What’s going on in the Big 12 and beyond? I expand and explain every Sunday in Postscripts at Heartland College Sports, your home for independent Big 12 coverage.
This week, the House vs. NCAA settlement is actually on thin ice, thanks to the lack of foresight of the NCAA and the power conference commissioners involved in the deal.
JUST GRANDFATHER IT ALREADY
One thing became abundantly clear this week — the NCAA and the power conference commissioners clearly underestimated the desires of judge Claudia Wilken.
The House vs. NCAA settlement had been on cruise control for the past several months after it received preliminary approval from Wilken last year. It wasn’t a finished product and everyone understood that. But I think both the NCAA and commissioners thought that when they took their final settlement to Wilken earlier this month that the approval was going to be a breeze.
It wasn’t. There were parts of the settlement that Wilken clearly did not like. She made that abundantly clear. Most notably, while she has been supportive of the roster limits crafted in the settlement, she had serious concerns over the athletes that would be left behind. She asked for the sides to revamp the settlement to reflect it.
Earlier this week, the NCAA and the commissioners took the revamped settlement to Wilken for approval. I think they assumed that they would get a rubber stamp. They did not. She seemed less than amused.
She felt the NCAA and the commissioners hadn’t addressed her concerns. In fact, based on reporting, it sounded like she felt they were basically ignored. She made it clear that if the NCAA and the commissioners didn’t figure out how to grandfather some of the current athletes into the roster limits, the settlement might get nixed.
As of this writing the NCAA and the power conference commissioners are on the clock. In fact, the settlement clearly overshadowed the business of the week — the FBS commissioners and the College Football Playoff’s continuing discussions on the format past 2025.
Wilken’s decision came down just as those commissioners were coming out of their last meetings and none of them wanted to talk to reporters.
What exactly is the problem here? Why has Wilken pointed this out as a significant sticking point? Football coaches have been telling us for months, including Kansas State’s Chris Klieman, that they had significant issues with the roster reductions in the short term.
Roster Reductions
FBS football is being asked to reduce their rosters from approximately 125 players to 105. On the surface that doesn’t sound like a big deal. Most of those players are walk-ons. But because of the way the settlement is set up, every scholarship for every sport is fully funded by the revenue share, which is expected to be $20.5 million. Because the rosters will be capped at 105, there really isn’t room for walk-ons.
Coaches have been asked to prepare for this eventuality for months. Klieman has talked about the uncomfortable conversations he would have to have with players to get down to 105.
It’s not just particular teams that are losing head count, either.
Earlier this week Clemson athletic director Graham Neff spoke to the media about the roster limits. He told reporters that right now the Tigers only offer 275 scholarships. Outside of football and basketball, most are partial scholarships. The settlement, with the rev share, is going to allow him to offer 425 full scholarships and do away with the partial scholarships. That’s great news, honestly. Sports like baseball and softball have dealt with partial scholarships for decades. Those players will all get full rides now.
But here’s the downside and this is where Wilken is coming from. Clemson has 590 total athletes. That more than 100 even after the scholarship increase after the settlement.
That’s a huge deal for the 100-plus Tigers that won’t be Tigers anymore. Just about every other power conference program will be dealing with similar cuts.
Wilkin is sticking up for those athletes. It’s part of the job. What’s she conveying is that the NCAA and the commissioners used a hatchet in this instance when a scalpel was required.
This isn’t the first time the NCAA has done this, either.
Remember a few years ago when the NCAA sought to get a hold of the transfer portal? Remember what they did? They implemented the one transfer rule — you could transfer once in your college career without sitting out and could transfer again if you had your degree.
It seemed like an equitable compromise. It gave students an out if they chose wrong, were sold a bill of goods or got a chance to get more playing time somewhere else.
But the NCAA did one thing wrong — it did not grandfather in those that still had multiple years of eligibility but had already transferred once. The NCAA, again, took a blunt instrument to a problem that required precision.
Former West Virginia basketball player RaeQuan Battle was one of several players that brought lawsuits against the NCAA about that transfer rule, and he won. It killed the rule. Now, players can transfer anywhere any year as long as they’re meeting academic standards. Another former Big 12 player, Devin Askew, is about to transfer to his fifth school.
The lack of foresight, and learning from that failure, is just astounding. Had they simply found a way to grandfather in these athletes for two or three years to allow for a smoother transition to the roster limits, this settlement might be approved now.
Instead, for the first time in this process, the idea of revenue sharing with student athletes is in real jeopardy.
The NCAA and the commissioners will find a way to get this done because they have no choice. The only other option would be for Wilken to decline the settlement and for everything to go back to court again. No one wants that. Not the NCAA, the commissioners or even the athletes.
They’ll find a way to get it done. But had the NCAA and the commissioners done this one thing better, I’d be writing about something else this week.
You can find Matthew Postins on Twitter @PostinsPostcard.
