Caden Powell's Baylor Return Hinges on NCAA Eligibility Fight
A lawsuit challenging the NCAA's authority over athlete eligibility could open the door for Caden Powell to return to Baylor basketball next season. The case, led by attorney Ryan Downton, argues that the governing body's restrictions violate the rights of student athletes who have exhausted their eligibility but seek an additional year under a newly proposed age-based model. A Wednesday vote and an Ohio court injunction could reshape how college sports regulate playing careers.
Why Is Caden Powell's College Career Not Over?
The college basketball transfer portal closed on April 21, and most programs finalized their rosters after the NBA draft withdrawal deadline on May 27. Baylor, however, still has one roster spot available, and Powell remains a viable candidate to fill it.
Powell, a senior forward and Waco native, transferred from Rice with the expectation of backing up center Juslin Bodo Bodo and playing limited minutes. When a forearm injury sidelined Bodo Bodo before the season started, Powell stepped into the starting role. He averaged 6.9 points and 6.3 rebounds, becoming a fan favorite on a team that struggled to a .500 overall record and a 6-12 mark in Big 12 play, Baylor's worst season since 2006.
How Does the NCAA's Proposed Eligibility Model Work?
The NCAA is preparing to vote on a new age-based eligibility model that would create a five-year playing window for all college athletes. This window would be calculated from either their enrollment date or their 19th birthday, whichever applies.
If approved, the model would effectively grant an additional year to athletes who exhausted their four years of eligibility under the old rules. The vote is scheduled for Wednesday, and its outcome will directly influence the parallel legal challenge working through the Ohio court system.
What Is the Ohio Lawsuit Challenging the NCAA?
Fifteen student athletes from the class of 2022, including Powell, have filed a group effort lawsuit in Ohio seeking an injunction against the NCAA. These athletes have used up their four years of collegiate eligibility but argue they deserve one more year based on the NCAA's own proposed changes.
The suit is headed by Ryan Downton, the same attorney who successfully won an extra year of eligibility for former Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia to return for the 2025 season. That precedent strengthens the current case. If the Ohio court circuit grants the injunction, Powell would be free to claim the 15th and final roster spot on head coach Scott Drew's team.
Where Would Powell Fit on Baylor's Roster?
Baylor heads into next season with a deep, talented squad. Prominent returners like junior guard Isaac Williams and redshirt junior center Bodo Bodo anchor a group that also includes highly rated transfers. Assuming health holds up, the Bears are likely to run a 10-man rotation.
Powell's addition would bring veteran leadership and familiarity with Drew's system, but it would also create a logjam at center. Bodo Bodo is locked in as the starter, and redshirt freshman Mayo Soyoye is positioned as the primary backup. A crowded post could force creative adjustments.
One solution would be shifting Powell from center to the forward position. Pairing him alongside either Bodo Bodo or Soyoye would allow Baylor to field a lengthy, athletic frontcourt reminiscent of the rim-running teams Waco saw in the mid-2010s. A lineup with Powell at the four and a true center at the five could give the Bears the best lob-threat frontcourt in the Big 12.
What Happens Next With the NCAA Vote and the Lawsuit?
The NCAA's final vote on the eligibility model takes place on Wednesday. The Ohio lawsuit is expected to move forward based on that ruling. If both break in favor of the athletes, Powell's return to Baylor moves from possibility to reality. If not, the Bears will proceed with their current 14-man roster and Powell's college career will have concluded.
The broader implication, however, extends well beyond one player. The case exposes the fundamental tension between a governing body that imposes arbitrary eligibility ceilings and the individuals whose careers are constrained by them. When institutions control how long a person can work, freedom inevitably loses. The court's decision will signal whether that principle holds any weight in college athletics.