Judge Claudia Wilken Now Holds Decision Power over NCAA's House Settlement, as Parties Have Altered Roster Limit Conditions

Judge Claudia Wilken Now Holds Decision Power over NCAA's House Settlement, as Parties Have Altered Roster Limit Conditions

here's a reworked version of your article:

TheLatest on NCAA Roster Limits and the House Settlement

The awaited decision on NCAA roster limits is nearly here, as attorneys for the NCAA and power conferences have unveiled their revisions, addressing how athletes will be allowed to maintain their spots on current rosters.

Focused on finding a solution concerning roster limits and players who were, or would have been, removed from their roster spots, all parties involved have been working tirelessly for two weeks. The challenge for numerous schools lies in the fact that coaches had already started making cuts, expecting an approved settlement that would require them to trim their rosters to meet the stated limitations.

Roster Limit Revisions in the House Settlement

The NCAA and power conferences have reached a consensus to phase in these roster cuts, which means athletes that were previously cut will have the option to be reinstated, but at the school's discretion. Below is what was filed this evening, awaiting approval from Judge Claudia Wilken:

1. Roster limits in the Settlement, as well as any Conference-specific roster limits enacted outside of the Settlement, will not apply to any high school athlete who was:
2. Recruited to be on a school's Division I roster for the 2025-2026 academic year and subsequently removed because of roster limits implementation; or
3. Assured they would be on a school's Division I roster and was removed due to roster limits. These athletes will retain their spot at their current institution throughout their NCAA athletic eligibility, allowing them to transfer to or enroll in another school without being bound by any roster limits.
4. The same exemption applies to any athlete who was on a Division I roster for the 2024-2025 academic year and was informed they'd be removed due to roster limits for the 2025-2026 academic year.
5. Within a month of Final Approval, each Division I school is required to use good-faith efforts to identify for Class Counsel any athletes who belong within these categories. If additional athletes should have been identified as exceptions, Class Counsel will have the right to enforce this obligation.
6. If any athlete has transferred or is scheduled to transfer due to being told they'd be removed from a roster because of roster limits, nothing in the NCAA rules will restrict schools from allowing that athlete to retransfer to their original school or rescind their decision to transfer from it.

Additionally, players who aren't retained by their current school or have left due to assumptions about their roster spot's fate can keep their grandfather status at their next school of choice.

Managing Roster Exceptions

Students who have already enrolled at a school coming out of high school but had their spot taken away because of roster limits will now be permitted to remain, thanks to the 'grandfather' revision. In other words, schools will be allowed to preserve players who would've been cut due to the House settlement but will consider them exceptions to the team's overall roster count.

Schools will be responsible for keeping track of the players who have been grandfathered in – essentially, creating a list of exceptions. Once a player's eligibility expires, the school will update its list by checking the name off the list.

Faced with the prospect of thousands of athletes being left without a roster spot, Judge Claudia Wilken stressed her reluctance to approve the settlement if the roster problem wasn't addressed during the hearing two weeks ago. Given her stance, there's a strong likelihood that these grandfathering provisions will be accepted.

What's Next for Schools and Athletes

There will be plenty of opposition to this late filing, as debates focus on the fairness of schools having the option to retain talent or not. Objectors arguing against such discretion will underline the unfairness for athletes who:

1. Were offered a spot and took it, or committed to a program and enrolled, only to have their spot on the team revoked; or
2. Transferred due to the roster cuts but are now barred from returning because of existing transfer rules.

This decision is of great importance due to the vast sums of money at stake in this case: $2.8 billion earmarked for former athletes for the use of their name, image, and likeness. Moreover, the financial implications of this settlement agreement extend to revenue-sharing among schools, with each anticipated to pay athletes for their NIL, allocating upwards of $21 million annually, divided among sports – with football taking the lion's share.

In the event Judge Wilken declines to endorse the settlement, multiple athletic administrators have shared that their schools will continue with plans to pay these athletes, relying on state laws for protection. Additionally, other states that haven't yet approved this will prepare to pass laws that enable universities to pay athletes, ensuring that no individual school gains an advantage based on its location.

The problem for schools that had already started reducing their rosters stemmed from their assumption that the settlement would be approved since a preliminary agreement was in place. However, we saw a shift in perspective recently when Judge Claudia Wilken mandated that all parties either find a solution to the roster issue or risk rejection of the settlement.

Now, we wait. While schools remain optimistic, they're also preparing for potential setbacks in case the settlement isn't approved.

1. The NCAA and power conferences are enforcing a phase-in for roster cuts, giving athletes previously cut an opportunity to be reinstated, with the school's discretion being the deciding factor.
2. Athletes who were recruited for the 2025-2026 academic year and were subsequently removed due to roster limits implementation or assurance of a roster spot but removal due to roster limits will retain their spot at their current institution throughout their NCAA athletic eligibility.
3. This exemption also applies to any athlete who was on a Division I roster for the 2024-2025 academic year and was informed they'd be removed due to roster limits for the 2025-2026 academic year.
4. Schools are required to use good-faith efforts to identify athletes who belong within these categories, with the option for Class Counsel to enforce any unidentified athletes.
5. An athlete who has transferred or is scheduled to transfer due to roster limits will not be bound by NCAA rules, allowing them to retransfer to their original school or rescind their decision to transfer.
6. Players grandfathered in will be exceptions to the team's roster count, with schools required to keep track of them and update the list as their eligibility expires.
7. The precedent of schools having discretion in retaining talent has sparked debates about fairness, focusing on athletes who were offered a roster spot but had it revoked or transferred due to roster cuts, but are now barred from returning because of existing transfer rules.
8. The financial implications of this settlement agreement extend to revenue-sharing among schools, with each anticipated to pay athletes for their NIL, allocating upwards of $21 million annually, divided among sports like football, basketball, hockey, baseball, golf, tennis, mixed-martial-arts, racing, and sports-betting.
9. Schools had started reducing their rosters based on the assumption of settlement approval, but with the mandate to address the roster issue or risk rejection, they are now preparing for potential setbacks in case the settlement isn't approved.

Read also: