After we reported yesterday how the SEC and Big Ten were discussing new roster limits, the NCAA is now reportedly set to eliminate scholarship limits across all sports beginning in the 2025-26 season.
According to Yahoo Sports, the new revenue-sharing model will see by-sport scholarship restrictions eliminated, allowing schools to offer scholarships to the entirety of their rosters.
New roster limits won’t be final until the approval of settlement terms in the House case, but in swimming & diving, the limits are expected to be 23 men and 35 women, at least in the SEC and Big Ten.
The elimination of scholarship limits comes as the House case settlement opens the door for schools to pay student-athletes NIL money, and therefore, it wouldn’t make sense for there to be only a certain number of scholarships available when the other athletes could still earn money through NIL.
During a meeting on Tuesday involving the power conference commissioners, new roster limits for football were reportedly set at 105, meaning there will be a 20-scholarship increase compared to the current limit which is 85.
Baseball, which has a scholarship restriction of 11.7, is expected to have a roster cap of 34, while softball and volleyball are expected to have roster limits of 25 and 18, respectively, a stark increase from their current scholarship limit of 12.
Another change is that all sports will now be considered “equivalency sports,” meaning partial scholarships can be distributed to all athletes. Previously, sports such as football and basketball were considered “head-count sports” requiring players on scholarship to receive a full grant.
Schools won’t be required to use scholarships for all of their roster spots, leaving room for walk-on opportunities.
Yahoo Sports reports that power conference programs are expecting to spend an additional $3 million to $7 million in additional scholarships annually.
Settlement terms in the House v. NCAA case are expected to be filed Friday with details on the distribution of the $2.77 billion in back pay to former athletes along with specifics of the new revenue-sharing model.
Can each school individually decide on certain limits?
Nothing says you HAVE to offer all on the roster a scholarship. You CAN if you want. You can also have less than the roster limit on your team. Nothing says you have to have the max roster size.
Yes, or, maybe? We don’t really know yet. But it’s all going to be part of a complex set of calculations to stay in accordance with the settlements.
A lot of the answers to a lot of questions are going to come down to whether scholarships count as revenue sharing, whether student-athletes are employees or not, and whether Title IX applies to NIL.
I Wonder how this works with the kids that have signed swimming scholarship agreements for the next 4 years? Are they void after this year? Need more info.
Most scholarships in swimming (can’t say about other sports) are not 4 year deals, but are 1 year deals that are renewed from year to year.
All scholarships are 1 year contracts.
In the Big Ten for the last decade, scholarships have been guaranteed for four years.
We still aren’t certain. But…they probably still have to pay the scholarships so long as the student-athletes uphold their end of the agreement.
Will be up to some of those swimmers whether they enter the portal (which I believe voids the four year agreement) or just finish their academic careers without swimming.
I don’t understand the “backpay”. Previous college athletes all signed on as amateurs and agreed to not taking money and getting an education that the school paid for (partial or full). The rules changed. Why are previous athletes getting paid?
They are getting paid because they sued and won. The NCAA abused their NIl rights for years. Read O’Bannon and Alston cases plus SCOTUS admonotion of the NCAA anti trust issue.
On the bright side… since they’re killing off a ton /most of the swimming programs, we can assume those that survive will almost certainly have access to a 50 meter pool, so we can all re-debate NCAA swimming switching from SCY to LCM.
One the dumbest takes ever. Congratulations
now’s my chance
From a supporting the education and dreams of more athletes standpoint, this is awesome. Although a lot of readers will think of this in terms of the competitive landscape only (which is valid), on a human level this means that more kids will have the opportunity to go to school across every sport and not have to worry about the potential to go into extreme debt to pursue athletic and academic opportunities.
That said, as someone who just graduated from a power 5 team on a relatively small scholarship… it stings a little bit 🙂
Not sure you really fully understand what’s going on. The end game of all this stuff is that there will be far fewer opportunities for swimming and diving in college.
That’s fair and I don’t disagree. I guess I was more thinking in terms of what’s left after the fact. Between roster limits and athletes as “employees” I unfortunately agree that some programs are likely to be cut. However, I think we can all agree that the programs that survive having the opportunity (not requirement) to give their athletes more scholarship money than they could before does directly benefit those athletes and their families- not just in swimming (even though that’s what we all care about), but every sport that couldn’t previously.
This is a scary time for Olympic and smaller college sports, lots of uncertainty. But, for the athletes and programs that do make it to the other… Read more »
Um. There are going to be less swimming rosters spots AND less swimming scholarships when this is all said and done.
If you don’t previously get a swimming scholarship when you swam at a power 5 team, you wouldn’t have gotten one in this new world when there’s way fewer total opportunities for one.
Yeah gonna need more info about how Title IX goes into this cuz this just ain’t adding up
It will not if they are employees. They now fall under employment law. Being a student and academic progress just became a term of condition of employment. Failure to perform can now result in termination.
How does this work with Title IX. I expect it might be good for women’s sports. More scholarships to offset the extra major sports scholarships.
This decision will be very challenging for non-revenue sports. And to think that since students might be considered employees that Title IX won’t apply is jumping the gun. More scholarships ‘could’ be created for minor or Olympic sports, but why would a school do this? Paying athletes (or whatever it ends up being called) creates a new expense line in the budget without any offsetting revenue. The easiest scenario is one where economics is the deciding factor: Non-revenue sports will be dropped so that more money can be diverted to revenue teams.