The deadline to enter the NCAA transfer portal passed April 22, and in the chaos of it all, standouts such as Kansas’s Zeke Mayo, Maryland’s Julian Reese and Villanova’s Jordan Longino threw their hats in the ring.
This would be an interesting enough narrative — if they had any years of eligibility left to play with.
And they are far from alone in this head-turning move, as more than 150 players across men’s basketball alone have entered the transfer portal without any years of eligibility remaining. In almost every case, the player is hoping for help from a potential swath of NCAA rule changes that could shake the landscape of college sports as we know it.
For several men and women across the NCAA, the fallout of Diego Pavia v. NCAA, which concluded late in 2024, will prove vital for many athletes in the foreseeable future.
Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia won a lawsuit that landed him one more year of eligibility after contesting the NCAA rule that qualified his two years spent in junior college (JUCO) equal to two years of NCAA Division I play. This reportedly prevented him from using his name, image, and likeness, and Pavia is projected to make over $1 million in NIL this upcoming season as a projected 2026 NFL Draft pick.
Despite the win for Pavia, the NCAA is hotly contesting this as a general rule, as handing out another year of eligibility to those who fall under the same criteria will reportedly conflict with the year of eligibility awarded as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, players such as Clemson’s Jaeden Zackery who spent one year at JUCO and had to use their COVID eligibility, might not be so lucky and will have to appeal, although they are still hopeful to continue their college careers.
House v. NCAA has also been a glaring point of interest in the last four months or so.
The premise of the case is based in the lawsuit made by former All-American Arizona State swimmer Grant House, who filed for damages for himself and thousands of other players prior to 2020 who were not able to receive NIL compensation. While the NCAA will be forced to issue over $2 billion among its programs as part of the case’s settlement, that number could have been much worse.
According to The Athletic’s College Football Staff, the settlement “allows for a revenue-sharing plan that lets schools start directly paying players and is “expected to start at roughly $20.5 million and increase on an annual basis.”
This new pay-distribution system is also paired with a scholarship-based rostering system, which will effectively eliminate roster spots for walk-ons (at least in most power conference schools).
On top of that, there is potential for this new landscape to change the NCAA’s outlook on its previous policy of players completing four seasons in five years. What many are referring to as the prospective “5-in-5” rule will combat the eligibility complications surrounding House antitrust rules such as the ones brought up by Pavia. While nothing is finalized, the concept of redshirting (medical or not) and the idea of four seasons in five years could be completely done away with for better or for worse.
This opens the window for players who have currently completed four seasons of play to jump into the air of the transfer portal and let the wind of these cases take their sails wherever it leads them.
For example, Clemson men’s basketball standout Ian Schieffelin is eyeing the NBA draft but could also see many positives in returning for a fifth year under potential new policies. He posted earlier this week on X: “While I am pursuing my options on the professional level, I have been advised, due to pending NCAA cases, to enter the portal on the very outside chance more eligibility is allowed.”
While I am pursing my options on the professional level I have been advised, due to pending NCAA cases, to enter the portal on the very outside chance more eligibility is allowed.
— Ian Schieffelin (@ian_schieffelin) April 21, 2025
Again, while many of these cases have been settled, there is still a lot of controversy and legal questions rising as the offseason moves on, which leaves plenty of room for expansions and/or callbacks.
Whatever happens, though, the NCAA has been and will be a hotspot for some of the most controversial movements in global sports. We shouldn’t expect that to change anytime soon with several of these massive steps that could change the landscape of college athletics as we know it being set to come sooner rather than later.
This article was written by Eamon Bevan. He can be reached at eamon.bevan@marquette.edu.