Yes it is calling them out. This number "28" just came out Friday- less than one week ago. Emphasizing or profiling p4 college rosters with numbers over 28, at this point in time, is unnecessary and is kinda fear mongering. Showing the eyes emoji. It is a bit much but not a shock for anonymous social media. Are you one of those anonymous posters?? Anyone who's read for more than 10 minutes about this case knows that the judge just got the negotiated agreement and so it has not been approved at all. The copy given to her is considered a draft and no doubt that very many of the provisions will be contested in courts and by schools and conferences. Those initial roster numbers will be one of the most contested and discussed aspects of this. Does anyone reading this really think P4 Football teams are going to 105 total players suddenly by start of Fall 2025?? Really? It's very likely there will be some kind of red-shirt or alternate-player policies negotiated. Guessing something like 20% of the roster cap can be additional red-shirt or gray-shirt players. Like an injured reserve or practice-player policy. For soccer it could end up being 28 fully funded maximum and maybe up to 5 players red-shirted or labeled as reserves or alternates. Also highly likely, if there is a hard roster cap, it could just be delayed to 2026. There will be smaller rosters some places for sure but also lots more money for more players many other places (in the P4). But as soon as someone with an ACL injury gets cut, or with some diagnosed mental health issue, there's another lawsuit, and I don't think there will be much of that. If soccer coaches are dropping 2025 commits right now, based on these anticipated changes, then they are panicking and probably using it as an excuse at this early stage. Some of them will think they need to create roster room for that Dec portal window when the inevitable trickle down of players does increase a bit.
What I have seen is not anonymous. Also, when parties to a lawsuit have negotiated a settlement, it is unusual for a judge not to accept it. The judge might not accept it, but that is not the norm.
Totally agree. The negotiations are over and, more than likely, the judge will accept. Now, there certainly will be some additional lawsuits, but, barring an injunction, we have been told that the roster caps are here and start planning for them. Additionally, the lawyers for the plaintiffs don’t care about the bottom end of college sports. That is why roster caps and the provision that schools are all within the right to cut sports. The guy (Kessler is it?) who has made a living suing the NCAA has essentially said this is for the top 5% of athletes who generate revenue (I.e. where the cash is for him).
Again, to quell some overreaction, roster caps will only exist when conferences/schools opt in to revenue sharing. Hard to believe this is going to impact every single division 1 program in America… power 4s? Certainly! The bottom 10-15 conferences in the country? I guess time will tell.
the coaches that are already calling 2025s and pulling the roster spot blaming the 28 man roster are basically just using it as an out. The kid probably didn't develop the way they were hoping or they just found better. so they are using the possible 28 person roster cap as a crutch and an easy way to say yeah we screwed up recruiting you but we will blame the NCAA for why we aren't giving you your spot.
Or maybe coaches are doing a solid to the existing players on the roster knowing it's either them or 2025s who haven't signed yet. For some outsiders, these coaches can't win. So they might as well be selfish, make decisions that are best for their program and let the whiners whine.
This is the big question - how far 'down' D1 will the opt-in for revenue sharing go? and so the roster limits? If you are one of the smaller 1-bid MBB conferences, is that CBS money really worth it? The CBS March Madness revenue is included in the case settlement I assume. I don't think it's just the FB revenues that will have to be shared by the schools. So, if you're only getting a few million in CBS MBB revenue, or maybe much less, is it worth it to increase costs and deal with these new requirements to even try to be competitive with the P4s or other FB revenue schools?? Some of the academic conferences might just 'opt out' perhaps. No doubt some schools will be ambitious and not do as well as they expect and could get in some financial trouble. The tweeners like the American and Sunbelt could be thinking about big changes. Some may decide to "tier" sports more or really defund some entirely, maybe even drop some. Will the small schools in the NEC or Metro really want roster limits with the hope of some NCAA revenue? The revenue shares are likely to be much smaller going forward anyway, at least over the next 10 years of the settlement payments. There have to be some schools thinking about pulling a 'Hartford' and just dropping down a division, or 2. Going to be very very interesting.
So, I'm afraid to share the opinion that the Re-Org of D1 sports may take a while. This is a summary of some of the court challenges submitted for Judge Wilken to consider along with the House settlement. This is just a short summary btw. (Some of this could put you to sleep!) Reinforces my point somewhat that making harsh moves like coaches dropping kids or commits at this point and blaming a roster target is really not necessary. Makes the coach and school look like they don't have a plan and don't care much about those kids. No one really knows exactly where this will land and what it will look like in the end, or what the exact timing will be. Should prospects in the top 1/2 or so of D1 be on high alert and make sure they have a few more options in mind than maybe they initially planned? yes, of course. USA Today’s Steve Berkowitz summarizes challenges to the House settlement that were filed by yesterday’s deadline: “Two separate sets of attorneys made filings asking U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken to deny preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. Taken together, the arguments combined to raise myriad issues about the deal, including whether it undervalues the claims, discriminates against female athletes, creates another illegal cap on compensation and the money that would go to the plaintiffs' attorneys. [...] Lawyers involved with the case in Colorado (Fontenot case) say that while the proposed settlement values the claims they are pursuing at a little over $1.8 billion, they ‘obtained an independent, preliminary estimate from a respected economist’ that places the value of these claims at $24.3 billion. A submission from that economist was included among their filings. [...] The attorneys for the (six Women’s) rowers allege that the settlement’s ‘extreme preferential treatment of male football and basketball players suggests that Class Counsel pursued those groups’ interests to the near exclusion of interests of other’ athletes.” Sportico’s Michael McCann breaks down the legal objections to the House settlement submitted by former Yale (DI) rowing student-athlete Grace E. Menke and five others who are, or were, members of the Yale, Oregon State (DI), George Washington (DI) and Texas (DI) crew teams. McCann explains that their “core argument is the settlement would continue to deprive college athletes, particularly women athletes, of their rightful compensation and illogically substitute one illegal cartel for another. … The objectors contend while thousands of football and men’s basketball players would receive more than $100K, nearly all women athletes, save for ‘select basketball players,’ would be paid a comparatively meager $125. This arrangement, the objectors assert, ‘reinforc[es] wrongful gender inequities instead of remedying them’ and would constitute ‘a major setback for efforts to achieve gender equity in college athletics.’” Further, the former student-athletes contend the settlement would replace one price-fixing scheme with another that imposes a compensation cap which includes no salaries and was not collectively bargained. According to data cited by the objectors, since about 380K student-athletes would get roughly $125 for their labor, that would amount to “less than seven hours of work per year at the federal minimum wage” which they ridicule as “orders of magnitude less than the number of hours student-athletes provide to their schools in athletic labor.”
I understand what you are saying about the possibility that this case drags on (I agree that it probably will), but can you say for 100% certainty that it won't be finalized by next fall. Are you in the room with these coaches and their administrators who may be telling them they should prepare for a roster cap next year. If the roster cap is a 1% possibility, I would argue that telling some '25's now that they can't honor their scholarship/commitment is actually the right thing to do as opposed to an overreaction. Coaches are in a no win situation on this. If there are no roster caps next year, those that cut/de-committed players will get killed for overreacting and fear mongering. If however the roster caps do come into place and they have to tell a '25 or cut a current player next June or July where they have a month or less to find a new home, they will get killed for not preparing for the situation. This is the inherent problem with the current situation. It is massively fluid and completely unknown what even tomorrow will look like. We have constant comments from idiot lawyers who are only interested in their piece in this pie. Obviously not all coaches are great people (just like we have horrific parents and kids), but, on the whole, most are just trying to do their best for their players, families, and themselves in an extremely difficult situation with no real answers.
That is a great take. It is a difficult situation for all. There is no 100% anything, especially in sports. The sun should come up tomorrow, is the best guarantee I have! AD's and coaches inherently want to be able to plan and not panic and that is at least the perception out there - some have panicked. Are there some AD's telling their WS coaches to expect 28 spots only? and for Fall 2025? I am Not in those P4 (or mid-major) campus meetings but you have to assume some are. Just like you can assume some conferences are discussing prioritizing sports - which means permission for schools to drop or defund them. Going to be crazy times! But it's very smart to at least appear like the calm professional when everyone else is freaking out. Now - if you committed to be the 30th player on the roster (in the eval of the coach), then maybe it's good to know that now before signing day, as a 2025 commit! Some coaches that decommit kids now are basically admitting that. But one of the gossip accounts out there is saying there's only a dozen or so P4 teams projecting over 30 for 2025. That's not really that many. BUT... In the P4 for sure - some % of players and prospects are about to do better, some much better, when the money starts really flowing. Some will be about the same, and some will do worse - or have to move down the competitive ladder to find a home. The new rules and 'guard rails' will work themselves out for everyone at about the same time and good coaches will continue to be good and vice versa. Plenty of coaches will adapt and thrive whatever happens. As usual, prospects are hoping to find a place with those coaches! Imagine Pensky at FSU, for example, now being able to fund players 20-28 just like he can the top players on the roster? Looks like this will likely happen lots of places.
In interesting post above that mentioned what "idiot lawyers" may be saying prompted my thinking about how we should be cautious about what the lawyers are saying. In the US legal system, there are trial lawyers (litigators) and lawyers who are not trial lawyers. The distinction is not formal, but practically that is how it works. (In England, there actually is a formal distinction between the two.) For trial lawyers, the way our system works, their job purely is to advocate for their clients in as rigorous a fashion as they can. It is not their job to give an objective, disinterested presentation. The theory is that if the lawyer on each side of a lawsuit advocates vigorously for his or her client, the people who have to make the decisions (judge and/or jury) will sort through what they have heard and make a proper decision. We call it the "adversary system" of justice. One of the results of this system is that if you listen to the lawyers, especially outside the courtroom, you get very slanted versions of the facts and you get what they want the law to be. You don't get objective statements of the facts and what the law most likely is. A side effect of this I have seen is that trial lawyers sometimes begin to believe that what they want the law to be is in fact what the law is, so when listening to trial lawyers you have to be aware of this, especially because successful trial lawyers are skilled at convincing you they are right. So, when lawyers who represent a subgroup of athletes tell you the proposed settlement is good or bad for athletes, or anything else about the case for that matter, I don't take it too seriously.
Good to share this info of course but here's my beef- How can you say in the SAME SENTENCE that you are referring to "leaked possible rulings" that could easily change and then put no more walk-ons in ALL CAPS and bold?? I will say again, just watch football roster numbers (as that policy will almost certainly have to apply to female sports). I will bet right now, there will NOT be only 105 football players in the P4 preseason next year. Maybe 105 on money but not total. They will make an enrollment argument, a financial need/aid argument, and a demographic argument that you can not just deny 20-25 players an opportunity. Some of these kids are from in-state taxpaying families (the P4 is mostly State Flagships), many are also need-based minorities getting a chance to even attend college due to their sports participation. Some schools below the P4 actually NEED some of these big rosters to help with enrollment. I will also bet right now, IF there is some kind of hard roster cap, it will take effect Fall 26. So no question that 2026 commits to the top half of D1 will be affected, and yes, some current rostered players that may enter the transfer portal this year will have a much harder time staying in the top half of d1, and find it tougher to get money there. Not saying there won't be some kind of domino effect and prospects in all sports should probably 'cast a wider net' of possible schools. "According to ‘leaked possible rulings’ (remember, nothing is official and can change between now and late fall), there will also be NO MORE WALK ON OPPORTUNITIES, meaning that every player on a D1 college roster (max of 28 players) will be required to be on a FULL SCHOLARSHIP"
Yeah, that article is full of a lot of misinformation. Walk ons will still exist, many teams/leagues will not opt into revenue sharing.
I wouldn't be counting on programs going to 28 full ride scholarships. Heard from a buddy that's in the Big 12 that any "new" scholarship given to soccer will come directly out of the revenue sharing. So say a full scholarship is worth $50,00 (for easy math) and a school decides to give their soccer team 28 scholarships. that's 14 new scholarships. That's $700,000 that comes out of the revenue sharing for the athletes. That's $700,000 they can't pay their football players. . . .I think most of these schools are going to want as much money as possible to pay football. So I wouldn't expect a lot of new scholarships for soccer. Heard some programs may get scholarships but it will come at the cost of other sports scholarships. For instance if soccer has 14 scholarships and let's say wrestling has 10. a school could decide to take 4 from wrestling putting them at 6 and give those 4 to soccer. Making soccer 18 and they wouldn't have to take that out of the revenue share because the school didn't create new scholarships overall.
Soooo, there was a hearing in the House v NCAA case today and the Judge, Wilkin, was not ready to grant preliminary approval for the settlement (that was the expectation). The court had lots of questions that the lawyers now have 3 weeks to come back and answer. Mostly about NIL stuff I believe. The lawyers for House, mainly Kessler, have the leverage they want as they just threaten to go back on a schedule to trial. The NCAA really wants, or needs, to avoid a jury trial and wants the 4 big cases to be combined and covered by the one settlement. But some of the cases are in different jurisdictions with different counsel. So there is not really a consensus among all the litigates. This quote below was revealing. Time is ticking to have this go for Fall 2025. Kessler also says he wants Wilken to set a deadline because there's a chance they can't reach a new settlement and the cases go back on the docket, per Sportico’s Michael McCann, who adds: “Pretty stunning development. This NCAA settlement that's been talked about like a done deal now has a good chance of collapsing.”
More about the House vs NCAA case and some interesting commentary below. This thing seems far from the "done deal" some have thought. But we'll see. Minutes from last week’s House hearing officially indicate the parties have been instructed to meet and discuss changes to the settlement and report back to U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken by September 26. The NCAA “might figure it’s time to make a game-breaking gamble by trying to win House” in the U.S. Supreme Court, according to Sportico’s Michael McCann, who points out the NCAA already made sweeping concessions in the settlement: “It has accepted an arrangement that demolishes its longstanding fidelity to amateurism, converts the upper echelon of college sports into a pro sports model, and obligates the association and member schools to pay about $2.8B over a 10-year period.” Therefore, it “stands to reason that NCAA President Charlie Baker – especially if swayed by conference commissioners, prominent university presidents and influential athletic directors – could decide enough is enough. Don’t be shocked if he declares he’s willing to take his chances in court.” McCann goes on to submit that before the case even comes before SCOTUS, it’s “not a slam dunk the NCAA would lose a trial. Some jurors might find the commercialization of college sports problematic and off-putting. Some might regard the transformation of college sports into something akin to pro sports undesirable, especially if they believe it would reduce academic opportunities for athletes. Jurors are ordinary people. They’re not seasoned litigators who can instantly cite sports antitrust case precedent or Ivy League economists who conduct empirical analyses on fan behavior. They often go with their gut and follow their moral compass.” In the event the case does go before SCOTUS, McCann emphasizes that while the court ruled 9-0 in the Alston case, no other justices signed onto Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurrence. Georgia President/former DI Council Chair Jere Morehead discussed the latest in the House case with The Athletic’s Seth Emerson: “Well, it needs to be resolved, because we entered into a settlement and we expect that entire settlement to be accepted by the judge. She’s expressed some concerns, and hopefully those concerns will be addressed over the next three weeks. [...] I don’t think it’s back to the drawing board. The settlement’s the settlement. She’s got to decide whether she’s going to accept the settlement that’s been agreed to by the parties.” Headlining attorney Tom Mars comments: “UGA’s President doesn’t seem to understand that a class action adjudicates the rights of absent third parties, and settlements must be approved to make sure those third parties - college athletes, in this case - aren’t getting screwed. Don’t screw the athletes. Case closed.”
Honestly, I wonder if its best this isn't settled. Let the case go through the courts, which will take several years, and in the mean time, present the bones of the settlement to congress as a compromise agreement that they should use as a basis for legislation. Congress was never going to get anything done when partisan proposals are the only thing put forward. It simply didn't have the urgency to actually force action and come up with a deal. But if a compromise deal is presented to them, maybe they can fight over the small parts and actually get it passed.