ӣ����Ƶ

COLUMBIA, Mo. — With college sports’ landscape-shifting legal settlement still floating in courtroom limbo, Missouri athletics director Laird Veatch remains optimistic that the school will “manage” the rules that eventually emerge.

The $2.8 billion House v. NCAA settlement is close to approval, the federal judge overseeing the process has said, but a roster limits roadblock has kept the agreement from crossing the finish line.

The background, for those who find this litigation confusing: Two key parts of the settlement seem done and dusted. There will be billions of dollars in backpay to former college athletes who could not profit from their name, image and likeness during their playing careers. And moving forward, universities will be able to share revenue directly with athletes as compensation — starting with $20.5 million next sports year, assuming this all winds up approved.

Then there are roster limits. As part of the settlement, schools will be able to offer more scholarships to athletes, but there will be fewer overall roster spots available. A football program will go from having 85 scholarship players and 35 walk-ons to just 105 players, with all eligible for full scholarships, for example.

It’s those roster limits that have drawn objections, mostly from walk-on athletes whose spots stand to vanish under the settlement terms. Enough formal objections came through for U.S. Judge Claudia Wilken to require attorneys to re-work terms to grandfather athletes in.

It seemed an imperfect idea made even less resolute when attorneys came back to court with a solution that schools could grandfather current and incoming athletes in under the roster limits — but only if they want to. It’s not yet clear whether this structure will satisfy Wilken and trigger full approval of the settlement.

At the moment, though, the path forward seems to involve schools having the choice of whether to grandfather in athletes who hold or have been promised a roster spot.

There hasn’t been much clarity about how this will play out on a school-by-school basis. Notre Dame has said it will grandfather athletes across all of its offered sports. Clemson football coach Dabo Swinney has said he’ll do so for his program.

So what will Mizzou do about roster limits? Asked by the Post-Dispatch earlier this week, Veatch was heavy on institutional confidence but light on specifics.

“There’s been a lot of talk about roster limits as we’ve gone through the process,” Veatch said. “Now, in terms of the latest developments and where this thing’s landed, we had had conversations about what could happen. But we need to find out what the specifics are before we get there. Of course, I’m starting to get an understanding of what that could be. We have conversations as an SEC AD group and hear from attorneys and do all that. We’re starting to get our heads around that.

“In the end, if it works out in the direction that I believe it will, I think we’ll be in a position to manage that, just like all schools will. It’ll create some nuance and a little challenge here and there, but it’s not something that is insurmountable. We’ll work through that. Our coaches, our teams, everyone involved has gotten really used to being flexible these days. You just learn, you figure it out, you go through the process, you see what the latest is, and you react to that and get ready. We’ll manage through it. I’m confident we can do that.”

To this point, MU has not been immune to the impending impacts of roster limits.

A Missouri swimmer was among the athletes who submitted written objections to the settlement.

“I would be lying if I said the House vs. NCAA settlement has not been hanging over our heads all year,” Seth Cannon, a freshman swimmer at Mizzou, wrote in January. “It has been a black cloud over the entire team as well as the coaching staff, who are not looking forward to cutting the roster down to 22 men and 30 women because of this settlement.”

Within the football program, Tigers coach Eli Drinkwitz said he “hurt a lot of players” at the end of last season by having upfront conversations with those who could be cut due to a decrease in available spots.

How much will that change following settlement approval? Will there be enough discontent related to roster limits to trigger more legal action, perhaps on the part of athletes whose spots disappeared? This particular point of contention may look like attorneys missing the forest for the trees in terms of the broader settlement, but it’s not without implications for current athletes.

Without concrete, committed directions from the court or athletics department leadership, though, it’s uncertainty that will linger for at least a little while longer — for both athletes and these changes to college sports.