Victus Bat Tour

What is Happening with Alberto Ozuna’s NCAA Eligibility?

By Trevor Powers

When Alberto Osuna decided to transfer from the University of Tampa to the University of Tennessee just two weeks before the regular season, the college baseball community was caught off guard. On the surface, it appeared Osuna had exhausted his Division 1 eligibility. Had it not been for a technicality in the COVID-19 eligibility rules, he wouldn't have been able to play D2 this season at Tampa. Osuna had already played two seasons at the JUCO level and three seasons at North Carolina.

However, due to the ongoing lack of clarity surrounding eligibility rules, Osuna chose to forgo his opportunity at Tampa and transfer to Tennessee, seeking another shot at a national championship and NIL compensation as a Division 1 baseball player. His plans took a sudden turn when his Preliminary Injunction was denied, severely diminishing his chances of playing baseball this season—or ever again. All of this stemmed from the inconsistent application of eligibility rules.

When Diego Pavia had his Preliminary Injunction approved, the NCAA was faced with a landscape-altering shift. Pavia’s argument centered around the Sherman Antitrust Act, claiming that the NCAA’s rule of counting a player’s junior college years against their overall eligibility violates antitrust laws by restricting an athlete's ability to profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL). Keep that last point in mind—it’s crucial to this conversation.

In response, the NCAA granted a one-year blanket waiver for the 2025-2026 academic year. This waiver applied to athletes who had previously competed at a non-NCAA school for one or more years and would have exhausted their eligibility in 2024-2025.

So, if Pavia was awarded an extra year of eligibility, why was Osuna denied?

I’m not writing this piece to express my opinion on whether Osuna should be eligible or not. My stance is that eligibility should remain as it always has—four years, with the potential for redshirts. But the moment the courts approved Pavia’s Preliminary Injunction, they opened Pandora’s box. Regardless of personal opinions on the matter, the precedent has been set. Junior college athletes who can prove they have the ability to profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL) can now sue the NCAA and potentially gain additional years of eligibility.

However, Osuna was denied, which directly contradicts the ruling in favor of Pavia.

Osuna’s case mirrored Pavia’s in key details: two years at a junior college, the opportunity to earn from NIL, and both cases went through the same Tennessee court system. Same case, different outcome. So why the discrepancy?

That’s a question only the courts can answer, but it undoubtedly has a massive impact on college athletics. What’s the main difference between Diego Pavia and Alberto Osuna? One plays football, and the other plays baseball. It’s no secret that there’s more money in college football than in baseball, but is that the image the NCAA or the court system wants to promote? Because Pavia is a high-profile quarterback with the potential to make seven figures in a year, the Sherman Antitrust Act protects him. But Osuna, who would have been earning in the high five to low six figures, is left unprotected.

Does that mean the ruling was based on earning potential rather than actual eligibility? Does this imply that any athlete wanting to fight for their eligibility must base their argument on their earning potential? And if that’s the case, doesn’t this further widen the gap between college football and other NCAA sports, bringing us closer to a point where college football might break off from the NCAA entirely to form its own professional league?

The precedent set by the court’s decision in Alberto Osuna’s case is clear: all the factors that applied to Pavia seem to matter, but not for Osuna. Again, the issue isn’t whether you think Osuna should be eligible or not—that argument is irrelevant. Once the courts ruled in favor of Diego Pavia, they set a precedent that reshaped the landscape of college athletics. If you spent time at a JUCO and can prove you’re able to profit from your name, image, and likeness, you will be granted eligibility.

The argument should be based on merit, not earning potential. If Pavia is eligible, then Osuna should be too. I don’t agree with this—I’m actually strongly against it—but we cannot single out one athlete to prove a point. Osuna had a legitimate case for eligibility, yet he was denied. Why? The world may never know. But one thing is clear: the precedent has been set. Football is above the rest of the NCAA. It always has been, and likely always will be.

I understand football is the driving force behind college athletics, but this ruling doesn’t send a positive message for the future of the NCAA. Every day the gap between football and the rest of college athletics widens, we move a step closer to the end of college athletics as we know it. Football is inching toward becoming a professional league, and when that happens, it will mark the beginning of the NCAA. Without football as the revenue generator, the other sports will struggle to function.

The decision to deny Osuna eligibility demonstrates that the rules are different for football. As long as we continue making different rules for different sports, we’re creating irreparable damage to the health of college athletics.

Osuna should be eligible. Not because I believe he should be, but because the courts ruled that Pavia should be. That’s the precedent that was set, and it should be the precedent they carry out.

Latest Podcasts

College Baseball Top-25

Backside Groundballs Media Merch

Use code BacksideGB to get 10% off at Chinook Seedery and get the best seeds in the game!