Derrin Boyd, a 25-year-old basketball guard who earned his bachelor’s degree in 2023 and an MBA in 2024, has been denied the opportunity to play hoops for Vanderbilt in the new school year.
Chief U.S. District Judge William L. Campbell Jr., the same judge who allowed Vanderbilt quarterback and former JUCO transfer Diego Pavia to play for the Commodores this fall, has denied that remedy to Boyd. On Friday, Campbell reasoned that Boyd’s situation is different from Pavia in important ways. Unlike Pavia, Boyd didn’t accrue time playing college sports at a junior college; Boyd instead attended and earned a B.A., MBA and a graduate certificate in urban and regional planning from three four-year colleges. Boyd attended Georgetown College (not to be confused with Georgetown University) from 2019 to 2022, Lipscomb University from 2022 to 2024 and the College of Charleston from 2024 to 2025.
Boyd challenges the application of NCAA eligibility rules, which generally limit athletes’ eligibility to five calendar years from when the athlete begins studying at a college and four seasons of intercollegiate competition (including junior college competition) in any one sport. Boyd earned $120,000 in NIL money last year at College of Charleston and, as Campbell described in his order, Vanderbilt offered Boyd $350,000 to play in 2025-26.
Boyd, who averaged 13.9 points per game in 2024-25, has enjoyed an impressive career since starting college in 2019. He has been named Mid-South Freshman of the Year, Mid-South Conference Outstanding Player of the Tournament and all-team several times. Boyd might not be an NBA prospect, but he would be a valuable member of the Commodores.
It’s no surprise, then, that Vanderbilt would like to add Boyd or, as Campbell observed, that Boyd “wants to continue his career as a student-athlete” and earn $350,000.
But Boyd’s case is predicated on an argument Campbell found unpersuasive. Boyd objects to the NCAA starting the five-year eligibility clock upon enrollment at an NAIA institution (Georgetown College) and contends it is inconsistent with the NCAA not counting other post-secondary activities. Those activities include military service, religious missions, professional participation in other schools and enrolling in a postgraduate (PG) year after high school. The NCAA and NAIA are both national associations of member colleges that oversee intercollegiate sports and sponsor national championships. The NAIA is smaller, however, and tends to feature private colleges, many of which are religiously affiliated, along with a group of public universities.
“The court disagrees,” Campbell wrote. The judge explained that both NCAA and NAIA institutions confer four-year bachelor’s degrees whereas military services, prep schools and JUCO schools do not. In other words, NCAA and NAIA schools are similar enough to justify applying the NCAA’s five-year rule to both.
Campbell also concurred with the NCAA that Boyd waited too long to seek an injunction. Boyd has “known for years” that his time at Georgetown College “counted toward his NCAA Division I eligibility and that he would, therefore, exhaust his eligibility following the 2024-25 academic year.”
The NCAA also offered several other reasons. The association maintained that the five-year period ensures that college students who play sports leave and “do not remain in college forever.” Seasoned players leaving rosters opens up spots for incoming freshmen players. In addition, the NCAA argued that time limits on how long college students can play sports help to distinguish college sports from pro sports. Those limits are also portrayed as facilitating the alignment between academics and athletics for college athletes.
In a statement shared with Sportico, an NCAA spokesperson said that “attempts to alter the enforcement of foundational eligibility rules—approved and supported by membership leaders—makes a shifting environment even more unsettled.” The spokesperson added that the NCAA hopes Congress will intervene to support the NCAA’s position on player eligibility. In recent months, judges have offered conflicting decisions on more than 30 seasoned college athletes, many in their mid-20s, who have sued to remain eligible to play college sports to make NIL money and, with the House settlement, revenue share.
