NCAA Settlement and Roster Limit Fallout Thread

[dmh7443]

I’m currently looking for information about another letter campaign. If I find it, I’ll be sure to share it.

[SheriffBooth]

The squabbling and personal attacks of the last few hours have been cleaned.  We'll leave the thread open for now.

[Happyguy]

In a polite way, can someone please explain why you, or others believe the objectors are wrong? 

 

I truly believe it is wrong to out of nowhere change the rules. If going forward, class of 2026 onward knows the rules and understands what they are signing up for that would be fair. They have the option to sign with a lower division team knowing there is no time to develop on a high ranking D1 team. With a limited roster you have to hit the ground tunning or you're gone. Guessing lots of 2025's and 2024's may not have signed up for that. That is why I believe you have to grandfather in all classes through 2025. Let it all digest and run it's course and develope into a system where you may first have to go to a lower team even a JUCO and earn your way to the better teams much like the way it is with Football today. I'm not a fan of that but that seems to be the way sports are headed and that is fine but let the kids know the rules and understand the system before they make committments and choices. 

I don't have a dog in the fight but I feel for many parents that do and I feel so sad for the kids who worked so hard in all sports affected. 

 

[jda]

22 minutes ago, Happyguy said:

In a polite way, can someone please explain why you, or others believe the objectors are wrong?

 

I don't believe that they are wrong.  I have an issue with the propaganda and rhetoric on here.  I have posted many times that the objectors should go and get what they can - that is what everybody else in the suit is doing.  I have a problem with the sentiment by the poster that the objectors do not want anything, have won, are innocent, celebrating or any of that garbage.  This is a zero sum game now - for them to win, somebody else has to lose.  If they can win, then fine, but I personally don't have time to listen to the gloating and bragging... kinda similar to people who survive a massive layoff and want to go out and party about it.

 

Once revenue sports kids wanted paid, then somebody else has to suffer.  Period.  The objectors are just delaying this to a different year or class/group of people.  If they can do it, then good for them.  Somebody is going to suffer.

 

This is about payrolls, employees and all of that now.  Layoffs happen.  It sucks.  It really sucks.  There is no endless supply of money like some people think.  It will take years to determine who was more right, more wrong and if anybody won... and nobody is likely to win this.  Programs are already getting cut to come up with money to pay the rev sport kids.  I feel for them too.  If they want to fight, then go for it, but do it like a human being since what you are feeling about being impacted is being done to somebody else because of you - see my note above about 13 employees (who are good at their jobs) needing to go if just half of the exempted kids come back

 

Some might argue that this is about kids who are not good enough taking away from kids who can cut it.  I don't get into all of this.  Too simple for me.  This is about getting what you can and not about right, wrong, just, or anything like that.  Greed and/or selfish is the name of the game now.  You can decide if entire swimming, track and fencing PROGRAMS get cut to keep end of the roster kids from other sports - to each their own on this one.

[TroyB123]

2 hours ago, Happyguy said:

In a polite way, can someone please explain why you, or others believe the objectors are wrong? 

 

I truly believe it is wrong to out of nowhere change the rules. If going forward, class of 2026 onward knows the rules and understands what they are signing up for that would be fair. They have the option to sign with a lower division team knowing there is no time to develop on a high ranking D1 team. With a limited roster you have to hit the ground tunning or you're gone. Guessing lots of 2025's and 2024's may not have signed up for that. That is why I believe you have to grandfather in all classes through 2025. Let it all digest and run it's course and develope into a system where you may first have to go to a lower team even a JUCO and earn your way to the better teams much like the way it is with Football today. I'm not a fan of that but that seems to be the way sports are headed and that is fine but let the kids know the rules and understand the system before they make committments and choices. 

I don't have a dog in the fight but I feel for many parents that do and I feel so sad for the kids who worked so hard in all sports affected. 

 

What does your idea of grandfathering everyone look like?   The grandfather proposal of the newest settlement seems to do the best of hurting as few students as possible.  

 

If they implemented the roster limits and grandfathered everyone until they leave by attrition, then that would shut out a lot of the incoming class as there wouldn't be any spots opening up for them for a while.

[Happyguy]

1 hour ago, TroyB123 said:

What does your idea of grandfathering everyone look like?   The grandfather proposal of the newest settlement seems to do the best of hurting as few students as possible.  

 

If they implemented the roster limits and grandfathered everyone until they leave by attrition, then that would shut out a lot of the incoming class as there wouldn't be any spots opening up for them for a while.

It is my understanding that those grandfathered in do not count toward the roster limit.  So essentially you can have 9 plus any grandfathered in male golfers on your roster correct?

[BallsBreakFast]

8 hours ago, Happyguy said:

It is my understanding that those grandfathered in do not count toward the roster limit.  So essentially you can have 9 plus any grandfathered in male golfers on your roster correct?

^ This is correct, but now your golf budget is carrying the additional cost of the grandfathered kids for the next 1-3 years - in an environment where budgets likely already being cut so that monies can be used to fund revenue generating sports.

So even if they don't count against new roster limits, their scholarships, additional support services, etc means less funds and resources for other players and the program itself, including less funding not just for operations and travel but possibly may make the program unable to financially compete for recruits. I am doubtful that other players on the roster will be ecstatic if there are indeed cuts. Had they instead just taken their promised scholarship and complete the studies, then the pain of the transition would have been over quickly for all, instead of festering for 1-3 years.

While there will may be some initial celebration and/relief, I think when the reality of a reduced funding pie needing to feed more mouths eventually hits, nearly everyone will be anxious for these grandfathered kids to move on - which is unfortunate as this not wholly of their own doing. But no one on this board really knows - maybe a lot of strong opinions but pretty much everyone has posted is conjecture of what will happen in the future. Some are hoping for the best, but many are expecting the worst.

[dmh7443]

There's still a lot of confusion around this issue—we're hearing from four or five golfers a day asking for guidance.

The athletes being discussed are part of an injunctive relief action—there’s no money involved here. It’s not about splitting a settlement, but about changing behavior and policies.

But let’s be clear—these issues were created by the NCAA, not the athletes. Schools are cutting everything and everyone they can to save money for paying star quarterbacks—but it's coming at the expense of violating Rule 23 of the class action framework, as Judge Wilken noted. That’s why the roster limits were upheld during the fairness hearing.

The concept of the 'designated student-athlete' is fundamentally flawed—and it's being rightfully challenged.

Solid analysis of the cost to schools presented here. 

 

[dmh7443]

[leezer99]

3 minutes ago, dmh7443 said:

 

2020 - 2021 is when Underarmour decided not to fulfill its contractual commitment and the school had to scramble to fill the void with Jordan, but the school had to step in and right the ship for a while. 

[jda]

10 hours ago, Happyguy said:

It is my understanding that those grandfathered in do not count toward the roster limit.  So essentially you can have 9 plus any grandfathered in male golfers on your roster correct?

 

This is a budget thing, not a roster number thing.

 

I have a solution... take money out of the NIL pool to 1). fund all athletes 100%, 2). have a minimum of 5 year shutdown in any program that is getting cut (they can run on grad transfers and upper class men cut from other places the last few years) and 3). pay for any exemptions or other legal fallout.  Instead of $22 million, make it $18M or whatever else this takes.

 

Why hasn't this been proposed?  Is it because people are worried that the plaintiffs will want a trial instead of taking less money?  The public is turning on them and seeing that the NCAA was never the bad guy here - they are stupid in other areas, but not this... they knew when I was an athlete in the 1990s that this would come if you started to pay kids.  This is zero sum, so have the plaintiffs should have to give up something too.  Does nobody understand what happens when you put too much stress on just one side that has nothing left to give? - if only there were examples of this in history that we could study?

 

Instead, all that we get is rhetoric about how one class is right and the others are to blame.  Make no mistake about this - the settlement is about greed, being right and selfishness with excuses and blame being thrown around more than good ideas.  Don't get distracted with any of the blame game - almost all of it is coming from one of the other sides who are also greedy, biased and/or selfish.

[dmh7443]

1 hour ago, leezer99 said:

 

2020 - 2021 is when Underarmour decided not to fulfill its contractual commitment and the school had to scramble to fill the void with Jordan, but the school had to step in and right the ship for a while. 

  

jda, it’s clear you’re misunderstanding the core issues here.

There’s nothing preventing a school from allocating any percentage of revenue to any sport or team—it’s entirely up to them.

If the public is supposedly turning away, it’s not reflected in the numbers. Business is booming.

As UCLA has demonstrated, this isn’t a zero-sum game. I also made that point earlier regarding injunctive relief.

This podcast was recorded before the first brief was filed; the other two are due today. Berman—one of our lead plaintiff attorneys—covers a lot, including the role of greed, which is really at the heart of these cases. The athletes generating the revenue are finally starting to receive what they’ve earned. That reality seems to bother people like Saban and, frankly, you—so you fight it.

 

https://www.sportswisepod.com/ep-83-the-college-football-video-game-and-the-future-of-college-athlete-group-licensing-with-casey/

Edited May 13 by dmh7443

[jda]

I don't think that you meant to address me - you quoted somebody else.

 

If truth matters more than propaganda:

UCLA got $67M in damages from UA when they withdrew and then Jordan/Nike paid for the rest and took over the apparel deal... almost to the cent.  Yes, it is a zero sum game.  Don't believe the propaganda in an internet meme from who-knows-where that says stuff like UCLA is the largest budget of any US college is too easy to disprove.  First Harvard dwarfs everybody else.  UCLA is not even the largest budget int he UC system - this is UC San Francisco.  For just athletics, nobody comes close to Ohio St.  This stuff is easily verifiable if you want to put honest stuff out there... but I guess that does not fit your narrative as well.

 

Also, for more truth, the deal was $280M over 15 years and there was a $200M left on it when UA pulled out.  Presenting this like they lost $200M all in one day is complete hogwash.

[dmh7443]

13 minutes ago, jda said:

I don't think that you meant to address me - you quoted somebody else.

 

If truth matters more than propaganda:

UCLA got $67M in damages from UA when they withdrew and then Jordan/Nike paid for the rest and took over the apparel deal... almost to the cent.  Yes, it is a zero sum game.  Don't believe the propaganda in an internet meme from who-knows-where that says stuff like UCLA is the largest budget of any US college is too easy to disprove.  First Harvard dwarfs everybody else.  UCLA is not even the largest budget int he UC system - this is UC San Francisco.  For just athletics, nobody comes close to Ohio St.  This stuff is easily verifiable if you want to put honest stuff out there... but I guess that does not fit your narrative as well.

 

Also, for more truth, the deal was $280M over 15 years and there was a $200M left on it when UA pulled out.  Presenting this like they lost $200M all in one day is complete hogwash.

 

[dmh7443]

The NCAA posted the transcript from Elad v NCAA, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Consider these words in the context of the roster limits issue.

The Court: "You're the body that is supposed to govern the best interest of these kids, these students, right? That's the purpose of the NCAA. You're the governing body. How is that in the interest of this kid who is before this Court saying, At least give me a fighting chance here. He's not asking to play for ten years. He is not asking for some unreasonable request from your organization to play. He's asking for a fighting chance to have a life where he may not have been dealt the very same cards that maybe you and I have been dealt. You're asking the Court to deny him even though it seems pretty clear from all the papers I've read nobody knows for certain what the Supreme Court meant by Alston. Nobody. So why should I rule in your favor when I've got decisions from other colleagues of mine across the country that are saying you're wrong?"

[dmh7443]

Harm to athletes occurs regardless of the dollar amount involved. Rule 23 isn’t just about creating bigger winners—it’s also about protecting those who stand to lose.

In the roster limit debate, many of the athletes at risk of being cut are already receiving meaningful support. Some earn modest NIL income. Others benefit from Alston awards, academic assistance, mental health services, and meals.

For the athletes who are paying tuition, these benefits matter. Losing even a small amount of financial support, meals, or services can have a significant impact on their ability to stay in school and succeed.

[BallsBreakFast]

Or perhaps these soon-to-be-grandfathered athletes could have worked harder on their craft to get better, treat their spot on the roster with a healthy sense of paranoia, and in doing so maybe fulfill the potential and promise that the coach had seen when recruiting him/her at the age of 16. Now 3-4 years later and the coaches have concluded that either they were very wrong in their evaluation of talent potential, or the kid has decided that working hard to get 0.1% better every day in their chosen sport no longer aligns with their goals. Do they realistically expect they are going to turn their college athletic careers around just as they have less free time as need to begin pursuing job opportunities? But of course nowadays whenever they don't like when reality slaps them in the face, the current generation's default response is to go crying off to get what they think they are entitled to.  Ive always viewed being a student athlete as a privilege, not an irrevocable right of entitlement.

[dmh7443]

6 minutes ago, BallsBreakFast said:

Or perhaps these soon-to-be-grandfathered athletes could have worked harder on their craft to get better, treat their spot on the roster with a healthy sense of paranoia, and in doing so maybe fulfill the potential and promise that the coach had seen when recruiting him/her at the age of 16. Now 3-4 years later and the coaches have concluded that either they were very wrong in their evaluation of talent potential, or the kid has decided that working hard to get 0.1% better every day in their chosen sport no longer aligns with their goals. Do they realistically expect they are going to turn their college athletic careers around just as they have less free time as need to begin pursuing job opportunities? But of course nowadays whenever they don't like when reality slaps them in the face, the current generation's default response is to go crying off to get what they think they are entitled to.  Ive always viewed being a student athlete as a privilege, not an irrevocable right of entitlement.

That’s exactly what we’ve been pointing out—there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what this settlement is really about. It has nothing to do with athletic performance, yet you and others here on this forum continue to bring that into the discussion. Why you don’t understand the issue is honestly beyond me.

Edited May 13 by dmh7443

[BallsBreakFast]

1 minute ago, dmh7443 said:

That’s exactly what we’ve been pointing out—there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what this settlement is really about. It has nothing to do with athletic performance, yet you and others continue to bring that into the discussion.

If these kids were performing they would be at the head of the line and not at risk of being cut.  Or they would realize that after 2 years of being on the team and never making a travel squad as the perennial #10 or #11, its time to transfer where one can play, or join a club team. The ADs and coaches had looked at their existing teams and came to agreement what was the target number of players needed to sufficiently run a sports program. Coaches then looked at their players and made decisions as to which have not made meaningful contributions in the past and thus also least luckily to contribute going forward.

What I struggle with most is the kids and parents who thought that once they were recruited at 16, they were entitled to skate by for the next 6 years (2 highschool + 4 college) and assume there would always be a roster spot irrespective of their performance and the work they put in. That seems very un-American to me. 

[dmh7443]

9 minutes ago, BallsBreakFast said:

If these kids were performing they would be at the head of the line and not at risk of being cut.  Or they would realize that after 2 years of being on the team and never making a travel squad as the perennial #10 or #11, its time to transfer where one can play, or join a club team. The ADs and coaches had looked at their existing teams and came to agreement what was the target number of players needed to sufficiently run a sports program. Coaches then looked at their players and made decisions as to which have not made meaningful contributions in the past and thus also least luckily to contribute going forward.

What I struggle with most is the kids and parents who thought that once they were recruited at 16, they were entitled to skate by for the next 6 years (2 highschool + 4 college) and assume there would always be a roster spot irrespective of their performance and the work they put in. That seems very un-American to me. 

The points you're raising aren't relevant to the actual issues at the heart of this case.

[BallsBreakFast]

22 hours ago, dmh7443 said:

The points you're raising aren't relevant to the actual issues at the heart of this case.

Of course you would say that. Your issues of focus and relevance is the "unjustness" being placed on the objectors and how their expected entitlements are being "taken away" -  not to any possible unfairness to the schools they attend, competing schools, support staff of their athletic programs, other players on the current rosters, as well as the future recruits. Unintended future and current effects be damned as not a concern of the objectors and not relevant to the actual issues. 

Very clear.

[dmh7443]

14 minutes ago, BallsBreakFast said:

Of course you would say that. Your issues of focus and relevance is the "unjustness" being placed on the objectors and how their expected entitlements are being "taken away" -  not to any possible unfairness to the schools they attend, competing schools, support staff of their athletic programs, other players on the current rosters, as well as the future recruits. Unintended future and current effects be damned as not a concern of the objectors and not relevant to the actual issues. 

Very clear.

This has nothing to do with “entitlements,” as you incorrectly claim—it’s about Rule 23. As the judge made clear, it’s the schools and the NCAA that created the very “unfairness” you’re pointing to. Concerns about future recruiting were raised multiple times by objectors, but the judge was not persuaded.

At this point, I genuinely don’t understand how you're still unclear on who the defendants are and who the plaintiffs are.

[LawGenius305]

The comments are priceless.

 

https://x.com/noroster_limits/status/1922690039781175578

[wegobomber31]

Dumb question: pre-settlement, were player's spot on their current team's roster guaranteed?

[dmh7443]

 

22 hours ago, wegobomber31 said:

Dumb question: pre-settlement, were player's spot on their current team's roster guaranteed?

No—and it won’t be after the settlement either. The issue you seem to be referring to is scholarships versus roster limits.

 

Edited May 14 by dmh7443

[jda]

1 hour ago, wegobomber31 said:

Dumb question: pre-settlement, were player's spot on their current team's roster guaranteed?

Financial aid agreements always were year to year with no guarantee of playing time or returning to the team.  You sign(ed) a financial aid agreement whether your receive any scholarship money, or not.

[wegobomber31]

26 minutes ago, dmh7443 said:

 

No—and it won’t be after the settlement either. The issue you seem to be referring to is scholarships versus roster limits.

Thanks.  I wasn't referring to scholarships, for what it's worth. I was just asking a clarifying question about roster spots on the team.

[jda]

59 minutes ago, wegobomber31 said:

Thanks.  I wasn't referring to scholarships, for what it's worth. I was just asking a clarifying question about roster spots on the team.

 

Some sports currently have roster limits and many do not - football is the most popular sport with current limits.  Walk-ons are the same as anybody else - they sign a FA agreement with zero dollars.  Most kids are on partial scholarship and it can vary from year to year - you suck and your money can get dropped or cut; if you are good you can get more.  Even sports without roster limits have travel limits - you see kids down the bench, around the corner into the tunnel for home KU Basketball games and those kids are kinda on the team, but not really since they cannot travel.

 

Some conferences limit rosters even though the NCAA does not.  Most schools tell their coaches how many kids that they can have with the budget - the scholarships then get split up amongst them.

 

Basically, everything has always been year to year with no promises other than to get whatever dollars was in your financial aid agreement, if any, applied to your bill for that year.  It shocks folks to learn that if you get 50% scholarship as a freshman, that could go to 0% the next year if you are in over you head and not good enough... and even if you stay, you might never travel with the rest of the team.  Behavior and academics also can get kids money cut - don't underestimate behavior.

 

I hope that some of this helps.

[ATXGolferGuy]

On 5/13/2025 at 6:41 AM, dmh7443 said:

Schools are cutting everything and everyone they can to save money for paying star quarterbacks

Which is why D1 schools need to just carve out football (and to a lesser extent basketball) and separate it from the school.  It's now just  professional sports anyway.  I mean how many D1 golfers are out there endorsing products?  I don't see Tommy Morrison's face on billboards around Austin, but I sure see/saw Quinn Ewers mug on TV and billboards advertising stuff.  

 

They need to hurry up and just make the damn rules so people can adjust to them and everyone knows what to expect going forward....dragging this out isn't helping anyone. 

[golferdad8]

On 5/12/2025 at 3:40 PM, jda said:

This is about payrolls, employees and all of that now.  Layoffs happen.  It sucks.  It really sucks.  There is no endless supply of money like some people think.  It will take years to determine who was more right, more wrong and if anybody won... and nobody is likely to win this.  Programs are already getting cut to come up with money to pay the rev sport kids.  I feel for them too.  If they want to fight, then go for it, but do it like a human being since what you are feeling about being impacted is being done to somebody else because of you - see my note above about 13 employees (who are good at their jobs) needing to go if just half of the exempted kids come back

 

Some might argue that this is about kids who are not good enough taking away from kids who can cut it.  I don't get into all of this.  Too simple for me.  This is about getting what you can and not about right, wrong, just, or anything like that.  Greed and/or selfish is the name of the game now.  You can decide if entire swimming, track and fencing PROGRAMS get cut to keep end of the roster kids from other sports - to each their own on this one.

I'm not an atty & my son's already golfing at D1 so this doesn't impact him. 

 

My objection is that the attys are being paid $600M+ (plus future % share) for "representing" ALL of the NCAA athletes.

However, in reality, the attys are trying to get a quick deal done by blackmailing NCAA schools under the pretense of NIL. 

Unfortunately, beyond the collateral damage that's already happened with roster/sports getting cut as well as reneged offers, this "settlement" will likely not solve anything permanently as more Title IX and other objections will come to overturns Wilkin (like they did for her SEC deal this past year) and the only people who wins will be the attys.