In a meeting with the university’s Board of Trustees, Ohio State University athletic director Ross Bjork explained upcoming policy changes, many of which stem from the House v. NCAA court decision, according to the Columbus Dispatch.
While Bjork affirmed the University’s desire to retain all 36 of its varsity sports teams, he expects the university to lose 150 student-athletes in compliance with the court decision’s roster limits.
University President Ted Carter also said that some varsity teams “…may start to act a little bit more like a club sport.”
House v. NCAA was filed by former Arizona State swimmer Grant House in 2020. The antitrust lawsuit challenged the NCAA rule that restricted student-athletes in profiting from their name, image, and likeness (NIL). The ruling gave student-athletes more leeway to profit from their NIL. Additionally, the ruling mandated $2.8 billion in back payment to former student-athletes, permitted athletic departments to revenue share with student-athletes, eliminated team scholarship limits, and imposed roster size limits.
According to Bjork, athletic departments will use the ruling as a roadmap for policy and budget decisions in the near future. With respect to back payments, he believes most money will go to former men’s football and basketball players, the two historically most profitable college sports.
In 2025, Ohio State will remove scholarship limits per team and impose roster limits in compliance with the ruling. Bjork expects to lose approximately 150 student-athletes as a consequence of the rule changes. He stated that some teams may begin to resemble club teams in operation but still travel and compete at the Division I level.
Ohio State has a women’s and a men’s varsity swim team, both of which were the runner-ups at the 2024 Big Ten Conference Championship. The men’s team has 11 NCAA team titles to their name, and recent alumna Hunter Armstrong is a two-time Olympic gold medalist.
According to the USA Today, Ohio State’s athletic department generated $251.6 million in revenue in the last fiscal year, ranking it first in the nation and the second highest revenue ever earned by an athletic department in a single year. Its 36 sport sponsorship is more-than-double the 14 mandated by the NCAA for NCAA Division I membership and one of the highest varsity sponsorship counts in the NCAA.
A previous version of this article misattributed a quote from Ted Carter to Ross Bjork. This has been corrected.
Has Grant House been interviewed or made any type of statement? Perhaps he is not permitted to do so? I would like to hear how he feels about the truly terrible effect the lawsuit he attached his name to will have on college swimming. Surely he did not fully understand the implications when he signed on.
If the proposed settlement structure put forth by the plaintiffs counsel is adopted, it looks like NCAA D1 swimmers stand to collect about $50 in back pay. Estimates for lost NIL opportunities range from $1 – $1.8 million.
“Were it worth the trouble?”
Perhaps he does not care about your opinion or any other “swim” person. He and his legal team have made significant $$$$.
Grant only cares about Grant. He could care less if programs are cut or college swimming ends.
I don’t have the answers – I suspect college athletics will always come down to money one way or another – but I wouldn’t be upset if the NCAA as a whole has run its course and gets replaced by something else.
Swimming holds no value to the financial future of collegiate sports – It is done.
So basically Ohio st can’t afford to fully fund swimming? What a joke.
This story is probably <5% swim related. A comment was made that ~150 student athletes would likely go away out of 6-700. The initial cut is getting to within roster caps. Most of the cuts will likely come from this. For example, OSU likes to carry about 40 m/f swimmers on its team. If the cap is set to 30, there will be less. Keep in mind that last year’s rosters did NOT have 40 on each team, and there is attrition every year to manage the negative growth.
I detailed all of the sports OSU lists, and I can certainly see a number that move to club status without a lot of impact (pistol, rifle, spirit program, etc.),… Read more »
It’s not going to be cold turkey.. Football and basketball are going to a different set up by 2030’s..However not all D1 teams are alike.. Some football laggards are not going to be included…why not make a deal with universities and run their sports financial aspects and lease the name from school…All revenues generated go to the company handling the sports not the universities. The schools could provide facilities but not run them.etc
If you’re a real swim fan, stop watching football every Saturday and do whatever you can to help promote swimming
These athletic departments are now laser focused on revenue and will be run as a business – full stop. That is why the AD mentioned “club” style sports as a way to get ahead of dropping programs but having a softened landing by way of framing it as “continuing to sponsor these sports” but completely leaving them out to dry because they do not fit the business model now.
If I were a betting person I would wager they probably will propose to still provide facilities and academic support but will avoid financially supporting sport programs through staff salaries and scholarships, more of the club model being alluded to. This way they can claim they aren’t preventing people from furthering… Read more »
“Recent alumna Hunter Armstrong”
Folks: we just witnessed the “Magic Man’s newest trick!” Atta girl!
Has the settlement been finalized? I haven’t seen anything from the NCAA regarding the settlement being finalized.
“ The settlement must be approved by the court before it becomes final, a process expected to take several months.” This was
Posted at the end of July from the NCAA.
https://www.ncaa.org/news/2024/7/25/media-center-settlement-documents-filed-in-college-athletics-class-action-lawsuits
The next hearing is Sept. 5th when Judge Wilken will respond to the proposed settlement and other comments made to the court from interested parties.