This op-ed comes courtesy of Stuart Smith. Stuart owns Texas Ford Aquatics and is a former NCAA All-American swimmer for The University of Texas. As a member of Texas’ 1984 NCAA championship-winning 400 medley relay team, Stu experienced the power of collegiate swimming to shape young athletes into champions. He was an All-American (1984-85). With 35 years of coaching experience at premier programs such as Longhorn Aquatics, Dynamo Swim Club, Northwest Arkansas Aquatics, North Texas Nadadores, and Texas Ford Aquatics, Stu has dedicated his career to helping young swimmers achieve their dreams.
Note: Opinions in this article don’t necessarily reflect the views of SwimSwam as a whole.
By Stuart Smith
“Why does my favorite school have to cut swimmers and divers just to meet a number?” The question came from a young athlete with a mix of frustration and sadness. For these young athletes, the cuts feel deeply personal—dreams they’ve spent years chasing in the pre-dawn hours, stroke after stroke, now hang by a thread, decided in boardrooms far from the pool. But together, we can ensure those dreams remain within reach. Parents, too, face challenges as they work to support their children’s ambitions while navigating this time of change in collegiate sports.
A junior narrowing his list of target schools asked, “The SEC is capping men’s rosters at 22, but women get 30. How is that fair?” Another parent added, “If most of the settlement payments are going to football players, why are sports like swimming and diving paying the price? How can our kids compete when the opportunities are disappearing?”
These questions reflect a growing crisis in Olympic sports like swimming, diving, and track and field. The House vs. NCAA settlement—intended to address equity issues—has introduced sweeping changes, including back pay for athletes, profit sharing in the future, and the imposition of roster caps for men’s and women’s sports. Hundreds of student-athletes have filed objections to the settlement. The hearing on final approval of the settlement is April 7, 2025.
For swimming and diving, the recommended roster cap is 30 athletes per team, but the SEC has gone further, limiting men’s rosters to just 22 while keeping women at 30. The SEC claims it’s aligning rosters with championship meet limits, but the real drivers are financial—profit sharing starts in 2025—and legal, with Title IX compliance serving as the convenient justification. Instead of finding solutions that preserve opportunities, the SEC is choosing to cut men’s rosters. Cutting men’s swimming and diving rosters is an easy way out. Many think the SEC wants to persuade other conferences to join them at the 22 cap. We must fight back.
By focusing solely on competition-day requirements, these roster caps overlook a team’s broader needs—fostering development, managing injuries, and building depth. These are the hallmarks of long-term success and what makes collegiate swimming exceptional. As someone who has spent a lifetime in the sport, I see how these changes threaten generations of swimmers and divers. This isn’t just about who makes the team; it’s about preserving dreams and safeguarding the future of Olympic sports in America.
Why Roster Caps Matter
Roster caps may seem like a straightforward solution to budget and compliance pressures, but they can devastate depth-driven sports like swimming and diving. NCAA championship teams have historically averaged 35 athletes (31 swimmers and four divers). These numbers reflect the need for a team to sustain success, develop talent, and adapt to challenges.
Capping swim rosters at 22 athletes is like capping a football roster at 22 players. While only 22 players are needed to play a game, no football team operates with just that number. The settlement cap will be 105, almost five times the game-day need. Similarly, as legendary coach Eddie Reese often said, swimming teams require a depth of talent—1.5 times the competition requirement.
I wish everyone could hear Texas swimmer Robert Bogart talk about the importance of swimming and Eddie and Kris Kubik in his life. Robert’s story is a testament to the power of opportunity, perseverance, and the impact of collegiate swimming on young athletes. Arriving at Texas as a wiry high schooler, Bogart had raw talent but lacked the physical strength to compete at the highest level. He redshirted his first year, dedicating himself to the weight room and relentless training, determined to transform his body and unlock his full potential. By his final season in 2002, he had done just that—earning a coveted spot in the NCAA Championships in the 50-yard freestyle.
The 50-free final took place on the opening night of the NCAA Men’s Swimming and Diving Championships at Gabrielsen Natatorium on the campus of the University of Georgia. With Texas and Stanford locked in a fierce battle, every point mattered. Bogart stepped onto the blocks, knowing this wasn’t just his race—it was a spark for his team. When he touched the wall in eighth place, he secured 11 crucial points for Texas. More than just numbers on a scoreboard, his performance sent a surge of energy through his teammates. The Longhorns rode that momentum through the next two days, ultimately defeating Stanford 512-501 to capture the national championship.
A championship like that doesn’t happen without depth. Without development. Without a program built to give athletes time to grow into their potential. Would Bogart have ever had that chance under today’s roster caps? Would an athlete in his position even make a team?
Without the flexibility of larger rosters, thousands of similar stories of growth and success will be lost, leaving behind untapped potential and unrealized dreams. These stories give our sport its heart and soul and inspire the next generation to pursue greatness. These stories aren’t rare. I bet you can find two to three athletes on every championship team who have taken similar paths. They’re the heart of collegiate swimming and a reminder of why preserving opportunities for athletes is so critical.
Smaller rosters also harm team culture. With only 22 athletes, constant pressure to perform can erode trust and camaraderie, essential for high performance and long-term success.
Broader Implications
Families are beginning to question whether years of sacrifice—time, money, and effort—will result in meaningful collegiate opportunities. For instance, parents often invest thousands of dollars annually in training, travel, tech suits, and equipment, all while juggling work and school schedules to support their children’s dreams. We must ensure these efforts lead to meaningful opportunities at every level of collegiate sports. This unease extends beyond swimming to other Olympic sports, threatening America’s talent pipeline and global dominance. With the LA 2028 Olympics approaching, the stakes have never been higher. These roster caps hurt college teams and risk undermining the foundation of America’s Olympic success.
While all Division I programs face challenges adhering to the 30-athlete cap, the SEC’s decision to cap men’s rosters at 22 is particularly egregious. Schools like Texas, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, and Auburn risk falling behind programs in other conferences, such as the Big Ten and Pac-12, which maintain larger rosters. This disparity challenges the SEC’s ability to continue attracting top talent and remain a powerhouse for Olympic sports—a tradition worth protecting.
A Call to Action
For swimmers and parents, the path forward requires focus, perseverance, and strategic planning:
- Broaden Your Search: Explore schools in other Power conferences, mid-major programs, or even Division II and III schools. A wider net increases your chances of finding the right fit.
- Market Yourself: Thoughtful outreach to coaches can help you stand out in an increasingly competitive environment.
Beyond personal planning, we must advocate for fairer policies:
- Contact Leaders: Urge key decision makers, SEC athletic directors, and university presidents to support the NCAA’s 30-athlete cap. If this article helps, forward it to them and other influencers, including elected officials.
- Share Stories: Celebrate athletes like Robert Bogart, who blossomed later in their careers. These stories show the incredible potential of supporting and investing in young talent. They inspire others and demonstrate the life-changing impact of collegiate swimming.
- Show Support: Attend university and conference championship meets and events to demonstrate community interest in the sport. It’s a fun and exciting way to spend a couple of hours, and the coaches and swimmers will appreciate your presence.
The SEC’s extreme roster cap is not just a numbers game—it’s a threat to the future of swimming, diving, and Olympic sports. By uniting as athletes, parents, coaches, and fans, we can preserve opportunities and ensure the sport thrives for generations to come. Imagine the thousands of young athletes whose dreams depend on fair opportunities. Picture a young swimmer standing on the pool deck, eyes filled with hope, dreaming of wearing their dream school’s colors. If we don’t act, the next Robert Bogart might never get his shot. Thousands of young athletes stand on the pool deck today, dreaming of their chance. It’s up to us to make sure the lane is still open.
#PREACH!
The ripple effect to aquatics and recreation is serious. We have shortages of lifeguards, coaches and officials. We did not rebound after Covid well. Playing well with others happens at the beaches, pools and parks — and these spaces need thoughtful people to lead citizens for growing up healthy.
Part of the reason that coaches and officials did not return is because of the ridiculous expectations by parents. Coaches who loved the sport and their athletes were able to push through some nonsense, while it was part of the routine. But when COVID gave everyone a massive reset, many people with years of experience dropped out of the pool.
As people who are passionate about the sport, we also have an obligation to temper the passion of people who don’t know how to direct their passions.
Ya know, if only ADs were looking at adding more swimming and diving programs instead of cutting them…. Just a thought.
Only Big 10 and SEC teams will survive. This story began back when Maryland ended their swim program after building a world class facility and moving to the Big 10. Predict schools like UVA to cut 10 swimmers after NCAAs. Even Florida with an SEC budget cut swimmers due to budget cuts.
Big 10 and SEC revenue is twice ACC and they will have a hard time managing finances. When you take $20M off the top and pay football and basketball players it is difficult to see long term viability for our sport.
Feel for the rising juniors and seniors that get cut..
I am 100% heartbroken in the direction I see NCAA non-revenue sports going. Trying to find a silver lining, I am thinking that at least this will limit power house programs so NCAA Div I champs should be more than just a couple teams fighting for the title each year. Additionally, DII and DII will become just as competitive. Still sad though for these kids navigating all the changes as what they sacrificed for the last decade is slipping out of their grasp.
I think on a granular level, smaller teams will be easier for coaches to manage, provide a better experience to, and bond together.
One of our writers swam on a college team with over 50 women alone. That’s a lot to try and pull together.
Most college coaches I speak to have this opinion.
I am confused. I think some coaches might like this, but have you talked to the coaches in the SEC. It didn’t seem like Bob Bowman was very happy to have to cut from 41 to 22 athletes. And as someone previously involved on a big D1 football team, with 125 players, not sure the “better experience” angle would really hold. Fewer people doesn’t necessarily lead to fewer problems…
I think everyone understands that “cut to 30” and “cut to 22 in one season” are two very different scenarios.
NCAA setting limits to 30 is one thing and giving conferences the choice to reduce number further is a convenient caveat. SEC proposing to cut down to 22 for men’s roster yet 30 for women’s roster – yeah that makes complete sense NOT!!
Male freshman swimmers who have joined a competitive program, have relocated, settled in, arranged a tenancy accommodation for next year, completed 1st year of their degree course – faced with the prospect that if they don’t make the 22 (swimmers and divers) they need to go on the transfer portal to find another school, similar course, relocate, re-adjust, get settled in.
Men’s team squad of 22 means no allowance for injuries, illnesses, competition for places within… Read more »
Umm, D1 football teams have how many coaches/trainers? 300?
Coaches believe thirty is workable. It allows for development, depth, and the kind of team culture that makes collegiate swimming great. But if 22-man rosters become the norm, the sport will start to feel less like a team and more like The Hunger Games. With recruiting limited to swimmers already hitting NCAA A or B final times, the talent pipeline will dry up, forcing teams to look overseas for depth while sidelining countless young athletes. Development will take a backseat to immediate results. And diving? Some programs will cut it altogether, while others might drop swimming instead. Long-distance events could vanish as teams stack their rosters with sprinters and relay specialists just to chase points. The culture will shift from… Read more »
What I find extra disturbing is that the NCAA is forcing schools to commit to the roster cuts by March 1. That is the deadline for schools to “opt in” to the terms of the settlement and bind themselves to the new roster caps.
As the article mentions, the hearing on the terms of the House settlement is not scheduled until April 7. And, hundreds of athletes, who are members of the class, just filed relevant and persuasive objections to many of the key terms of the settlement, including roster caps that are a new “restraint on trade” and will harm tens of thousands of class members.
It would seem inappropriate for one of the parties (the NCAA) to start… Read more »
Cutting the number of participants goes against Title IX which was designed to boost participation by including more women.
This is financial driven settlement intermingled with Title IX compliance. As football increases to 105 scholarships, Title IX forces athletic depts to make up for this + 20 male count from other male sports. SEC decided they will get +8 from swim and dive. Other conferences are likely to follow in the next year or two. Also schools must find another $20.5M to pay athletes.
For perspective about what football does, ESPN paid CFP Administration LLC $1.3B for the 11 cfp games this year. That doesn’t count ticket sales, merchandise, etc. The players understandably said we deserve a piece of our enterprise worth billions annually.
Know it’s not popular around here, but swimming produces exactly $0 revenue with large teams,… Read more »
It’s disappointing that you feel obligated to include “know it’s not popular around here” when stating something this reasonable and logical. I will never understand why the swimming community gets so defensive when the revenue dilemma is brought up.
College sports has a long history of All sports were historically supported before revenue was meaningful. If players need/want to get paid go pro.
The revenue became so great that players wanted paid. Difficult to blame them.
And then there’s Grant House that wanted paid without generating revenue.
Maybe so, but be prepared for the Olympics to take the next big hit. Without a farm system, and any type of incentive, athletes will no longer pursue or choose to commit to train for these sports. So, in effect, if the quantitative approach is the only one, then we won’t need to hold the Olympics any more. College and professional football, baseball and basketball will be the only sports left.
I certainly hear you and agree that Olympics are at risk. However university athletic depts can’t be responsible for USA Olympic success or failure. No other country’s universities support its respective Olympic effort.
Time to reimagine the nonrevenue sports. Looking squarely at you USA Olympic Committee.
I 100% agree with you. Unfortunately, the USOC is one of the delightfully corrupt organizations, hiding behind patriotism and brotherhood, just like the IOC and FIFA. They pay themselves massive salaries, while the athletes we watch get jobs at Home Depot, which is somehow part of the advertising.
The USA and the USOC could do a lot to improve access for athletes.
The two closest competitors to the Olympic Team USA in medal count are China and Russia (before being banned). Both China and Russia have their Olympic Sports financed from their state budget, hence the results. There is no way the US is going to spend tax payer money on Olympic sports, we all know that. The US dominance in Olympics was afforded by the NCAA farm system. If NCAA financing for non revenue generating Olympic sport dries out, then beating team China becomes quite questionable…
My son made the Olympic Trials shortly after he turned 16 years old this past May. He received official visits from several top five programs. However, he has not received a roster spot. For him as he sees these programs, sign international swimmers, who are much older and who will never represent the United States at the Olympics. What is the message being sent to the future American athletes? When at any cost, even at the expense of your countries youth. It reminds me of free-agency in the NFL, especially when you reduce the roster size from 30 to 22. Why? Is there not enough booster money or endowment fund available to cover the cost? Compare what they are sacrificing… Read more »
Could not agree more. US schools should be forced to give US money to US swimmers. Makes it more fair. Makes USA swimming have a chance. Make Aquatics Great Again.