SEC figure Paul Finebaum offered cautious optimism on the February 16 edition of McElroy & Cubelic In The Morning, suggesting he believes Aguilar will be granted the additional year. Finebaum noted that the decision may hinge on how the NCAA interprets academic and athletic eligibility clocks, particularly in the wake of a related JUCO precedent set by Diego Pavia’s case, which allowed Pavia to play in 2025 after a favorable ruling in a separate federal suit.
Aguilar initially joined Pavia’s federal lawsuit as a co-plaintiff in late 2024 and later filed a separate state-level suit in early 2025 to pursue a faster ruling. A panel’s dismissal of the NCAA’s bid to overturn the ruling effectively cleared the path for Pavia to participate in the 2025 season. With Pavia’s precedent in mind, Aguilar’s new attorney, Cam Norris, moved to Knox County Chancery Court to seek a Tennessee-specific determination, arguing that a local venue could yield a timely decision.
The NCAA has criticized the move as “forum shopping,” given the proximity to UT’s campus, but Norris contends that a faster, individualized ruling is essential for Aguilar’s summer plans, including spring practice starting March 16 and potential NIL earnings estimated at $2–4 million if he returns for 2026. Heagerty indicated he would issue a written opinion “very shortly” after reviewing more than 1,200 pages of filings, with a decision possible as early as February 17.
The unfolding cases place Aguilar’s situation in a broader context where individual state rulings are increasingly shaping eligibility outcomes. A Mississippi ruling in the Trinidad Chambliss case previously found NCAA actions to be inconsistent with medical evidence, allowing Chambliss to play while his case advances. Together, these cases illustrate a growing tension between national eligibility rules and state-level legal challenges, potentially undermining the NCAA’s centralized authority over player eligibility.
