Lawyers managing the $2.8 billion NCAA settlement suggested a substantial revision on Wednesday regarding roster constraints, proposing that athletes who lost their positions could play without being subject to the new limits for the remainder of their eligibility.

Because the court ordered them to create a new plan, the lawyers suggested in court papers that schools make lists of all the players they didn't choose, expecting the agreement to be approved. This number could easily be hundreds, or maybe even much more.

In the recent legal submission, these individuals, labelled “Designated Student-Athletes,” have the opportunity to return and compete for a place on the team – without any assurance of success – or enrol at alternative institutions.

Regardless, these athletes will not be subject to the forthcoming roster limitations outlined in the plan initially sanctioned by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken last October.

The proposal would also grant an exemption to high school recruits whose promised spots were later withdrawn, and this exemption would remain in effect for the duration of their eligibility in college.

Wilken has already approved the main parts of the deal. 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 players. These players said the NCAA and five biggest conferences unfairly stopped them from making money from their name, image, and likeness.

The latest proposal concluded a two-week effort after Wilken directed attorneys for both sides to resume negotiations, stating that the roster limit specifics of the plan as initially presented were unsatisfactory.

The proposed scheme suggests substituting scholarship quotas, such as 85 for football and 9.9 for men's wrestling, with roster size limitations, stipulating 105 for football and 30 for wrestling. While institutions have the latitude to grant scholarships to every player on a squad, this approach carries significant financial implications, leading many to anticipate the exclusion of walk-on athletes or those receiving partial scholarships.

Wilken evidently empathized with the many players who forfeited roster positions as universities started getting ready to put the settlement terms into effect.

Wilken asked the lawyers to change that part of the deal. The NCAA first replied to Wilken's request by saying they wouldn't change anything. They said that changing roster moves that were already happening would cause more problems in a process that was already messy. Wilken told them to do it anyway, or the whole plan would be in danger.

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

According to their court filing, the plaintiffs argue that the changes to the settlement agreement are more than the court asked for.

The legal counsel highlighted that the athletes are not assured of reclaiming their positions on the team roster.

The defendants argued that the changes to the agreement should show that schools and their sports departments can always choose which athletes are on their teams. They said this was always true and doesn't change with or without limits on team size. They also wrote that the changes make sure that people who lost or would lose their place on the team because of the new limits will be in the same situation as if there were no limits. This means the team size limits don't apply to them.

The judge is expected to give people who are against the plan a short time to send in new objections before she makes her final decision. Steve Berman, one of the main lawyers for the people who sued, said earlier this week that those who are against the plan will not be happy with the new idea.

Time is of the essence for the NCAA and its 1,200 member institutions, collectively representing over 500,000 student-athletes across diverse sports. The terms of the agreement were scheduled for implementation on July 1, with football training commencing shortly thereafter.