IRVING, Texas — The NCAA and power conferences’ settlement of three antitrust cases hangs in the balance.
In an order issued on Wednesday, a California judge announced that she will not approve the landmark House settlement unless changes are made to new roster limits — a concept the settlement agreement imposes on schools and one that has led to the elimination of roster spots for hundreds and, perhaps eventually, thousands of athletes.
Claudia Wilken, the presiding judge in the case in the Northern District of California, is giving attorneys 14 days to implement a grandfather-in concept to roster limits, assuring those athletes who are on a roster do not lose their spot — something that’s happening across the country as schools reduce their rosters to adhere to the new limits.
The roster-limit concept has, for months now, been targeted by critics as the biggest failure in the settlement. Most of the objections filed against the settlement centered around the roster limitations, which power conference executives pushed for as part of the deal.
On Wednesday, as Wilken’s order hit the court docket at about 5:50 p.m. ET, those same executives — the power conference commissioners — were in the midst of a meeting with other FBS commissioners in a Dallas suburb at the College Football Playoff’s annual spring gathering.
The power conference commissioners filtered out of meetings about an hour after the ruling dropped, all of them declining comment about Wilken’s order and many of them immediately taking calls from their general counsels.
Attorneys for the power leagues and NCAA were expected to hold a briefing Wednesday night to discuss next steps, sources tell Yahoo Sports.
One of them told Yahoo Sports, “We have no choice now,” in reference to changing the roster concept.
The House settlement, as it’s often described, is arguably the most significant change in college sports history. The deal would provide former athletes with $2.8 billion in backpay for lost name, image and likeness (NIL) rights and, perhaps more important, would usher in the era of athlete revenue-sharing, where schools would be permitted to directly pay athletes under a capped compensation system.
In the wake of the order, the industry is now searching for an answer to a daunting question: What do we do now?
Several athletic administrators who spoke to Yahoo Sports on Wednesday are privately urging their conference leadership to adhere to the judge’s recommendation and to grandfather in current athletes on rosters — something Wilken suggested during an April 7 hearing in Oakland.
'We are playing chicken with a damn federal judge'
However, in a filing last Monday, the named defendants (NCAA and power conferences) in the case, as well as plaintiff lawyers, refused to change the roster limits — a very public pushback against the desires of a sitting federal judge.
She didn’t take it lightly.
“The Court will delay denial of final approval to permit the parties to attempt to modify the settlement agreement,” she wrote, “so that members of the Injunctive Relief Settlement Class will not be harmed by the immediate implementation of the roster limits provisions.”
Perhaps, attorneys banked on the settlement’s sheer numbers — more than 88,000 claims made to just 600 opt-outs/objections — in convincing the judge to approve the deal.
Now, she is offering them an ultimatum: Change the roster limits as I originally asked or have your precious settlement denied.
"We are playing chicken with a damn federal judge," said one high-ranking college leader.
Wilken ordered the parties to consult with mediator Eric Green about potential roster limit modifications and requested that Laura Reathaford and Steve Molo — two attorneys who filed objections to the settlement — be consulted on any changes.
A settlement deal could trigger the chaotic environment of college sports to grow even more unstable.
For months, industry leaders have made decisions with the assumption of settlement approval, including the reduction of roster sizes. Hundreds of athletes have been told that they no longer have a roster spot, sending them into the transfer portal. Grandfathering-in roster spots now could cause an array of issues — something defendants pointed to in their brief last week.
Wilken isn't buying it, at one point writing “the court is not persuaded.”
“The Court finds that the decision by Defendants and NCAA member schools to begin implementing the roster limits before the Court granted final approval of the settlement agreement is not a valid reason for approval of the agreement in its current form despite the harm discussed above,” she wrote in Wednesday’s order.
The work on the new revenue-sharing world began months ago. The NCAA and power leagues spent a significant amount of time and resources on a new framework and enforcement entity to regulate the settlement-related revenue-sharing concept. Schools have been bracing to share upwards of $20 million annually with their athletes. They created revenue-sharing agreements, signed athletes to them and expected to begin payments July 1.
That said, the settlement has been the target of widespread criticism from an array of groups, including the actual named plaintiff in the case, Grant House, who told Yahoo Sports in December that he did not approve of some of the settlement’s concepts, including the roster limits.
The new limits are expected to lead to thousands of cuts, most notably impacting walk-ons and partial scholarship earners in swimming, football, track and cross country, as detailed in stories in October and January at Yahoo Sports.
High school athletes, recruited for months by schools and even offered scholarships, are having their offers revoked as coaches trim rosters to meet the new limits. Current athletes are seeing their spots eliminated.
Wilken had encouraged to 'grandfather in' current athletes
Wilken was clear on April 7: Change the roster-limit situation or risk not having me approve the settlement.
“My idea is to grandfather in” those currently on rosters, she told lawyers. “It would save a lot of angst.”
But the defendant attorneys in the case — the NCAA and power conferences — didn't make the change, even though the plaintiff attorneys have publicly supported that idea. In an interview in the fall with Yahoo Sports, Steve Berman, one of the lead plaintiff attorneys who struck the settlement with the NCAA, said both sets of attorneys were “working” with the NCAA and power leagues for solutions, including a transitional period in which those currently on a roster are grandfathered into the system.
However, it never happened.
In a statement to Yahoo Sports on Wednesday, Berman said, “We are pleased that Judge Wilken overruled all of the objections except the roster issue. Armed with her order, we are confident we have the leverage to get the NCAA and the conferences to fix the issue. If not, Judge Wilken is busy setting trial dates and if we have to try it, so be it.”
The roster and scholarship structure can be complex and difficult to understand. Under previous rules, most NCAA sports featured a scholarship limit (different by sport) but few sports had a finite roster cap. For example, the sport of men’s volleyball was allotted just 4.5 scholarships but often kept on its roster as many as 25 players, or however many the school permitted.
As part of the new policy, scholarship caps were removed, replaced by formal roster limitations. The difference between a sport’s new roster limit and its current roster are drastic in a handful of sports. For instance, many cross country teams keep more than 30 runners on a roster; the new roster limit is 17.
Gracelyn Laudermilch, a high school track runner who had her scholarship and roster spot eliminated after committing to a school, appeared in court in a passionate and emotional plea to the judge. “Roster limits destroy the dreams of athletes throughout the nation,” she said. “Our future is held in your hands. Can you help us understand why colleges are banning together to limit us? Your honor, please deny this settlement.”
According to those with knowledge of the settlement negotiations, power conference leaders implemented the new roster structure as a way to preemptively avoid any legal challenges over the previous scholarship restrictions. But there is perhaps another reason too: save money.
With many power conference schools sharing a previously unbudgeted $20 million-plus annually with athletes, the elimination of many walk-ons could save thousands.
