- Joined
- May 8, 2002
- Posts
- 446,897
- Reaction score
- 44
A federal judge is hitting pause on what was once seen as a done deal.
The landmark House settlement — poised to reshape the future of college athletics with sweeping changes like revenue sharing and updated roster rules — has run into resistance from U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken. On Wednesday, Wilken made it clear she won’t approve the deal as it stands, citing concerns about how the proposed roster limits would immediately impact current college athletes.
In her order, Wilken emphasized that enforcing new roster caps right away would result in players being cut from teams they're already on. She specifically referenced athletes who are part of the Injunctive Relief Settlement Class, saying they would be “harmed” if those roster changes went into effect this season.
“Those class members will be harmed because their roster spot will be or has been taken away as a result of the immediate implementation of the settlement agreement,” Wilken wrote in her ruling, according to ESPN. “The Court will delay denial of final approval to permit the parties to attempt to modify the settlement agreement, so that members of the Injunctive Relief Settlement Class will not be harmed by the immediate implementation of the roster limits provisions.”
As currently written, the settlement would drop the cap on college football rosters to 105 players. That presents a major shift from what many programs carry today. Take Clemson, for example — while the Tigers had the NCAA-allowed 85 scholarship players last season, their full roster including walk-ons exceeded 140. Head coach Dabo Swinney, himself a former walk-on, has openly criticized the roster limit proposal and how it might impact non-scholarship players like the one he once was.
Although Wilken first raised concerns about the roster provision earlier this month and urged a “grandfather” clause to protect existing athletes, the NCAA and the power conferences involved in the case chose not to amend that portion of the agreement. Their refusal drew a pointed response from the judge, who signaled she's willing to reject the entire settlement unless changes are made within the next 14 days.
According to reports, attorneys for both sides were likely banking on the overwhelming support for the deal — over 88,000 claims were filed with only about 600 objections. But that wasn’t enough to sway Wilken, who reminded the parties she expects meaningful changes, not just widespread backing.
"We are playing chicken with a damn federal judge," one college official told Yahoo.
Plaintiffs attorney Steve Berman acknowledged the court’s stance, saying they’re prepared for whatever happens next.
“We appreciate the court's guidance and thoughtful review of this monumental case,” Berman said. “We are pleased that the court has rejected all of the objections but the roster issue, and we will work hard to convince the NCAA and the conferences to address the court's concerns. If we are unable to do so, then we are off to trial and we will return to fighting the NCAA in court with next steps.”
For now, all eyes remain on how the NCAA responds and whether it’s willing to revise one of the settlement's most controversial aspects to keep the deal alive.
Contact us @Clemson_Wire on X, and like our page on Facebook for ongoing coverage of Clemson Tigers news and notes, plus opinions.
This article originally appeared on Clemson Wire: NCAA settlement over roster limits delayed by judge
Continue reading...
The landmark House settlement — poised to reshape the future of college athletics with sweeping changes like revenue sharing and updated roster rules — has run into resistance from U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken. On Wednesday, Wilken made it clear she won’t approve the deal as it stands, citing concerns about how the proposed roster limits would immediately impact current college athletes.
In her order, Wilken emphasized that enforcing new roster caps right away would result in players being cut from teams they're already on. She specifically referenced athletes who are part of the Injunctive Relief Settlement Class, saying they would be “harmed” if those roster changes went into effect this season.
“Those class members will be harmed because their roster spot will be or has been taken away as a result of the immediate implementation of the settlement agreement,” Wilken wrote in her ruling, according to ESPN. “The Court will delay denial of final approval to permit the parties to attempt to modify the settlement agreement, so that members of the Injunctive Relief Settlement Class will not be harmed by the immediate implementation of the roster limits provisions.”
As currently written, the settlement would drop the cap on college football rosters to 105 players. That presents a major shift from what many programs carry today. Take Clemson, for example — while the Tigers had the NCAA-allowed 85 scholarship players last season, their full roster including walk-ons exceeded 140. Head coach Dabo Swinney, himself a former walk-on, has openly criticized the roster limit proposal and how it might impact non-scholarship players like the one he once was.
Although Wilken first raised concerns about the roster provision earlier this month and urged a “grandfather” clause to protect existing athletes, the NCAA and the power conferences involved in the case chose not to amend that portion of the agreement. Their refusal drew a pointed response from the judge, who signaled she's willing to reject the entire settlement unless changes are made within the next 14 days.
According to reports, attorneys for both sides were likely banking on the overwhelming support for the deal — over 88,000 claims were filed with only about 600 objections. But that wasn’t enough to sway Wilken, who reminded the parties she expects meaningful changes, not just widespread backing.
"We are playing chicken with a damn federal judge," one college official told Yahoo.
Plaintiffs attorney Steve Berman acknowledged the court’s stance, saying they’re prepared for whatever happens next.
“We appreciate the court's guidance and thoughtful review of this monumental case,” Berman said. “We are pleased that the court has rejected all of the objections but the roster issue, and we will work hard to convince the NCAA and the conferences to address the court's concerns. If we are unable to do so, then we are off to trial and we will return to fighting the NCAA in court with next steps.”
For now, all eyes remain on how the NCAA responds and whether it’s willing to revise one of the settlement's most controversial aspects to keep the deal alive.
Contact us @Clemson_Wire on X, and like our page on Facebook for ongoing coverage of Clemson Tigers news and notes, plus opinions.
This article originally appeared on Clemson Wire: NCAA settlement over roster limits delayed by judge
Continue reading...
