Todd’s Take: House Settlement Roster Limit Respondents Have Won Me Over

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. – The House settlement. You’ve heard about it. You may or may not care about it. You may just want to know when the settlement kicks in and begins the revenue sharing era of college athletics.

Before that can happen, the settlement must be approved by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken in the Northern District of California.

Preliminary approval for the House settlement was given in October, but a final hearing took place on April 7, taking into account a period of time where those who object to the class action suit could raise their objections.

Wilken cited two problems with the settlement that objectors brought to her attention. One was the binding nature of the settlement to future athletes not party to the case. The other was the roster limits that are part of the settlement structure.

For years, the NCAA operated on the basis of scholarship limits. While sports like football and basketball operated on the principle of full scholarships, most of the other sports offered partial scholarships. Baseball, for example, has very few players on full rides. Most players are on half-rides or quarter-rides. Still more don’t have a scholarship at all.

With roster limits, walk-ons and partial scholarship players suddenly had their athletic careers placed in jeopardy. College athletic departments began to price in the House settlement terms ahead of time. Countless athletes in sports like swimming have been told they would not have a roster spot for the 2025-26 season.

Wilken took note of the concerns of these athletes. Her suggestion was to grandfather in these athletes so they are not harmed by the settlement. Roster limits could be gradually phased in as these players aged out.

Seems reasonable, right? Not for the NCAA and the power conference schools primarily on the hook for the House settlement.

The NCAA, the plaintiff in the House case, objected to phasing in roster limits and argued that would cause “significant disruption.”

In a filing with the court last week, the NCAA made no changes to the roster limits despite Wilken’s request. Their claim is that schools and student-athletes “have been making decisions in anticipation of the roster limits being immediately effective if the Settlement is approved.”

The NCAA-speak employed to say that student-athletes have been making decisions based on roster limits is the height of chutzpah, but not surprising. Yeah, they’ve been preparing for losing their opportunities.

A parent of a college basketball player was among the many respondents who have objected to the NCAA’s inflexibility.

“I have read the Supplemental Brief and find it deeply disappointing, bordering on disingenuous, condescending and dismissive. Class Counsel finds ‘no practicable way to [grandfather in roster limits], because grandfathering roster limits would cause significant disruption.’ Disruption to whom?” the respondent said.

A parent of a bball player who will be cut due to the House settlement wrote to Judge Wilken and had this to say about the lawyers’ April 14th joint report: “it [was] deeply disappointing, bordering on disingenuous, condescending and dismissive.” Strong words. I don’t disagree. pic.twitter.com/wRwhmghcKg
— Philip Sheng (@therealshenger) April 20, 2025

Thank you, anonymous parent. You went right to the heart of the matter.

What a school would tell you is that roster limits give them some cost certainty. They’re not wrong, but cost certainty shouldn’t come at the expense of athletes who already earned their spot.

And what of these costs in the first place? A walk-on athlete is already paying for their tuition. How is their presence on a team “costing” a school anything?

This is apart from the fact that the “cost” of scholarship athletes is partly a paper cost in the first place. A school is not literally paying for a scholarship athlete to play for them. Those athletes are being rendered a service (an education) for free instead of paying for it. Yes, there are associated costs that go with that, but that’s effectively how it works.

This same parent wisely pointed out the contradictory gobbledy-gook that the NCAA and its schools use to fight for roster limits. The italics and underlined portions were in the letter to Wilken.

“Grandfathering athletes does not guarantee them a spot. What it does guarantee is that a spot they earned is not unnecessarily eliminated by arbitrary roster limits, unfairly and unreasonably forcing that student-athlete to leave the life they have built, when a clear solution has been presented,” this parent said in their letter to Wilken.

Preach.

The optics of the institutional intransigence on this matter is particularly galling when you take into account other realities these schools engage in regularly.

It is sickening that schools will nickel-and-dime athletes when they fall over all themselves to re-negotiate coaching contracts at the first sign another school is sniffing around for their coach.

They don’t think twice about giving away millions of dollars in these re-negotiations, but can’t find the comparative pittance it would take to grandfather in these athletes?

Same thing for coaching buyouts. Schools will pay millions of dollars to rid themselves of a coach, but they can’t find thousands of dollars to protect vulnerable athletes?

Yes, I’m aware donations often fund these contract re-negotiations and buyouts, but it’s still a terrible look for the schools to not even consider the reasonable compromise Wilken suggested could be part of the settlement to make sure these athletes aren’t left holding the bag.

Because let’s not forget the stakes here. If the House settlement is not approved, the NCAA and power conference schools will be on the hook for $12 billion in damages in a case they would almost certainly lose.

The House settlement is supposed to save the NCAA and the power conference schools (like Indiana) from that extinction-level payout. So they respond by nickel-and-diming walk-ons and other athletes?

Given the revenue the power conferences bring in from their media rights deals and how willing they are to find money to sign the hot name of the moment as coach, it’s an odious “stand” that the NCAA and the institutions have taken.

Wilken should make the House settlement contingent on grandfathering in these athletes. It’s the right thing to do. The schools can afford it despite their claim of “disruption.”

You know what’s disruptive? A $12 billion bill. The NCAA and its schools that raised objections to a modified roster limit timeline need to keep the alternative in mind and do right by their athletes who would be innocent bystanders in this settlement.

Columns on Hoosiers On SI ...

INSTABILITY IS MOST FRUSTRATING ASPECT: The transfer portal should exist and NIL money doesn't bother me, but so many college athletes choose to make their experience transitory. The instability hurts college athletics. CLICK HERE.

WINNING HEARTS AND MINDS: Darian DeVries got his primary target at the expense of Kentucky. That will go down well in Hoosier Nation. CLICK HERE.

SEISMIC TIMES FOR COLLEGE ATHLETICS: The House settlement and other changes have made this a seismic month for college athletics. CLICK HERE.