NCAA Over the roster limits? 5 years? timing?

[Flicfliclay]

Just curious as I am seeing several schools go over what the projected roster limit will be supposedly starting in July. Do we think they are just assuming that they will grandfather in everyone on their current rosters and those won't count toward roster spots? Or do you think they have an insight that the rosters won't be a thing for 2026? Also, there were rumblings of giving everyone 5 year status, but didn't see anything about it. Also, can we assume that they won't get this lawsuit finalized in time to make rosters go in effect in July? What are your thoughts?

 

[gym_dad32608]

I think you are correct, its pretty much a certainty (since the judge clearly stated she wanted to see that) that some form of grandfathering will occur. I still feel pretty confident that the settlement will still go into effect in July. But it is starting to bump into the danger zone. Schools are already making moves based upon the general tenets of the agreement. OU just recently cut a decent number of AD staff and the AD took a pay cut.

The 5 years of eligibility is outside of the settlement, I think it was some other committee recommendation because of a different lawsuit (I almost feel sorry for the NCAA lol). I think they are going to wait to see if the settlement is approved and if schools will agree to "hold the line" so to speak. I saw where the major conferences are working on schools to sign a binding memo that they will abide by the agreement or risk expulsion from conference.

 

[Flicfliclay]

I think you are correct, its pretty much a certainty (since the judge clearly stated she wanted to see that) that some form of grandfathering will occur. I still feel pretty confident that the settlement will still go into effect in July. But it is starting to bump into the danger zone. Schools are already making moves based upon the general tenets of the agreement. OU just recently cut a decent number of AD staff and the AD took a pay cut.

The 5 years of eligibility is outside of the settlement, I think it was some other committee recommendation because of a different lawsuit (I almost feel sorry for the NCAA lol). I think they are going to wait to see if the settlement is approved and if schools will agree to "hold the line" so to speak. I saw where the major conferences are working on schools to sign a binding memo that they will abide by the agreement or risk expulsion from conference.

We are approaching June and still no update from the judge. I think it is right for her to want to think about those losing by implementing roster spots, but to me that has been part of the plan for a long time, she should of asked them to implement something for them a long time ago! or ask for a phase in period. What were schools to do except start implementing in ample time for the rules to go in effect.
I still haven't found anything stating when they are supposed to rule on this, i have a suspicion that she isn't going to like the part where it states that school will decide whether or not to grandfather them in or not!

 

[gym_dad32608]

Well looks like the settlement got approved. Athletes are grandfathered in so roster limits are not really in play until these athletes graduate.

 

[Flicfliclay]

Well looks like the settlement got approved. Athletes are grandfathered in so roster limits are not really in play until these athletes graduate.

Yes i saw that! But there is red tape in order to be considered a DSA ( designated student athlete ) ... The school has to add athlete to the DSA list and that athlete had to have been shown to be in jeopardy of losing their spot due to the roster caps... Its at the schools discretion ..

 

[gym_dad32608]

Yes i saw that! But there is red tape in order to be considered a DSA ( designated student athlete ) ... The school has to add athlete to the DSA list and that athlete had to have been shown to be in jeopardy of losing their spot due to the roster caps... Its at the schools discretion ..

Its just a matter of the school classifying and reporting the student as designated. The wording in the settlement says it has to be a "Good faith" designation, which essentially is not enforcable unless a school decides to designate the whole team lol.