A pivotal NCAA settlement that could reshape college athletics has been delayed after U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken raised concerns about roster limitations, an issue already impacting programs like Cal Poly.
In anticipation of budget shortfalls tied to the financial and structural pressures of the proposed $2.8 billion settlement, Cal Poly announced the elimination of its men’s and women’s swimming and diving teams — a move that athletic director Don Oberhelman had linked directly to the costs associated with national legal battles.
“We have financial realities here that I don’t think people really fully understand,” Oberhelman said in a video statement, addressing the cuts publicly for the first time. “We are concerned that this is just the beginning rather than the end of what these new realities are going to look like for us.”
The $2.8 billion antitrust settlement intended to backpay for lost name, image and likeness (NIL) rights and, perhaps more importantly, compensate athletes and allow schools to share revenue directly with players—includes a proposal to replace scholarship limits with overall roster caps.
Although eliminating scholarship limits could expand financial aid opportunities for athletes, introducing roster caps is expected to result in hundreds, if not thousands, of athletes losing their places on teams.
Programs like Cal Poly, a Big West member except for football (Big Sky) and wrestling (Pac-12), already feel the impact of the financial and roster pressures tied to the settlement.
They’ve already made roster-related decisions, cutting the swim and dive program based on the expectation that the new rules would go into effect on July 1.
Wilken is pushing back, citing the immediate implementation of those limits as potentially unfair to athletes already on teams.
“Because the settlement agreement is not fair and reasonable to the significant number of class members whose roster spots will be or have been taken away… the Court cannot approve the settlement agreement in its current form,” Wilken wrote in a pointed five-page order.
Wilken emphasized that the current plan could displace athletes mid-career, contradicting the settlement’s intent to benefit them. She urged all parties to revise the terms, particularly to consider “grandfathering in” current players.
This would allow current athletes to retain their spots under the existing structure while schools gradually adjust to the new limits. Wilken suggested this would prevent immediate harm to those already on rosters while allowing the broader reforms to progress.
The parties responsible for revisiting the settlement terms include the NCAA, along with the Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten Conference, Big 12 Conference, Pac-12 Conference and Southeastern Conference, as well as attorneys representing the class of current and former college athletes who filed the antitrust lawsuits.
Judge Wilken directed them to work with a mediator and submit a revised plan within 14 days of the April 23 court order. If changes aren’t made, the case could proceed to trial.
Although conferences like the Big West and Big Sky were not named defendants in the lawsuits, their member institutions, including Cal Poly, are still subject to the proposed settlement’s financial and structural implications.
The NCAA plans to fund a large portion of the payout by reducing revenue distributions across all Division I conferences, meaning schools outside the major conferences will also bear the cost of reforms they weren’t directly involved in negotiating.
Athletes from various Division I programs have already begun entering the NCAA’s transfer portal, as some schools have proactively reduced roster sizes in anticipation of the settlement being finalized.
These early moves reflect a growing concern among coaches and athletic departments about complying with the proposed roster caps.
That concern is already translating into difficult decisions for mid-major programs.
In response to Judge Wilken’s call for a delayed or phased implementation, the NCAA and the involved conferences resisted, arguing that any changes at this stage would create “significant disruption.”
They argued that reversing course now would create financial strain, logistical confusion and inconsistencies in how programs across the country handle roster management.
In recent court filings, they emphasized that many schools have already begun altering rosters, including cutting players or restructuring scholarships, based on the expectation that the new rules would be implemented before the start of a new season.
Wilken, however, clarified that her initial preliminary approval of the settlement did not guarantee final approval.
“The fact that the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement should not have been interpreted as an indication that it was certain that the Court would grant final approval,” Wilken wrote.
The uncertainty now leaves coaches and athletic departments in a challenging position, having already made roster cuts and adjusted scholarships based on a settlement that has yet to receive final approval.
With the July 1 deadline looming, the next two weeks will be critical as the NCAA and its conferences work to revise the settlement.
The NCAA, conferences and plaintiffs’ attorneys must find a compromise that protects current athletes while keeping the broader reforms intact. Otherwise, they risk sending the case to trial and delaying changes that could reshape the future of college sports.
发表回复