House v. NCAA settlement: Lawyers file supplemental brief, reaffirm stance on roster limits

Attorneys in the House v. NCAA settlement filed a supplemental brief late Monday after Judge Claudia Wilken expressed concern about the current language regarding roster limits. Wilken told both sides to respond one week after the final approval hearing took place.

During the hearing, Wilken suggested possibly grandfathering athletes currently on rosters before the limits under the settlement go into effect. That, as a result, would ensure no one loses their current spot on a team amid changes to rosters in all sports.

The NCAA looked into Wilken’s suggestion about changing the roster limits verbiage, according to the brief. Ultimately, attorneys said such a decision would cause a “significant disruption.”

The House v. NCAA parties have filed their supplemental brief further arguing for approval of the settlement.

As @RossDellenger reported this weekend, the parties made small changes to the settlement release to address the judge's concerns but made no changes to roster limits. pic.twitter.com/avatUcyNXD

— Sam C. Ehrlich (@samcehrlich) April 15, 2025

“The Parties appreciate the perspective and heartfelt stories that the student-athletes who objected shared, including those shared at the hearing,” the filing states. “Defendants have evaluated – and discussed with numerous member institutions – the Court’s suggestion to ‘grandfather’ in the roster limits. Defendants, however, have informed Class Counsel that those discussions revealed no practicable way to do so, because ‘grandfathering’ roster limits would cause significant disruption.

“The Parties are both independently aware that member institutions and student-athletes have been making decisions in anticipation of the roster limits being immediately effective if the Settlement is approved.”

If the House v. NCAA 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). Schools around the country started to prepare for such changes to go into effect, which is why the NCAA argued altering the language would create issues.

Roster limits took center stage during House v. NCAA hearing

Early in last week’s 6.5-hour 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.

Wilken told both sides there are parts of the settlement they “can fix” toward the end of last week’s hearing. But, she added, “Basically, I think it’s a good settlement.”