Lawyers managing the $2.8 billion NCAA settlement on Wednesday put forward a substantial revision regarding roster limitations, suggesting that athletes who were displaced could play without contributing to the new maximums for the duration of their eligibility.

Because the court ordered them to create a new plan, the lawyers suggested in court papers that schools should make lists of all the players they did not choose, because they expected the agreement to be approved. This number could easily be in the hundreds, and maybe even much higher.

The people called “Designated Student-Athletes” in the new legal paper can be asked to come back and try for a place on the team, but it’s not certain, or they can go to different schools.

Regardless, these athletes will not contribute to the new roster restrictions that are part of the plan revealed last autumn and initially endorsed by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken in October.

The proposal would also extend the exemption to high school recruits whose promised positions were subsequently withdrawn, and this exemption would remain valid throughout their college eligibility.

Wilken has given his initial approval to the main parts of the agreement. This includes letting each school give up to $20.5 million each year directly to their athletes. It also includes over $2.7 billion in money for past years that will go to players who said the NCAA and five biggest conferences unfairly stopped them from making money from their name, image, and likeness.

The recent proposition concluded a two-week rush after Wilken instructed legal representatives for both parties to resume negotiations, declaring the roster limit specifics of the draft plan were unsatisfactory.

The proposal suggests substituting the current limits on athletic scholarships, such as 85 for football and 9.9 for men's wrestling, with roster size restrictions of 105 for football and 30 for wrestling. While institutions would have the option to award scholarships to all team members, the financial implications are significant, leading most observers to anticipate that non-scholarship or partially supported athletes will likely be excluded.

Wilken evidently commiserated with the numerous players who lost their positions as universities started readying to enforce the settlement's stipulations. Around twelve recounted their experiences during an April 7 hearing.

Wilken instructed legal counsel to revise that section of the agreement. The NCAA's initial reaction to Wilken’s proposal — which involved preserving existing players’ roster positions under a “grandfathering” scheme — was to maintain the status quo, asserting that reversing roster changes already implemented would exacerbate the disarray in an already turbulent procedure. Wilken ordered them to proceed regardless, or jeopardise the entire initiative.

The lawyers for the plaintiffs said their plan was better than Wilken's. It not only allowed schools to bring back players they had previously cut without it affecting their team limit, but it also made this exception available for new schools.

In their court submission, the plaintiffs contended that these alterations to the settlement agreement surpassed the safeguards mandated by the court.

The attorneys noted there is no certainty that the athletes will regain their roster spots.

The defendants claimed that the changes to the agreement recognized that schools and their sports departments could still decide which athletes would be on their teams. They said this was always true and would not change, even with limits on the number of players. The changes to the agreement make sure that people who lost or would lose their place on a team because of the new limits will be in the same situation as if the limits were never put in place. This means the limits do not affect them.

The judge is expected to grant opponents of the plan a limited period to submit revised objections prior to her final ruling. Steve Berman, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs, predicted earlier this week that those contesting the plan will not be appeased by the new proposal.

The deadline is approaching for the NCAA and its 1,200 member institutions, which collectively include over 500,000 athletes across various disciplines. The stipulations of the agreement were slated to commence on July 1st, followed shortly thereafter by the initiation of football training.