There are several layers to the landmark NCAA v. House settlement, and although it won’t be up for final approval until April, some of its effects are already been felt by prospective student-athletes.
The impact of the proposed roster limits across all sports, which comes as the settlement removes caps on scholarships, was immediately felt last month during National Signing Day, with teams telling recruits guaranteed roster spots were no longer available.
Although roster limits will surely be impacting swimming & diving in future seasons, are there other collegiate sports being hit harder by the new guidelines?
Diving deep into the numbers, using research provided by Opendorse‘s Braly Keller, we can take a look at the proposed roster limits across each sport along with the average roster sizes for the 2022-23 season.
PROPOSED ROSTER LIMITS VS AVERAGE ROSTER SIZE (22-23)
| Sport | Proposed Roster Cap | 2022-23 Average Roster Size | Difference |
| Acro & Tumbling | 55 | 38.3 | +16.7 |
| Baseball | 34 | 39.7 | -5.7 |
| Men’s Basketball | 15 | 15.7 | -0.7 |
| Women’s Basketball | 15 | 14.5 | +0.5 |
| Women’s Beach Volleyball | 19 | 17.8 | +1.2 |
| Women’s Bowling | 11 | 8.9 | +2.1 |
| Men’s Cross Country | 17 | 15.8 | 1.2 |
| Women’s Cross County | 17 | 16.6 | +0.4 |
| Women’s Equestrian | 50 | 39.2 | +10.8 |
| Men’s Fencing | 24 | 18.3 | +5.7 |
| Women’s Fencing | 24 | 18 | +6 |
| Women’s Field Hockey | 27 | 25 | +2 |
| Football (FBS) | 105 | 128.2 | -23.2 |
| Men’s Golf | 9 | 9.8 | -0.8 |
| Women’s Golf | 9 | 8.5 | +0.5 |
| Men’s Gymnastics | 20 | 20.8 | -0.8 |
| Women’s Gymnastics | 20 | 20.7 | -0.7 |
| Men’s Ice Hockey | 26 | 28.4 | -2.4 |
| Women’s Ice Hockey | 26 | 25.8 | +0.2 |
| Men’s Indoor Track & Field | 45 | 39.1 | +5.9 |
| Women’s Indoor Track & Field | 45 | 39.9 | +5.1 |
| Men’s Lacrosse | 48 | 50.8 | -2.8 |
| Women’s Lacrosse | 38 | 34.3 | +3.7 |
| Men’s Outdoor Track & Field | 45 | 39 | +6 |
| Women’s Outdoor Track & Field | 45 | 39.9 | +5.1 |
| Rifle | 12 | 6.7 | +5.3 |
| Women’s Rowing | 68 | 57.1 | +10.9 |
| Women’s Rugby | 36 | 38 | -2 |
| Men’s Skiing | 16 | 14.5 | +1.5 |
| Women’s Skiing | 16 | 13.3 | +2.7 |
| Men’s Soccer | 28 | 31.7 | -3.7 |
| Women’s Soccer | 28 | 30.4 | -2.4 |
| Softball | 25 | 22.8 | +2.2 |
| Stunt | 65 | 56 | +9 |
| Men’s Swim & Dive | 30 | 29.2 | +0.8 |
| Women’s Swim & Dive | 30 | 30.7 | -0.7 |
| Men’s Tennis | 10 | 10.1 | -0.1 |
| Women’s Tennis | 10 | 9.2 | +0.8 |
| Women’s Triathlon | 14 | 8.9 | +5.1 |
| Men’s Volleyball | 18 | 21.1 | -3.1 |
| Women’s Volleyball | 18 | 17.3 | +0.7 |
| Men’s Water Polo | 24 | 25.6 | -1.6 |
| Women’s Water Polo | 24 | 22.7 | +1.3 |
| Men’s Wrestling | 30 | 34.7 | -4.7 |
| Women’s Wrestling | 30 | 16.5 | +13.5 |
The data tells us that the roster limits are negatively impacting a few select sports as a whole, while nearly two-thirds (29 of 45) actually had a lower average roster two seasons ago than what the proposed limit will be.
Football is far and away the sport with the biggest roster in the NCAA with an average of 128.2 players on each team in 2022-23, and it will be hit hardest with the proposed limit of 105 meaning more than 23 players will lose a spot per team next season.
Another one of the major college sports, baseball, is also getting hit by losing nearly six roster spots per team, down from an average of 39.7 two years ago to 34.
SPORTS LOSING ROSTER SPOTS (V. 22-23)
| Sport | Proposed Roster Cap | 2022-23 Average Roster Size | Difference |
| Football (FBS) | 105 | 128.2 | -23.2 |
| Baseball | 34 | 39.7 | -5.7 |
| Men’s Wrestling | 30 | 34.7 | -4.7 |
| Men’s Soccer | 28 | 31.7 | -3.7 |
| Men’s Volleyball | 18 | 21.1 | -3.1 |
| Men’s Lacrosse | 48 | 50.8 | -2.8 |
| Men’s Ice Hockey | 26 | 28.4 | -2.4 |
| Women’s Soccer | 28 | 30.4 | -2.4 |
| Women’s Rugby | 36 | 38.0 | -2 |
| Men’s Water Polo | 24 | 25.6 | -1.6 |
| Men’s Golf | 9 | 9.8 | -0.8 |
| Men’s Gymnastics | 20 | 20.8 | -0.8 |
| Men’s Basketball | 15 | 15.7 | -0.7 |
| Women’s Gymnastics | 20 | 20.7 | -0.7 |
| Women’s Swim & Dive | 30 | 30.7 | -0.7 |
| Men’s Tennis | 10 | 10.1 | -0.1 |
SPORTS GAINING ROSTER SPOTS (V. 22-23)
| Sport | Proposed Roster Cap | 2022-23 Average Roster Size | Difference |
| Acro & Tumbling | 55 | 38.3 | +16.7 |
| Women’s Wrestling | 30 | 16.5 | +13.5 |
| Women’s Rowing | 68 | 57.1 | +10.9 |
| Women’s Equestrian | 50 | 39.2 | +10.8 |
| Stunt | 65 | 56.0 | +9 |
| Women’s Fencing | 24 | 18.0 | +6 |
| Men’s Outdoor Track & Field | 45 | 39.0 | +6 |
| Men’s Indoor Track & Field | 45 | 39.1 | +5.9 |
| Men’s Fencing | 24 | 18.3 | +5.7 |
| Rifle | 12 | 6.7 | +5.3 |
| Women’s Indoor Track & Field | 45 | 39.9 | +5.1 |
| Women’s Outdoor Track & Field | 45 | 39.9 | +5.1 |
| Women’s Triathlon | 14 | 8.9 | +5.1 |
| Women’s Lacrosse | 38 | 34.3 | +3.7 |
| Women’s Skiing | 16 | 13.3 | +2.7 |
| Softball | 25 | 22.8 | +2.2 |
| Women’s Bowling | 11 | 8.9 | +2.1 |
| Women’s Field Hockey | 27 | 25.0 | +2 |
| Men’s Skiing | 16 | 14.5 | +1.5 |
| Women’s Water Polo | 24 | 22.7 | +1.3 |
| Women’s Beach Volleyball | 19 | 17.8 | +1.2 |
| Men’s Cross Country | 17 | 15.8 | +1.2 |
| Men’s Swim & Dive | 30 | 29.2 | +0.8 |
| Women’s Tennis | 10 | 9.2 | +0.8 |
| Women’s Volleyball | 18 | 17.3 | +0.7 |
| Women’s Basketball | 15 | 14.5 | +0.5 |
| Women’s Golf | 9 | 8.5 | +0.5 |
| Women’s Cross County | 17 | 16.6 | +0.4 |
| Women’s Ice Hockey | 26 | 25.8 | +0.2 |
On paper, swimming & diving teams aren’t being affected significantly, as their average roster size from the 2022-23 season is very similar to the new limit of 30 per team.
However, zooming in, some teams will obviously be affected more than others. The average men’s roster size in 2023-24 was approximately 26, but the Florida Gators, for example, had 41 men on their team. The average women’s roster was closer to 33 athletes, so women’s teams will be required to cut an average of three athletes next season, and it will be a lot more for some.
Looking at other Summer Olympic sports, men’s wrestling, soccer, volleyball and water polo are all expected to lose more than one roster spot per team, while for the women, soccer and rugby are the two sports hit the hardest.
According to ESPN, football, baseball and women’s soccer will all need to shed more than 1,000 athletes from their Division I ranks if the settlement goes through.
As outlined by Keller on X, if we take out football, the average roster size change is an extra 2.3 spots per team. More than a third of the 62 total roster spots being lost come from football, while there are 140 roster spots being added.
•Avg Roster Size Change: +1.7
•Avg Roster Size Change (minus FB): +2.3
•Tot Roster Spots Added: +140
•Tot Roster Spots Lost: -62
•Most Added: Acro & Tumbling (+17), W Wrestling (+14), W Rowing / W Equestrian (+11)
•Most Lost: Football (-24), Baseball (-6), M Wrestling (-5)— Braly Keller (@BralyKeller) October 25, 2024
There could be an overall reduction of close to 10,000 roster spots in Division I, according to ESPN, if all of the sports that are gaining roster spots (relative to the previous average) don’t actually get any bigger and stay the same.
The roster limits were determined in the summer, as the commissioners of the Power conferences met in late June to compare roster numbers gathered from their members before they met with NCAA lawyers in early July to negotiate the final roster limits.
Steve Berman, the co-counsel of the plaintiffs’ attorney Jeffrey Kessler, told ESPN they were hoping for roster sizes to be as big as possible and were pleased where the final numbers landed.
“I think what we’ve negotiated is fair because on the whole more athletes are going to get more money than before in those sports,” Berman said.
The NCAA v. House settlement was granted preliminary approval in October and will be up for final approval in April 2025.
Thank you for diving into the impacts of the NCAA v. House settlement on roster sizes. While the analysis uses 2022-23 average roster sizes as a benchmark for proposed caps, relying on averages misses the critical needs of championship-level programs. Who wants to be average? Programs like Texas, Cal, Florida, and many more strive to lead, not simply meet minimums.
The proposed 30-athlete roster cap may seem reasonable, but data from NCAA championship teams from 2009–2024 tells a different story. Top-performing teams consistently field 35-40 total athletes, with 30-34 swimmers and 5-6 divers. These larger rosters are essential to cover all events, build relays, and manage the inevitable challenges of injuries or illnesses. For example, Texas’s championship teams regularly had… Read more »
Alternatively, we might have to raise the standard of coaching nationally if we can’t just depend on the Cals and Texases and Floridas of the world to (hit on 50% of their recruits?) anymore.
There are plenty of bad teams with 35-40 athletes on their rosters too, so I’m not sure you’ve borne out that championship teams need more roster spots.
The reality is that in swimming, the top 100 athletes in each class all have an Olympic dream, and the widespread perception, be it true or not, is that there are only 5-6 programs that can get you to the Olympics. That’s why these programs have huge rosters. I think you’ve put the chicken before the egg here.… Read more »
You raise some valid points about the need for a broader distribution of talent and the development of more programs that can produce championship-caliber athletes. However, the reality is that the NCAA swimming landscape isn’t structured to support this ideal under the current system. Programs like Cal, Texas, Tennessee, and Florida dominate because of their size and deep investment in coaching, facilities, and development pathways. Shrinking rosters won’t magically redistribute talent; it will reduce opportunities across the board, especially for walk-ons and developing athletes who might otherwise rise to championship-level performance. The data shows that teams with rosters of 35-40 swimmers and divers have historically been the most competitive at NCAA championships. While larger rosters don’t guarantee success, they provide… Read more »
Shrinking rosters is already redistributing talent. Look for the ‘recommitments’ from an SEC program to a mid-major or D2 school. It’s happening all around you.
The walk-ons you describe don’t really exist at Cal, Texas, and Florida.
Correlation does not imply causation.
I get that we’re all unhappy about the roster cuts meaning fewer collegiate swimmers, but your argument just doesn’t make any sense to me. The ‘roster spots’ being lost aren’t the current swimmers at Texas, Cal, and Florida. No swimmer who would have committed to Texas, Cal, or Florida pre-2025 will find themselves without a roster spot somewhere else in the post-2025 world. The spots where you’re going to see folks being lost is at the breakpoints of… Read more »
OrangeBlood is everything that’s wrong with swimming. Stop putting your head down, working your ass off, and letting results speak for themselves. Start realizing that sports are an entertainment product at the college level and beyond and cope with the changes.
Stop pretending like swimmers are some mightier form of existence. Start living in reality.
It’s going to take some creative thought to save swimming, and “Cal has 50 swimmers and they win NCAA titles” isn’t going to move anybody with the authority to make these decisions, especially a judge who could not give fewer s***s about the future of swimming as the status quo demanding that their bloated rosters continue to be subsidized by football – the same football,… Read more »
I appreciate the hot take, but I didn’t realize advocating for opportunities and excellence in men’s swimming meant living in denial about reality. If the “reality” you’re suggesting is smaller rosters that gut competitiveness and limit Olympic pathways, then sorry – not coping with that. Maybe creative thought starts with understanding what makes championship programs successful rather than settling for average.
When does pickleball get added as an NCAA sport ?
Hopefully SOON.
Only as a women’s sport.
Pitter patter
Apologies if this has already been answered previously…but why has the House settlement focused on roster limits vs. scholarship limits? What problem are they solving for in the current system that requires limiting roster sizes?
I get that “in theory” under the House agreement, it means everyone on the roster can get a full ride. But the economic feasibility of that for the vast majority of schools is unproven and unlikely. So, if a team/school like Florida is willing to carry 41 athletes (non scholarship above the limit) and the athletes are willing to walk-on, why should that be an issue under the House agreement?
Revenue sharing. If athletic departments choose to share revenue with athletes, the shares have to be proportional. The House Plaintiffs really wanted revenue sharing because that’s the only hope Olympic/non-revenue athletes have of getting cash. Each athlete in a given sport receives the same proportion. Schools know that they will have to choose to share revenue to stay competitive, so they fought for limits. The limits the schools fought for and won are a cap on the total a school is allowed to share, roster caps, and a complex formula for determining the proportion of the shared money that athletes of each sport get.
Ohio State will likely choose to share the full $22 million with athletes they are… Read more »
Are there rules allowing “exhibition or junior varsity” status for athletes. Obviously non scholarship.
I know some teams like swimming have swimmers that don’t compete in scoring events but train with the team.
Colleges still have them swim at the meets as no scoring members.
It seems like there’s going to be a loophole as described here, allowing ‘club representation,’ but you won’t be able to move athletes up and down at-will throughout the season.
https://swimswam.com/roster-cuts-may-limit-varsity-spots-but-one-college-swimming-program-might-have-a-solution/
“Football hardest hit” — how will they survive on only *105* full ride scholarships and many millions in cash salaries. Cry me a river.
They aren’t all on scholarship. And if it weren’t for the football teams generating revenue, most swim programs wouldn’t exist. Quit whining.
Sorry, that’s false. it’s 105 full ride scholarships (up from 85 right now). And under the House settlement, the cost going to rise by many millions more bc of mandatory player salaries. Already, the number of football programs that actually make a profit is smaller than you think, and that number will plummet further now. Schools like Ohio State that truly fund the entire athletic dept are the exception, not the rule.
The House settlement doesn’t have mandatory salaries, it has revenue sharing. Most athletic departments operate in the red, but let’s not forget that college athletics is supposed to be enrichment for students’ lives—not a money-making venture. The NCAA is in this mess because D1 P4 athletics has become a money-making venture. The schools with the most athletic teams and sports are all Ivy League or DIII—they are fulfilling the promise and purpose of college athletics. College athletics is supposed to be about giving students a chance to play sports—not giving colleges minor league semi-pro teams. But since that’s what a small subset of schools have turned college athletics into, the arrangement between schools and athletes has to change.
Rowing is nuts. That’s insane. Think about trimming these crazy sports like rowing and equestrian. If you’re 2x next closest sport that’s a problem
Forgive my ignorance, but why is the proposed roster cap at 50 for women’s equestrian? Do equestrian teams typically have lots of members? Do they count the horses and grooms?
Yes, huge roster. A&M has 53, for example.
I don’t have an exact answer, but I do have a few educated guesses. Equestrian riders are pretty highly specialized, so riders aren’t generally doing multiple events. So there are four events in a competition (fences, flat, horsemanship, reining), five per event in a dual competition gets you to 20 on your scoring roster.
I think there are a lot of overlaps with rowing. One is that there is a ton of developmental space on the roster. The other is in the unique economics. Someone in rowing (there’s a huge rowing scene here in Philly) explained to me once that rowing has gigantic rosters in part for development, and in part because… Read more »
I’ve seen you mention Philadelphia a few times in recent months. Are you living there full time now? When did you leave Austin, and for what reasons (if you feel like sharing them)?
Good wishes!
Swimswam’s token rower here:
100% correct on rowing. Also, at the division 1 level, the championships are contested as 2x8s and 1×4
So just on the potential conference and NCAA scoring roster, you have 20 rowers + 3 coxswains + 3 spare rowers/coxswains. Then you end up with one or two extra 8s full of developmental rowers as it’s usually a highly developmental sport at the collegiate level. Some programs might even save room for a novice 8 as that can be contested at some championships. So it’s pretty easy to see how quickly roster spots get taken up. However, very few of these athletes actually get scholarships or get large ones if they do, solely because a decent number… Read more »
Dead on from another token rower. It’s also a sport with a very high injury and burnout rate, so you need a depth to make sure you can fill all of those seats with experienced rowers.
This is a very misleading article. Some sports will only have 90% scholarship athletes and 10% walk on and not go to the max. Some maybe only go scholarship athletes.. Also two new worlds will exist. D1 with top 60 teams and D1A with rest of D1 teams
Two new worlds should exist—schools that want to make money from athletics with semi-pro minor league teams, and schools that just want to provide athletic opportunities to students. That’s why there are different divisions and football subdivisions. We’ve reached a point where we need another division or to admit that top-tier college football is minor league football with school colors and let it break off into its own league.