Some junior college athletes’ careers are being extended, at least for now.

The NCAA Division I board of governors, made up of university presidents, approved a waiver for junior college players that would give them an extra year of eligibility if they find themselves in a similar situation to Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia.

Pavia is suing the NCAA over its eligibility standards, arguing that his junior college seasons should not count toward his four seasons of NCAA eligibility. The NCAA DI board’s decision came five days after a federal court in Tennessee granted Pavia an injunction barring the association from counting his junior college seasons, granting him an additional year of eligibility.

The court ruling only applied to Pavia. However, in an effort to maintain fairness among its competing schools, the NCAA granted additional eligibility to all similarly positioned athletes, according to a memo sent to the schools.

Athletes like Pavia, who were expected to use their final year of eligibility this academic year, are now eligible to compete next season. Pavia played two seasons in junior college and three seasons in Division I football (one of which was the COVID redshirt season). Because of the court ruling, he will receive a sixth season of NCAA eligibility.

“The NCAA Division I Board of Directors granted a waiver to allow student-athletes who have attended and competed at a non-NCAA school for one or more years to remain eligible in 2025-26,” it said it in the NCAA memo, “if such is the case.” Student-athletes would otherwise have used their final season of competition in the 2024-25 academic year and met all other eligibility requirements (e.g. Progress towards graduation, five-year approval period).”

The NCAA also plans to appeal the court’s ruling in the Pavia lawsuit, it announced Monday.

Perhaps even more important news could be that the NCAA is moving toward a more sweeping change to its eligibility rules, something the association proposed in its memo to schools Monday. The NCAA memo reminded schools that the Division I Council is considering a “comprehensive” review of eligibility rules to create a framework that is “sustainable and stands up to scrutiny,” the memo said.

There are efforts by university administrators to adjust the eligibility rule to allow athletes five seasons of play within a five-year period. Current NCAA rules allow athletes to play four seasons over a five-year period, often referred to as the association’s “five-year eligibility clock.”

Currently, only certain sports allow athletes the opportunity to compete in multiple competitions and still be eligible to play for a year. For example, football players who redshirt can have a season’s worth of eligibility restored if they play fewer than four games in a season.

Monday’s decision by the NCAA board opens the door for hundreds, if not thousands, of former junior college athletes to extend their careers if they so choose. As the NCAA indicated in its statement on the injunction last week, the consequences of such a move will be felt by high school players whose scheduled roster spots will no longer be available.

The decision also comes in an unstable and somewhat chaotic time. Schools are scrambling to comply with new rules put in place as part of the NCAA’s landmark settlement in the House antitrust case, including tighter limits on roster size. It is expected that more than 4,000 roster spots will be eliminated in the power leagues alone.

“The change in enforcement of rules overwhelmingly supported by NCAA member schools makes a changing environment even more turbulent,” the association said in the statement last week.

The court’s decision last week is the third major court decision in the last year to prohibit the association from enforcing a rule. A court in West Virginia allowed athletes who transfer for a second time or more to play immediately. A federal court ruling in Tennessee largely cast doubt on the NCAA’s interim NIL policy, which allows boosters and booster-run collectives to negotiate with athletes before they enroll.

The crux of Pavia’s argument is the fact that he and other athletes are now entitled to compensation from sponsors, and soon schools, under the House’s revenue-sharing rule.

He will make at least $1 million in college next year, the filing said. It is money that he would otherwise miss out on if he were no longer eligible. Starting in July, schools will be allowed to share revenue directly with athletes. It paves the way for millions of dollars — up to $20.5 million annually per school — to be shared with athletes in a giant move as major college sports evolve from an amateur model to a professionalized concept.

This is a good reason for athletes – especially players who are unlikely to be drafted – to stay in college as long as possible.