House Settlement Now In The Hands Of Judge Claudia Wilken. Roster Limits Updated

We are now in the waiting game, as attorneys for the NCAA and power conferences have filed their revised briefs regarding roster limits, and how athletes will be permitted to be ‘grandfathered’ in to current rosters. 

For the past two weeks, parties on all sides of the House settlement have been working on a solution that pertains to roster-limits, and how players who are, or were, on rosters would be allowed to keep their place at the current institution. The problem for plenty of schools is that coaches had already begun making cuts, in preparation for what they thought would be an approved settlement that would see walk-ons, along with others, need to be cut to meet the roster limit size. 

UPDATE, 9:50 P.M. ET: Judge Claudia Wilken filed an order on Wednesday night, detailing the timeline moving forward. Objectors to the supplemental brief filed by the NCAA and power conferences have until May 13th to file their response. Then, the plaintiffs and defendants have until May 16th to file any further responses on the matter. 

What The New Briefs Say About Roster Limits Within House Settlement

Along with plaintiff attorneys, the NCAA and power conferences came to an agreement to essentially phase-in these roster cuts. Meaning, if an athlete was already cut by a school, he is eligible to be reinstated, but at the schools’ discretion. 

Here is what was filed this evening, in hopes of approval from Judge Claudia Wilken. You can read the entire House Settlement motion here. 

• The NCAA roster limits in the Settlement (and any Conference-specific roster limits enacted outside of the Settlement) will not apply to any high school athlete who was recruited to be, or was assured they would be, on a school’s Division I roster for the 2025-2026 academic year and who was or would have been removed from that roster for the 2025-2026 academic year due to the implementation of roster limits
• Athletes who fall within categories 1 or 2 above (“Designated Student-Athletes”) do notcount towards any school’s roster limit for the duration of the athlete’s Division I athleticeligibility (i.e., the athlete may transfer to or enroll in another school and remain exemptfrom any roster limits);
• The NCAA roster limits in the Settlement (and any Conference-specific roster limitsenacted outside of the Settlement) will not apply to any athlete who was on a Division Iroster during the 2024-2025 academic year and who was or would have been removed fromthat roster for the 2025-2026 academic year due to the implementation of roster limits;
• Within thirty days of Final Approval, each Division I school is required to use good-faithefforts to identify for Class Counsel their Designated Student-Athletes; Class Counsel will have the right to enforce this obligation if additional athletes should have been identified asDesignated Student-Athletes;
• If any athlete transferred or is scheduled to transfer because they were told that they wouldbe removed from a roster in 2025-2026 due to the implementation of roster limits, nothingin the NCAA rules (e.g., designated transfer windows) will restrict schools from allowingthat athlete to transfer back to—or rescind their decision to transfer from—their original

Also, the revised brief says that players who are not retained by their current school, or decided to leave because they thought their spot would be gone, can keep their grandfather status at their next school of choice. 

How Schools Will Be Tasked With Keeping Track Of Roster Limits. 

In the filing, players who have already enrolled at a school coming out of high school, but had their spot taken away because the team thought they had to make room because of roster limits will now be allowed to stay, under the ‘grandfather’ revision. Essentially, schools will be allowed to keep players who would’ve been cut due to the House settlement, but they will not count towards the team’s overall roster number. 

And, schools will be tasked with keeping track of the players who have been grandfathered in, which will be a list of exceptions. Once the player’s eligibility is exhausted, the school would update its list, which is actually just checking a name off the box. 

Right now, if this were not to take place, there would be thousands of athletes who would be without a roster spot, which is something Judge Claudia Wilken was not keen on during the hearing two weeks ago. Judge Wilken was not going to approve the monumental settlement if all parties did not agree to fix the problem she saw with how roster spots were being eliminated. 

Massive Decision Awaits. Schools Preparing To Start Paying Players

There will be plenty of objectors to this late filing, with the schools having an option to keep a player or not being at the forefront of their arguments. Those objectors who are against having these spots taken from players are going to argue that leaving it up to the school is not fair to the athlete who was either offered a spot and took it, or was committed to a program and enrolled, only to have the school take away his spot on the team. 

Also, this is a massive decision based on the amount of money at-stake in this case, with $2.8 billion that is set to be paid to former athletes for the use of their name, image and likeness. And, the most important aspect of this entire matter is the revenue-sharing that will come from this House settlement agreement, where schools will pay athletes for their NIL, with schools set to pay upwards of $21 million annually. This financial figure would be divided up between sports, with football getting the majority. 

If the judge decides that she will not approve the settlement, multiple athletic administrators have told OutKick that they will continue with their plan to pay these athletes, using state laws as a protection. There will also be other states who have not yet approved this, that are prepared to pass laws that would allow universities to pay athletes. 

One school is not going to have an advantage over another, based upon which state they are in. We have seen how this has played out in the past when it comes to NIL laws being passed. 

The problem for schools that were already cutting their rosters down was the fact that they were working under the assumption that Judge Wilken would approve the final settlement agreement, because of a preliminary agreement. 

But, as we saw recently, Judge Claudia Wilken told all parties to either fix the problem, or she would not approve this settlement. 

Now, this is in the hands of a California judge, who has the authority to not agree, and this entire matter will go to trial. Obviously, the NCAA does not want this to happen, and neither do the power conferences. 

We now wait. While schools are hoping for the best, they are preparing for the worst, just in case.