House v. NCAA settlement: Judge Claudia Wilken suggests grandfathering spots for roster limits

During Monday’s final approval hearing for the House v. NCAA settlement, roster limits became a central point of conversation. As it did, Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California brought up an idea for athletes currently on rosters.

Multiple times during Monday’s hearing, Wilken suggested a grandfather clause as part of a transition to new roster limits set under the agreement. If the settlement receives full approval, proposed rosters include football (105), men’s and women’s basketball (15), baseball (34), men’s and women’s soccer (28), softball (25) and volleyball (18).

Live updates: House v. NCAA final approval hearing

Wilken started the hearing by confirming she would not rule from the bench, which meant a decision on approval would not come down Monday. She promised commentary, though, and weighed in on the issue of roster limits while speaking with attorneys for the plaintiffs and the NCAA.

Early in Monday’s hearing, Wilken suggested to NCAA attorney Rakesh Kilaru there be an exception for athletes currently on rosters before the changes would take place. That would effectively create a grandfather clause for current athletes who might otherwise lose their spots on the roster as part of the limits under the settlement.

Roster limits were key points from objectors who spoke during the hearing, as well. Utah swimmer Gannon Flynn passionately spoke against such limits, arguing athletes are living in constant fear of being cut as a result.

“If you don’t have a perfect season,” Flynn told Wilken, “you might not get another.”

During the latter portion of the hearing when she had questions for both Kilaru and plaintiffs’ attorney Jeffrey Kessler, Wilken again suggested the idea of grandfathering athletes prior to the final 10-minute break. Kilaru then pointed out the rationale behind setting the roster limits, which he said was to help minimize disruptions. He also added cuts could happen even without the settlement.

Roster limits were just one of Wilken’s concerns throughout Monday’s 6.5-hour hearing. She also expressed concern about future athletes and whether they’re covered in the class in the settlement.

As Monday’s House v. NCAA hearing winded down, both attorneys told Wilken they’d get back to her in a week. From there, she said, they’d decide what would happen next, although there isn’t necessarily a time constraint. She told both sides to work on issues they “can fix,” but added, “Basically, I think it’s a good settlement.”

Charlie Baker, Power Conferences speak out

NCAA president Charlie Baker later released a statement on the hearing. While no decision was made, he called it a notable moment in the quest for approval.

“Today’s hearing on the landmark settlement was a significant step in modernizing college sports,” Baker said. “If approved, the settlement will allow student-athletes the opportunity to receive nearly 50% of athletic department revenue in a sustainable and fair system for years to come.”

The Power 5 conferences – the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC – also released a statement of their own about Monday’s hearing. All five leagues are defendants.

“We continue to support the agreed upon settlement, which is intended to bring much-needed stability and fairness to college sports,” the statement read. “This agreement will provide more opportunities for student-athletes to benefit during their participation in intercollegiate athletics, paving the way for the future of college sports.

“We will provide all requested information in a timely manner and remain focused on securing Judge Wilken’s approval of this proposed agreement, allowing us to move forward with implementing these significant advancements for student-athletes across the country.”

Pete Nakos contributed.