The SEC and Big Ten are discussing roster limits of 23 men and 35 women, respectively, for their swimming & diving programs, with both swimmers and divers counting as 1 athlete on those rosters. These new roster limits would take effect for the 2025-2026 season, with no significant easing-in-period.
According to sources, the SEC met about three weeks before the US Olympic Trials, in late May, and came up with a number of 23 men and 35 women. Big Ten coaches met two weeks later and came up with numbers of 30 men and 35 women, with both conferences expected to ultimately match at the lower number for men.
While other conferences won’t be bound by those numbers, as the two power brokers in college athletics, the SEC and Big Ten are expected to drive what happens elsewhere.
Last Friday, these numbers, along with numbers for other sports, went to mediation or arbitration to be finalized. SwimSwam could not confirm that the numbers were finalized.
These numbers are very similar to the 22 and 35 that SwimSwam first reported in May as an SEC proposal. The number for football teams is expected to land between 100 and 110 athletes.
The moves are all in response to ongoing litigation and rules changes regarding student-athletes and their share of revenues generated by athletics departments, including them being declared employees. Athletics departments across the country are now ranking their programs by different criteria and evaluating how they might reduce sports and/or budgets for those programs to deal with new rules, regulations, and settlements.
What remains to be seen is whether scholarships will count as ‘revenue sharing,’ and how Title IX regulations will be applied to topics of revenue sharing and Name, Image, and Likeness.
Below, SwimSwam has compiled, and averaged, the number of athletes on each Big Ten and SEC roster for last season to give an idea of how many roster spots will be impacted. This information is based on federally-submitted data, meaning that it won’t always reflect perfectly what happens on the ground (swimmers getting injured, quitting the team, etc.) but is the best count available.
In both conferences, men’s rosters are, on average, slightly smaller than women’s rosters. While a few women’s rosters, like Indiana, will be impacted pretty significantly by the new roster limits, many others won’t be impacted at all.
Several coaches that SwimSwam spoke with said that the impact on the men’s rosters is more significant – both because the number is so low, and because men generally develop more once they arrive in college than women. A roster of 23 would dramatically impact the ability of men’s programs to hold varsity spots for developmental swimmers, though some have floated proposals about using a non-varsity club team to skirt some of that.
Some schools may implement tighter restrictions as a cost control measure. There is currently no mandated roster limit, though schools often use roster limits in sports like swimming for budgeting and Title IX balancing purposes.
Ultimately, these new rules are going to have an enormous impact on collegiate athletics, barring any last-minute reprieve by an American congress that has been wont in recent months to pass any substantial legislation.
Big Ten Rosters, 2023-2024
| School | Men | Women |
| Illinois | X | 33 |
| Indiana | 37 | 48 |
| Iowa | X | 22 |
| Michigan | 37 | 35 |
| Minnesota | 27 | 31 |
| Nebraska | X | 23 |
| Northwestern | 24 | 30 |
| Ohio State | 42 | 35 |
| Penn State | 30 | 39 |
| Purdue | 37 | 44 |
| Rutgers | X | 29 |
| UCLA | X | 43 |
| USC | 34 | 31 |
| Wisconsin | 31 | 29 |
| Average | 33.22 | 33.71 |
SEC Rosters, 2023-2024
| School | Men | Women |
| Alabama | 31 | 37 |
| Arkansas | X | 24 |
| Auburn | 39 | 38 |
| Florida | 47 | 39 |
| Georgia | 40 | 37 |
| Kentucky | 28 | 41 |
| LSU | 31 | 34 |
| Missouri | 29 | 29 |
| South Carolina | 31 | 44 |
| Tennessee | 38 | 45 |
| Texas | 44 | 35 |
| Texas A&M | 38 | 48 |
| Vanderbilt | X | 29 |
| 36.00 | 38.82 |
The age group coaches need to respond by developing very versatile athletes. And I think swimming is going to become much more competitive. From a team to team perspective.
Unfortunately, this is just step one. Complete program cuts will follow as soon as ADs have clarity on how the revenue sharing will work.
A priority list to go:
1.Larger men’s non-revenue generating sports.
2. Smaller women’s non-revenue generating sports.
3. Smaller men’s minimal revenue generating sports.
4. Larger women’s non-revenue generating sports.
Yep, in 5 years, and certainly 10, college sports will be unrecognizable from what we have today.
With all the talk about the big money sports (football & basketball), NCAA swimming was done in by a swimmer
One who swam 6 years and got a scholarship
And he could have “gone pro” at any time to “get paid”. Instead, he stayed to swim in exchange for some of the top coaching in the world, access to top facilities, tuition, housing, food, trainers, healthcare, tutors, etc….
Collectively, these benefits over six years cost people hundreds of thousands of dollars. And, he is essentially bringing an end to the careers of tens of thousands of walk on athletes that paid for the privilege of pursuing their sport in college.
To be fair, if it wasn’t going to be House, it just would have been another lead plaintiff.
But, it wasn’t another lead plaintiff…
What will happen to 2025 commits? No one has signed and many have verbally committed to a school that may have to cut their roster. It seems there are more verbally committed 2025 swimmers than actual roster spots.
When D1 Swimming dies, do the big sponsors and USA Swimming decide to make a better version of the ISL? TYR Pro Swim Series one season? Speedo the next? Arena the following?
Create a real national club championship, each by size? State club champions by size move on to a National bracket?
Just spitballing here.
There was some talk of rolling roster caps in slowly. Setting the scholarship cap to the final roster limit and slowly enforcing smaller teams to allow swimmers to finish out their career without getting cut while still reducing roster sizes
This what took place in football many years ago. The limit on loading the Giants in football with 100 plus athletes many just “bench warmers” and in some cases to prevent and opponent from recruiting someone. With the limit on 80 the result was to the benefit of the athlete and the smaller collegiate programs.
Maybe this will lead to more swimmers going to smaller schools to continue their swim careers. It’s still insane to limit swim rosters while football programs play 30% of their athletes each season and swim teams can swim every swimmer at home meets. This is what happens when you put greedy people in college athletics. Disappointed to say the least.
Serious question for anyone that knows. If this proposal becomes reality and student athletes and swimmers are considered employees, what happens to international student athletes?
They are here on student visas, not work visas. They are not allowed to work and employers cannot employ them. Work visas are generally not easy to obtain, which is why employment applications ask if you are eligible to work in the U.S. or need sponsorship.
Applicants and employers must demonstrate there are not other qualified U.S. applicants for the role. The visa issued is specific to the role and the employer. It does not automatically transfer to another employer should a worker on a visa want to move jobs (transfer schools).
So, will… Read more »
Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but I think the route that’s being carved in the courts right now is stating that revenue-generating sports student-athletes will be labeled “employees” while non-revenue-generating sports student athletes will not. The issue you bring up will likely only be noticed in men’s basketball.
I thought that concept (revenue sport = employee, non-revenue = not employee) was the concept gaining the most momentum. But, the settlement appears to be taking a different approach.
If the conferences did not plan to consider swimmers employees, then there would be no reason to radically reduce rosters and impose caps. Obviously, there are no roster caps today and schools roster as many walk ons as they want while adhering to the scholarships limits imposed by the NCAA (9.9 for men and 14 for women).
After all, it is a swimmer who is the lead (named) plaintiff for the class.
The Dartmouth NLRB ruling seems to suggest there is at least a possibility that revenue creation has nothing to do with employment status. Control and compensation (of some kind) were the biggest factors.
They become paws in the system.