by
BRENDAN
SMIALOWSKI/AFP
via
Getty
Images)
College
sports
hasn’t
seen
a
fumble
on
the
big
stage
this
embarrassing
since
J.D.
Vance
held
the
national
championship
trophy.
After
decades
of
pablum
about
the
“value
of
an
education”
and
“going
pro
in
something
other
than
sports,”
the
schools
actually
made
it
to
the
negotiating
table
to
work
out
a
solution
acknowledging
that
they
can’t
just
siphon
wealth
from
their
students.
A
proposed
settlement
—
called
the
House
Settlement
after
the
House
v.
NCAA
action
since
absorbed
into
a
consolidated
case
—
outlined
a
blueprint
that
would
see
the
NCAA
and
Power
conferences
shell
out
almost
$3
billion
in
back
pay,
set
up
a
revenue
sharing
plan,
and
even
open
the
door
to
a
“salary
cap”
system
regulating
how
schools
compensate
teams.
But
the
agreement
also
imposed
new
roster
limits,
meaning
some
students
suddenly
found
themselves
tossed
from
their
teams
like
rejected
Lee
Corso
headgear
(this
is
simply
an
excuse
to
link
to
the
retiring
legend’s
greatest
moment).
Worse,
because
another
aspect
of
the
agreement
involved
the
class
giving
away
its
claims,
the
team
members
cut
due
to
the
new
roster
limit
would
have
no
recourse.
MoloLamken
LLP,
representing
several
students
affected
by
the
limits,
objected
to
final
approval
of
the
settlement
as
“unfair
and,
in
fact,
cruel.”
Yesterday,
Judge
Claudia
Wilken
agreed:
However,
objectors
have
shown
that
the
immediate
implementation
of
the
roster
limits
provisions
of
the
settlement
agreement
has
resulted
or
will
result
in
harm
to
a
significant
number
of
members
of
the
Injunctive
Relief
Settlement
Class
(1)
who
are
on
a
roster
but
will
be
removed
from
the
roster
because
of
the
immediate
implementation
of
the
settlement
agreement;
and
(2)
who
were
on
a
roster
but
were
removed
from
the
roster
in
the
last
several
months
because
of
the
premature
implementation
of
the
settlement
agreement.
“Premature
implementation
of
the
settlement
agreement.”
Before
judicial
approval?!?
Who
was
in
charge
of
making
sure
the
schools
stayed
in
compliance?
Arizona
State?
Judge
Wilken
did
not
object
to
the
roster
limit
provision
generally,
noting
that
there
are
procompetitive
justifications
for
the
plan,
meaning
it
wouldn’t
be
a
per
se
violation
of
the
Sherman
Act.
But
just
because
roster
limits
might
make
sense
in
the
long-run
doesn’t
mean
they
can
be
dropped
like
Shedeur
Sanders
facing…
well,
any
defensive
front,
actually.
The
parties
admit
in
their
supplemental
brief
that
some
class
members
“may
ultimately
have
lost
roster
spots
as
a
result
of
the
Settlement,”
but
they
argue
that
the
Court
should
nevertheless
approve
the
settlement
agreement
because
those
class
members
will
be
able
to
compete
for
scholarships
and
other
benefits
that
were
not
available
in
the
absence
of
the
settlement
agreement.
Scholarships…
the
last
refuge
of
the
scoundrel.
Despite
the
fact
that
this
whole
litigation
is
about
blowing
up
the
idea
that
scholarships
are
a
cure-all
for
any
student
harm,
the
schools
decided
to
wheel
out
their
favorite
fig
leaf
once
more
for
old
time’s
sake.
“The
Court
is
not
persuaded,”
Wilken
wrote.
In
a
ruling
that
felt
like
a
blend
of
legal
analysis
and
side-eye,
Judge
Wilken
paused
the
final
approval
of
the
proposed
NIL
settlement,
sending
the
parties
back
to
mediation
to
come
up
with
a
better
deal
over
the
next
couple
weeks.
As
she
explained,
there
are
a
number
of
ways
to
make
the
deal
more
fair…
and
almost
all
of
them
involve
implementing
roster
limits
gradually
so
students
don’t
get
penalized
after
choosing
their
school.
This
should’ve
been
obvious
from
the
start
of
this
litigation…
but
I
guess
“not
caring
about
the
students”
is
a
habit
that’s
hard
to
break.
(Order
on
the
next
page…)
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.