While no decision has yet been reached, the notes from the House v. NCAA settlement hearing on Monday with US District Court Judge Claudia Wilken are worth a deep read as there are a lot of issues discussed and more to be heard before a decision can be made.

USA Today writer Steve Berkowitz filed notes from the courtroom during the hearing. Here’s a link to the story he was updating, which ran from 1 p.m. to 8 p.m. ET in Oakland, Calif.

Here are my top 10 items from yesterday's hearing:

1. The hearing is to give final approval to the settlement document. So a scene is painted that you don't see every day, with the plaintiff’s lawyers and the NCAA’s lawyers on the same side of the table, and with the objectors to the settlement -- including one lawyer representing an FSU athlete -- on the other side of the table.

2. I found it compelling and worrisome if you are the NCAA and the conferences that Wilken presses the lawyers about claims of future athletes because this settlement was constructed with the interests of only the current and past athletes.

When pressed by Wilken, plaintiff lawyer Jeff Kessler says incoming athletes would be notified annually with a notice of opportunity to raise objections with a court and be advised to consult with a lawyer or a parent, and would allow the judge and/or the athlete to respond to any changes in circumstances in college athletics. Future athlete rights would not be bargained away, he argues, which would be consistent with due process.

Berkowitz writes that Wilken was reluctant and asked whether there are legal precedents.The attorney for the NCAA and conferences, Rakesh Kilaru, backed up the plaintiff lawyer's argument.

Wilken asks what happens if a judge decides that a future athlete has a sufficient problem to merit a change in the agreement. Kessler says a judge would then be allowed to terminate the settlement.This seems to be a very central issue for the judge as you will note again in point five.

3. Another important moment occurred when Wilken asked about approving parts of the universal, multi-case settlements, and the NCAA’s Kilaru said the NCAA and the conferences want a full approval or not.

4. Interesting note during the objector's segment: a lawyer representing FSU quarterback Tommy Castellanos raised questions about the “role of the entity operating as the College Football Playoff’s role in the settlement." Is the CFP released from liability? Wilken said she will ask the principal’s lawyers. The CFP operates separately from the NCAA, which collects no revenue from the CFP or from bowl games.

5. Another objector was addressing future events and was interrupted by Wilken, who re-directed him to the issues of the legality of the settlement as it pertains to her original concern. Wilken: "Can you have a class of future people who aren't known yet? Can you release claims for things that haven't occurred yet?" Again, this seems at odds with Judge Wilken's legal sensibilities.

6. Leigh Ernst Friestedt, who represents four women athletes, argues against how little of the damages would go to past women athletes. Wilken says: “We can’t solve all these problems retrospectively. It’s too bad, but…” The argument is if schools had been allowed to make NIL payments, those payments would have been subject to Title IX, a conversation that will be discussed later.

7. A former Washington All-American linebacker Ben Burr-Kirven and LSU gymnast Olivia Dunn were critical of how the damages were calculated and would be awarded, which “doesn’t come close to recognizing the value I lost,” Dunn said. Remember, Dunn had more than 5 million followers on Tik Tok and Instagram during those years.

8. Roster sizes are another major topic of discussion. A female high school runner from Pennsylvania appeared without an attorney because there is no one representing her interests. She said she made a college decision and was then told there would be no sport team for her at that school. “No one can explain why roster limits are good for anyone,” she said. Utah swimmer Gannon Flynn said that because of proposed roster limits, athletes are being told “transfer or quit outright.” He presented stats that show more than 5,300 athletes will lose their roster spot under the proposed roster limits.

9. While it hadn’t been addressed yet Monday, the NIL Clearinghouse, which will be given greater authority to assess the market value of NIL deals, will also be challenged by objectors.

10. Last and certainly not least, Wilken said she does not see this as a Title IX case, or the correct vehicle for whether there should be a collective bargaining agreement for college athletics.

Join the Osceola for 30 days for free, using promo code Osceola30

Follow The Osceola on Facebook

Follow The Osceola on Twitter

Subscribe to the Osceola's YouTube channel

Subscribe to the Osceola's podcasts on Apple