J. Wesley (Wes) Null

I guess we’ll find out what these institutions mean by good faith. @noroster_limits

For folks wondering about roster limits, schools are required to “use good-faith efforts” to identify any athlete who was on a 2024-2025 roster or is an incoming 2025 recruit but was “removed or would have been removed from the roster” due to roster limits. Such students will be “Designated Student-Athletes.” Schools have until July 6 to provide their lists to Class Counsel. Class Counsel “will have the power to monitor and enforce” this and can “bring to the Court’s attention any disputes about Designated Student-Athlete designations.” If you were cut or are on the bubble, I suggest you confirm with your coach asap that you will be on the school’s DSA list. Note, DSAs can still be cut, but they won’t count against the roster of any school they end up at. I guess if there’s a dispute over DSA status, athletes should contact Class Counsel and hope they aren’t too busy spending their $500M fee award to help.

Great take here by one of my trusted legal minds on why the House settlement should be rejected. 👇

@TJ_Pittinger When you make your bed.....laying in it is part of accountability. And this House Settlement was supposed to clean some of it up. But institutions and this roster limit BS....we are here because of US.

"Schools are stewing as July 1 creeps closer, but they only have themselves to blame. They cannonballed off the diving board and made these changes before they were made official. That they might have jumped into hot water without a boat isn’t the fault of anyone but themselves."

"It also seems to be the height of arrogance to play chicken with a federal judge on a reasonable suggestion to the settlement that makes things right for athletes who lost roster spots."

"Some have blamed Wilken for dragging her feet, but that’s not where the blame lies. The NCAA and its schools jumped the gun on implementing the settlement before it was final."

And Wal-Mart refused to offer them all their positions back after the judge urged them to do so. Instead the lawyers offered to let individual store managers decide whether to offer the employees their jobs back. Yes - much more ugliness in the actual case than my hypothetical one. I just wanted to try to clearly focus on why mandatory grandfathering was needed to resolve the class conflict.

@4Common_Cents Don’t forget the part that prior to approval of the settlement, Walmart admits it prematurely fired that 10%.

House v NCAA - An analogy to help explain the injunctive relief class conflicts. Imagine some lawyers figure out there is a way to file class action lawsuit to get money for Wal-Mart employees. They search for and find a Wal-Mart employee to represent the class and they file a lawsuit on behalf of all Wal-Mart employees. The lawyers and Wal-Mart agree to settle the class action and allocate more money to Wal-Mart employees. They send a class action Notice to all Wal-Mart employees which tells them the good news, "Wal-Mart will pay more money to employees!" The employees don't need to opt-in. They can't opt-out. They can object if they want, but why?. And they will be forced to release Wal-Mart for any past, present or future claims. Then, only after the terms of settlement are made more public does the following become clear: only 20% of the the class members will get more money, 80% will get nothing, and worse, 10% of the class members will be fired to help pay for the 20%. To be sure, Wal-Mart can make those types of tradeoffs and decisions in the normal course of business. But, in a class action, that type of tradeoff, and actual harm, to a subset of class members cannot happen. The 10% cannot be fired and sacrificed to pay more to the 20%. The class members have equal rights. Obviously, no judge would conclude that settlement meets the legal standard of "fair" to all class members. That is what is happening in the House v NCAA case. The judge has recognized that there is a subset of class members being harmed by the terms of the settlement. She knows she cannot approve the settlement until the Parties agree to protect them. Granting grandfather protection from roster cuts related to the terms of the settlement is necessary, not optional. The lawyers for the Parties have proposed a plan that makes grandfather protection optional. No judge can conclude that giving defendants the option to harm class members meets the legal standard of "fair".

THIS.

"You grandfather all the kids that were on the roster, and you give them an opportunity to finish. That’s the right thing to do,” Swinney said. “And to me, it’s low-hanging fruit. It avoids a lawsuit, most likely." He's been wrong a lot but nailed this. theclemsoninsider.com/2025/05/14/swi…

Nailed it!!👇 Plaintiff attorneys, Berman & Kessler, and NCAA attorney Kilaru honestly don’t deserve to be in the same courtroom as Laura Reathaford! Her professionalism & care is undeniable. And more importantly, her brief intensely describes how the law guides us in this case!

@AaronGogley @CoryRG123 @4Common_Cents @Ortho_JohnA @amandabiers @Barbarella1326 @bernie158323 @ConnecticutCoug @clasbywalsh @fjv4usn @GolfweekRingler @HElizLong @KateSafris @EdLopez5 @MTinSAV @Wesley_Null Yeah, I get that. My point was just that it's impossible to believe the NCAA doesn't know what's about to happen -- that thousands of athletes will be cut so that the AD's can achieve the expense savings they feel they need to fully fund football and basketball.

Same nonsense. They keep suggesting objectors are seeking guaranteed roster spots, when they are seeking no such thing. Athletes who would not have been cut "but for" the terms of this settlement cannot be harmed and cut as a result of the settlement. It is clear, simple and obvious. Granting non-counter status without a roster spot does not ameliorate the harm. Kids that were already cut should be offered reinstatement and keep the others until they graduate or need to be cut for cause. The contempt that class counsel demonstrates for their clients is reprehensible. The judge gave them every opportunity to protect their clients, she gave them leverage agains the NCAA, but instead they are running cover for the NCAA. They have been captured by their oversized fee.

@CoryRG123 @therealshenger @LReathaford @BrandiHahn10420 @Hamilnigg @HMardenborough @lucytumanian @mlycan12 @mikelillard0407 @WinterSportsLaw @MaristVRoyal @MTinSAV @Wesley_Null @Ortho_JohnA @primetimejet_22 @bernie158323 @KimRyan11953 @RPosie59 @RDFW1 @carlton_kerri @colmecrzy @kwmcnamee @Kelly_Quinlan Makes all the sense in the world. I’ve maintained that roster limits should not be implemented until current college athletes and recruited high school seniors pass through college and have no further eligibility. No present athlete would be harmed. Fundamentally fair.

@therealshenger So very sad.

Radford eliminates both its men’s and women’s tennis programs under a restructuring plan that looks to “Grow Division I Sports.” 🤔 When asked why tennis, administration responded that “the tennis programs would likely continue to struggle to remain competitive in the coming years at current funding levels.” 🧐 radfordathletics.com/news/2025/5/12…

Worth reading. Finally we appear to be getting closer to the truth as to why the bogus idea of roster limits was created in the first place… “Roster limits are there….in a deceptive bait and switch….”

Wait, what,🙀 they aren't planning to give a full scholarship to every member on every team🙃