There’s a notable shakeup brewing in college football. A Virginia Tech player has hired NIL attorney Darren Heitner to fight the university’s move to label his redshirt status as “opting out.”
This disagreement could have big consequences for the player’s scholarship and revenue-sharing payments. It’s also kicked up a debate about what redshirting really means under NCAA rules.
The heart of the issue? Whether redshirting should count as a player voluntarily leaving the program. Virginia Tech says yes, which they claim allows them to cut off financial benefits.
Heitner’s not buying it. He insists this interpretation is off-base and could hurt the player’s rights and future.
The Core of the Dispute: Redshirting vs. Opting Out
Redshirting is pretty standard in college sports. It lets players save a year of eligibility by sitting out games for a season.
Usually, it’s for development or recovering from injuries. But now, Virginia Tech is calling a player’s redshirt status “opting out,” and people are definitely noticing.
Heitner says this is a misreading of NCAA bylaws. He believes the university is using it as an excuse to cut off the player’s scholarship and revenue-sharing money.
The Role of NIL and Revenue-Sharing Agreements
Since NIL agreements came along, college athletes can finally make money from their personal brands. Revenue-sharing deals with universities are now pretty common, too.
In this case, Virginia Tech cut off the player’s revenue-sharing payments, which hits his wallet hard. Heitner argues the university’s move is indefensible and might even be fraudulent under NCAA rules.
Heitner’s Argument and Legal Standpoint
Heitner voiced his frustration on social media. He stressed that redshirting isn’t the same as opting out, and warned that the university’s stance could set a bad precedent.
He’s been hired to challenge the ruling head-on. He’s also invited other players in similar situations to reach out for help.
Implications for the Player and the Program
The player hasn’t been named, but it’s clear he wants to stay with the team and keep practicing. That’s pretty different from players who redshirt just to jump into the transfer portal.
His goal is to save a year of eligibility and keep working on his game with the program. But with Virginia Tech taking him off the roster and limiting access to athletic resources, his path forward looks messy.
Financial Motivations and the Bigger Picture
Honestly, the money angle is hard to ignore here. The university’s move to treat redshirting as opting out—and then cut financial benefits—feels like part of a bigger trend where cash is calling the shots in college football.
All of this really points to the need for better rules and more protection for players who redshirt for legit reasons.
Future Legal Actions and Potential Outcomes
No lawsuit has been filed yet, but Heitner’s involvement signals the player is ready to fight. How this plays out could change how redshirting is viewed and how schools handle financial agreements with athletes.
If Heitner wins, it might set a new standard that lets players redshirt without risking their financial support.
Transfer Portal and Eligibility Concerns
The timing is interesting, too. This comes right after former head coach Brent Pry was let go.
Now, Virginia Tech players with eligibility left have a 30-day window to hit the transfer portal. Guys like cornerback Dante Lovett and linebacker Michael Short already said they’re transferring.
They’ll have two years of eligibility wherever they land next. The transfer portal is looking pretty appealing right now.
Medical Redshirts and Eligibility
Tucker Holloway, a wide receiver and punt returner, is also caught up in all this. He redshirted in 2024 because of a leg injury.
If he gets a medical redshirt, he’ll keep two years of eligibility, too. It’s a good reminder of how complicated eligibility rules are and why players and programs need to stay on the same page.
Conclusion: A Call for Fairness and Transparency
This dispute between a Virginia Tech player and the university over redshirting and opting out is just one example of bigger problems simmering in college athletics.
With NIL agreements and revenue-sharing gaining traction, clear and fair rules are more important than ever. Should players really have to pick between keeping their eligibility and holding onto their financial benefits?
The outcome here might actually set a new standard for how college athletes are treated. Their rights and futures deserve a little more protection, don’t they?
If you want to dig deeper, check out the full article on Sports Illustrated.
- Schools Covered
- College Football Articles
- Men's College Basketball Articles
- Men's College Soccer Articles
- Women's College Basketball Articles
- Olympic Athlete Articles
- Men's College Baseball Articles
- College Sports Media Professionals Articles
- Hall of Fame Member Articles
- Former College Player Articles
- Game Previews
