Lawyer in Diego Pavia’s Eligibility Lawsuit Highlights NCAA Hypocrisy by Citing NBA Draft Pick James Nnaji’s Return to College Basketball

In a bold and creatively worded legal filing submitted just after Christmas 2025, attorney Ryan Downton—representing Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia and 26 other former junior college (JUCO) football players—has accused the NCAA of blatant hypocrisy. The memorandum, filed in U.S. District Court in Nashville, Tennessee, opens with a holiday-themed poem parodying “Twas the Night Before Christmas” before launching into a sharp critique of the organization’s inconsistent eligibility enforcement. At the center of the argument is the NCAA’s recent decision to grant full eligibility to James Nnaji, a 7-foot center and 2023 NBA draft pick who spent four years as a professional in Europe, allowing him to join Baylor University’s basketball team at age 21 with four years remaining.

Downton’s filing argues that if the NCAA can accommodate a drafted professional basketball player—complete with pro experience, an NBA selection (No. 31 overall by the Detroit Pistons), and Summer League participation—then it should extend similar flexibility to former JUCO football players seeking additional seasons in 2026 and 2027. This development underscores the ongoing antitrust challenge to the NCAA’s rule counting JUCO seasons against Division I eligibility, a case that has already reshaped college football and could have broader implications for amateurism rules across sports.

The Origins of the Pavia Lawsuit

Diego Pavia’s legal battle with the NCAA began in November 2024 when the then-Vanderbilt quarterback sued to challenge Bylaw 12.02.6, which mandates that seasons played at any “collegiate institution”—including non-NCAA junior colleges—count toward an athlete’s four-season limit within a five-year clock. Pavia’s path exemplified the rule’s impact: He played at New Mexico Military Institute in 2020 (COVID season, not counted) and 2021 (JUCO national champion), then transferred to New Mexico State for 2022 and 2023, before arriving at Vanderbilt in 2024.

Under strict interpretation, Pavia’s 2025 season—where he emerged as a Heisman Trophy runner-up, led Vanderbilt to its highest ranking in decades (No. 13 in the AP poll), and orchestrated historic upsets—should have been his last at the Division I level. Arguing the rule constituted an unlawful restraint of trade under the Sherman Antitrust Act, particularly in the NIL era where athletes can monetize their likeness, Pavia sought a preliminary injunction.

In December 2024, U.S. District Judge William L. Campbell Jr. granted the injunction, ruling Pavia likely to succeed on the merits. The decision prevented the NCAA from enforcing its “Rule of Restitution” against Vanderbilt and allowed Pavia to play in 2025. Shortly after, the NCAA issued a blanket waiver for the 2025-26 academic year, extending eligibility to similarly situated former JUCO athletes to avoid widespread disruption. An appeals court later dismissed the NCAA’s challenge as moot.

Pavia’s stellar 2025 performance—throwing for thousands of yards, rushing for key scores, and elevating the Commodores to a ReliaQuest Bowl appearance against Iowa on December 31—validated the ruling. Yet even as Pavia announced plans to enter the 2026 NFL Draft, he and his legal team pressed forward, amending the suit into a potential class-action with 26 additional plaintiffs, including Tennessee quarterback Joey Aguilar.

The Creative Legal Filing: Poetry and Hypocrisy

The latest memorandum, filed on December 26, 2025, responds to the NCAA’s ongoing appeal and pushes for injunctive relief extending into 2026 and 2027. Downton employs flair rarely seen in federal filings, beginning with poetic lines: “When what to my wandering eyes should appear, but … the hypocrisy of the NCAA granting four years of eligibility to a 21-year-old European professional basketball player with four years of professional experience who was drafted by an NBA team two years ago.”

The “hypocrisy” centers on James Nnaji. Drafted in 2023, Nnaji never signed an NBA contract, instead continuing his professional career in Europe (with FC Barcelona and loans to Turkey). He participated in NBA Summer League but parted ways with his club in 2025. Baylor announced his addition on December 24, 2025, with the NCAA deeming him eligible for four full seasons—meaning he could play until age 25.

Downton contrasts this with the NCAA’s defense in the Pavia case: The organization argues that allowing older former JUCO players (typically 22-23) an extra year harms younger high school recruits by occupying roster spots and scholarships. Yet, the filing notes, Nnaji—a proven pro with draft pedigree—receives a clean slate despite his age and experience.

This precedent, Downton asserts, undermines the NCAA’s claims of competitive balance and amateurism protection. If professional basketball experience doesn’t bar eligibility (provided no NBA contract was signed), why penalize JUCO football players whose prior seasons occurred at non-NCAA schools offering fewer resources and no NIL opportunities at the time?

James Nnaji’s Unprecedented Path to Baylor

Nnaji’s enrollment at Baylor marks a groundbreaking moment in college basketball. At 7 feet with a 7-7 wingspan, the Nigerian big man was viewed as a developmental prospect in 2023, leading to his second-round selection. His rights have since been traded (ultimately to the New York Knicks), but without an NBA deal, he retained amateur status under NCAA bylaws.

The decision aligns with recent trends: Former G League players and international pros have increasingly returned to college, capitalizing on NIL revenue-sharing (set to begin in 2025-26 via the House v. NCAA settlement). Coaches like Michigan State’s Tom Izzo have criticized the trend, calling for a “commissioner” to restore order. Yet Nnaji is the first drafted player to reverse course this way, amplifying debates over eroded amateurism boundaries.

Baylor, facing frontcourt injuries, gains an immediate impact player for Big 12 play. Critics argue it sets a dangerous precedent—could undrafted or stash players routinely detour to college for development and earnings?

Broader Implications for NCAA Eligibility Rules

The Pavia lawsuit fits into a wave of antitrust challenges eroding NCAA control:

• Transfer Rules: Multiple rulings have enabled immediate eligibility for multi-time transfers.
• Redshirt Rules: Separate suits, including one involving Vanderbilt’s Langston Patterson (also represented by Downton), target the four-season cap.
• House Settlement: Upcoming revenue-sharing (up to $20-32 million per school annually) further professionalizes college sports.

Pavia’s team proposes resetting the eligibility clock upon entering an NCAA member school, decoupling JUCO time entirely. Success could grant thousands of athletes extra years, boosting rosters but straining scholarships and depth charts.

The NCAA maintains eligibility rules ensure fairness, preventing older pros from dominating younger amateurs. However, post-Alston (2021 Supreme Court decision limiting compensation restrictions) and amid NIL, courts increasingly view such rules through an antitrust lens—as restraints on athlete labor markets.

Impact on Players and Programs

For the 27 plaintiffs, victory means potential 2026-27 seasons, enhanced NIL deals, and NFL preparation. Tennessee’s Aguilar, for instance, could return after his Music City Bowl performance.

Programs benefit from retained talent but face roster management chaos. Vanderbilt’s historic 2025 season owes much to Pavia; his potential extended presence (though unlikely, given his draft plans) symbolizes the suit’s legacy.

Critics warn of “unlimited eligibility” risks, older players displacing freshmen. Proponents counter that JUCO athletes often come from disadvantaged backgrounds, deserving equal opportunities in the monetized era.

Reactions and Next Steps

Social media and forums buzz with debate: Some hail Pavia as a trailblazer for player rights; others decry eroding traditions. Analysts predict settlement or legislative intervention—perhaps federal antitrust exemption for eligibility rules.

Judge Campbell will rule on the new injunction request. An appeal seems likely, potentially reaching higher courts alongside related cases.

As Pavia prepares for his bowl game and NFL future, his lawsuit continues reshaping college athletics. By invoking Nnaji’s case, Downton forces the NCAA to confront its selective enforcement—highlighting an organization adapting unevenly to a professionalized landscape.

In an era where college stars earn millions before pros, the line between amateur and professional blurs further. Pavia’s fight, wrapped in poetic critique, exemplifies athletes leveraging courts to demand consistency and fairness.