Revisions to roster limits in House vs. NCAA settlement propose ‘grandfathering’ in response to judge’s ultimatum

[MisterGopher]

Attorneys filed revisions to the House vs. NCAA settlement Wednesday that would allow college athletic departments to exceed the settlement’s proposed roster limits through voluntary “grandfathering” of any athletes who were previously assured a roster spot.

According to the revised proposal, any athlete who has been or would have been cut as a result of the settlement can be “grandfathered in,” meaning those athletes will not count against the settlement’s roster limits for the duration of their college eligibility. That includes incoming freshmen for the 2025-26 academic year who had a previously offered spot revoked due to settlement preparations.

Any decisions to retain these impacted athletes would be made at the discretion of individual schools, but the revision allows for “grandfathered” athletes to maintain that status if they transfer to different schools.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6341222/2025/05/07/house-vs-ncaa-roster-limits-revision/

 

[MNVCGUY]

Good lord.....that won't be confusing at all to track. And I am sure nobody will find a way to exploit it....

Tough to inject any sort of sanity in the system when the rules are constantly changing.

 

[ShushPush]

I am seeing more evidence that the "House Settlement" will end up in trial. More briefs being filed to support a trial and oppose the settlement. The NCAA is bidding for control of athlete pay and not control of budgets. I am revising my forecast to suggest the NCAA will not exist past next January.

 

[WAGopher]

I am seeing more evidence that the "House Settlement" will end up in trial. More briefs being filed to support a trial and oppose the settlement. The NCAA is bidding for control of athlete pay and not control of budgets. I am revising my forecast to suggest the NCAA will not exist past next January.

If I remember correctly, the grandfathered players are essentially the preferred walk-ons (PWO). This has nothing to do with scholarship players, but is about PWOs who had no pay beyond training table and coaching, and maybe a very rare NIL deal. I believe PWOs have always been one year offers.

With the new rules, the scholarship limit will be raised from 85 to 105 players. Now players that were previously PWOs can receive a scholarships.

Why would a judge be disturbed by an increase of 20 scholarships per team, many of which may go to previous PWOs?

Please correct me if I have misunderstood something.

 

[Kitzmann57]

If I remember correctly, the grandfathered players are essentially the preferred walk-ons (PWO). This has nothing to do with scholarship players, but is about PWOs who had no pay beyond training table and coaching, and maybe a very rare NIL deal. I believe PWOs have always been one year offers.

With the new rules, the scholarship limit will be raised from 85 to 105 players. Now players that were previously PWOs can receive a scholarships.

Why would a judge be disturbed by an increase of 20 scholarships per team, many of which may go to previous PWOs?

Please correct me if I have misunderstood something.

I think it has more to do with other teams: swimming, golf, track, soccer, lacrosse. Those team had major changes to their roster limits and scholarship.

 

[GopherGrit]

I think it has more to do with other teams: swimming, golf, track, soccer, lacrosse. Those team had major changes to their roster limits and scholarship.

Yes, exactly.

So here's the thing: in the old way, there were no roster limits.

Gopher volleyball could have 70 players, if it wanted. Gopher women's soccer could have 100 players. Gopher rowing could have 200. Etc.

I'm simply saying, there was no limit as a rule. In other words, you could have as many walk-ons (or non-scholarship players, whatever you want to call them) as you wanted.

The number of scholarships had a limit, per sport.


With the settlement, they flipped that on its head. Now, you can give a full scholarship to ever player on the roster, if you want. But the roster sizes are limited, per sport.


So, some schools (for example Michigan) got pro-active about implementing these roster limits. They told some players they no longer had a roster spot. And they told some incoming (recruited) walk-ons that they would not have a roster spot.

That "harm" is what this latest chapter of the settlement is about.

 

[WAGopher]

I think it has more to do with other teams: swimming, golf, track, soccer, lacrosse. Those team had major changes to their roster limits and scholarship.

Well … posted on the Football board ….
Thank you for getting me on topic.

 

[ShushPush]

Class Action Harm vs. Benefit – Rule 23(e)

Under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a judge must approve any class action settlement only if it is “fair, reasonable, and adequate” for all members of the class. In this case, current and future student-athletes—especially walk-ons or those in non-revenue sports—could lose scholarships or team spots due to the financial tradeoff created by the cap and revenue sharing. If a class settlement benefits some class members (e.g., Power Five football players) at the expense of others (e.g., Olympic athletes or underclassmen), the court must scrutinize that imbalance.

2. Antitrust and Economic Harm – Sherman Act
The original claim in House v. NCAA is based on antitrust law, specifically violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Ironically, if the settlement enacts new forms of economic restraint (like roster caps limiting opportunities), it could be interpreted as perpetuating harm, not remedying it.

3. Potential Violation of Due Process – 28 U.S.C. § 1715
This statute requires notice to state and federal officials when a class action settlement might impact public interests. A settlement that systematically eliminates opportunities for thousands of potential student-athletes, including those from underrepresented or financially vulnerable groups, could:

• Invite scrutiny from state attorneys general.
• Be challenged on grounds of violating procedural fairness or failing to protect the entire class, especially if the "grandfathering" clause is optional.

The SEC schools are leading the charge to make the House settlement approved, under the same legal theory that some people are 3/5ths of a human and Deloitte can prove that.

 

[MNVCGUY]

Wish I would have gone to law school.....would've made it way easier to follow college athletics these days.

 

[ShushPush]

If I remember correctly, the grandfathered players are essentially the preferred walk-ons (PWO). This has nothing to do with scholarship players, but is about PWOs who had no pay beyond training table and coaching, and maybe a very rare NIL deal. I believe PWOs have always been one year offers.

With the new rules, the scholarship limit will be raised from 85 to 105 players. Now players that were previously PWOs can receive a scholarships.

Why would a judge be disturbed by an increase of 20 scholarships per team, many of which may go to previous PWOs?

Please correct me if I have misunderstood something.

Because it is a temporary. It therefore in later years harms those students in Olympic type sports and the PWOs. It does so many other slight of hand routines to enshrine harms that they are too numerous to list. I am not going to take that much time to hash it out so you can be satisfied and get a dopamine fix.