eligibility criteria.
The NCAA specifies that this waiver pertains exclusively to students who competed for at least one season at a non-NCAA institution. The waiver does not apply to student-athletes who have completed four sports seasons at NCAA institutions, regardless of division level.
Per the latest guidance, athletes who have played at least one season at a non-NCAA school such as a junior college or NAIA program will have the chance to compete in the 2025-26 seasons.
Should a student-athlete have unused eligibility relief left over from the pandemic’s effects, they can also qualify for this new eligibility opportunity if they spent one season at a non-NCAA school, remain otherwise eligible, and have not competed for four seasons at an NCAA school.
Previously, Pavia secured an injunction in December allowing him to play for another season at Vanderbilt this fall. U.S. District Judge William L. Campbell determined that Pavia had a “strong likelihood of success” under the Sherman Act, highlighting the NCAA’s restrictions on junior college eligibility as “restraints on trade with substantial anticompetitive effects.” The NCAA has since lodged an appeal against this ruling.
