4 Football Players Sue NCAA Using Diego Pavia’s Legal Playbook

In the latest iteration of college athletes suing to play beyond exhaustion of their NCAA eligibility, four former JUCO football players who want to play for Vanderbilt and other FBS programs have asked a federal judge in Tennessee to enjoin the NCAA from enforcing eligibility rules.

Chris Bellamy, Demarcus Griffin, TJ Smith and Targhee Lambson filed a complaint for injunctive relief on July 3. They’re represented by attorneys Ryan Downton and Salvador M. Hernandez, a duo who have litigated on behalf of Vanderbilt quarterback and former JUCO transfer Diego Pavia’s thus far successful case to play a sixth season this fall. 

The four plaintiffs seek to play past the NCAA’s basic Division I eligibility framework. This framework limits college athletes to four seasons of intercollegiate competition—including JUCO and D-II competition—within a five-year period and, the complaint stresses, stipulates that a JUCO student who transfers to a D-I program has three years of D-I eligibility even if they didn’t play a sport at their JUCO school. 

The players contend this framework violates antitrust law by constraining the market for athletic services offered by D-I football to former JUCO football players. Lost NIL opportunities are emphasized as an economic harm to the players, who also lose out on potential revenue-sharing opportunities resulting from the House settlement. The four hope that Pavia’s win in the same federal district in Tennessee—the Vandy quarterback’s case is currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit—provides helpful precedent. 

Bellamy is a wide receiver who played at two junior colleges and a couple of seasons at New Mexico State. According to the complaint, Bellamy has been admitted into Vanderbilt and promised a spot on the football team. Griffin is a defensive back at Louisiana Tech University and earlier played for a junior college and the University of Houston. Griffin’s roster spot “and NIL money” are waiting for him at Louisiana Tech should he regain eligibility, the complaint asserts. Smith is a quarterback who has played at a junior college, D-II college and Florida Atlantic University. The complaint says several D-I colleges are interested in Smith if he’s deemed eligible to play. Meanwhile, Lambson is a running back who played for Snow Community College and then Southern Utah University. Vanderbilt, the complaint states, is interested in Lambson joining the Commodores for 2025.

The complaint tracks familiar arguments raised in Pavia and the growing list of eligibility cases that have followed. Bellamy, Griffin, Smith and Lambson maintain that junior shouldn’t count against the D-I eligibility clock. Most junior colleges are governed by the National Junior College Athletic Association, which has no affiliation with the NCAA. The four players argue that JUCO football is nothing like D-I football, including because D-I football generates “billions of dollars in revenue” and its games are regularly televised and streamed. 

“To be clear,” the complaint argues, “while the NJCAA streams a total of 13 games over its entire season, the NCAA televised 40 games just last Saturday alone, and televises a similar number every single week of the season (not to mention several games on other nights of the week).”

Differences in NIL opportunities are also cited as a key distinction between JUCO and D-I football. The complaint cites data showing that while 2024 NIL market for college football was estimated at $1.1 billion, “only $6.5 million—less than six-tenths of 1%—went to non-NCAA Division I football players.” Further, the complaint references how D-I football, especially at a power conference school, provides essential training and exposure for the NFL Draft.

The complaint also asserts NCAA eligibility rules unfairly punish JUCO players compared to similarly situated groups. Consider the NCAA eligibility clock of a football player who graduates from high school and then plays another season in a post-grad year. His eligibility doesn’t run during that post-grad year, even if it occurs after he graduated from high school. Likewise, a football player who graduates from high school and then becomes a pro athlete in another sport still has five years to play four seasons of football. 

To illustrate, the complaint references Chris Weinke, who became a football player at Florida State in 1997 as a 25-year-old after a six-year pro baseball career. Athletes who serve in the military are also mentioned as not facing the same NCAA restrictions experienced by JUCO players. The complaint argues that if the NCAA and its member institutions were genuinely concerned that former JUCO players might upset competitive balance in D-I football because they’re (relatively) older and more seasoned, the NCAA “would preclude other older athletes from competing” in D-I.

Consumers, the complaint maintains, are also harmed by eligibility rules that exclude former JUCO players because of seasons played and years past. There are “negative downstream effects on nationwide consumers who attend college football games and watch college football on television,” the complaint charges. 

Along those lines, D-I football rosters lose out on potential players who could enhance the quality of play. 

“Teams,” Bellamy, Griffin, Smith and Lambson argue, “may be less competitive without the ability to retain skilled transfer players for an additional season, fans lose the opportunity to see those college athletes compete for their favorite teams on gameday and the product of NCAA athletics is less compelling for consumers.”

The NCAA will answer the complaint and defend its eligibility rules, which have withstood some of the recent legal challenges. 

In a statement shared with Sportico, an NCAA spokesperson said, “the NCAA stands by its eligibility rules, including the five-year rule, which enable student-athletes and schools to have fair competition and ensure broad access to the unique and life-changing opportunity to be a student-athlete. The NCAA is making changes to modernize college sports but attempts to alter the enforcement of foundational eligibility rules—approved and supported by membership leaders—makes a shifting environment even more unsettled. As legal outcomes continue to differ from case to case, the NCAA believes partnering with Congress is essential to provide clarity and stability for current and future student-athletes.”

The case is before U.S. District Judge Aleta A. Trauger.