NCAA Settlement and Roster Limit Fallout Thread

[jda]

I thought that we needed a place to document the fallout of the changes in the college sports landscape.  While I hope that none of this directly impacts golf, we know that it will eventually.

 

Feel free to post what you know or see.  I will start.  These are a direct result of the house settlement.

 

Utah cuts Women's Beach Volleyball

https://utahutes.com/news/2025/4/29/utah-athletics-to-discontinue-beach-volleyball-program-at-conclusion-of-academic-year?utm_source=NILNewsstand&utm_campaign=e32adaee79-Daily+NIL+Briefing+-+5.1.25&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_a479a5b849-e32adaee79-604820538

 

Cal Poly Cuts M&W Swimming

https://mustangnews.net/cal-poly-swim-and-dive-athletes-battle-for-reinstatement-after-team-cut/

 

Pennsylvania College to Cut all NCAA Sport and move to Club:

https://www.cbsnews.com/philadelphia/news/pennsylvania-bryn-athyn-college-sports-cut/

[TroyB123]

It seems like only the swimming teams cut can be attributed to the settlement.

 

I don't see how a D3 school would be affected, and the Utes decision looks like it was attributed to moving conferences.

[golfdad1]

Utah beach volleyball is likely not due to the settlement. The sport has not grown in NCAA like they had thought, and the Big 12 only has 4 teams that sponsor the sport.

[jda]

It was a settlement thing.  Utah said as much in the follow up questions at the presser - budget was the main reason.  For sure beach volleyball is not likely to grow in the new landscape, which is still a settlement cut.  Utah are going to offer scholarships to the impacted kids if they want to stay to finish their degrees.

 

Utah has gymnastics that only has Zona, ASU, ISU, WV, and then Denver University in their league.  Utah also has a Ski team which has less than 20 D1 teams in the country.  4 schools can be a lot for these fringe sports.  Mizzou is/was the only SEC school with wrestling and they mostly wrestle in the Big 12.  Schools can make this work if they want... always have.  Don't get distracted by this red herring of "only 4 teams."

 

Penn College reported their funding dried up that needed to go to other schools in the state.  I took this at face value and did not dig in too much.

[leezer99]

Big day today! What will be presented and how will the judge respond? 

[golfdad1]

And here we go...

[LOB-Dwight]

28 minutes ago, golfdad1 said:

And here we go...

Players want to play. 

[jda]

I don't know anything about these four kids, but were they going to get roster limited or did they just wanted to move on?

[leezer99]

Interesting moves on the House settlement. 

 

 

[golferdad8]

7 hours ago, leezer99 said:

Interesting moves on the House settlement. 

 

 

Too little too late as 2025s who were screwed over already had to go w new plans. The attys who represent plaintiffs should have their compensation cut for representing only a small % of student athletes vs only football/basketball players vs all student athletes. 

[wegobomber31]

11 hours ago, jda said:

I don't know anything about these four kids, but were they going to get roster limited or did they just wanted to move on?

 

Georgia did not have any roster restrictions for next year but they would've been entering 2026 with 10 guys as currently constructed.

Vandy and Auburn had to cut two.  Oklahoma State has 11 players on their current roster, none of them are seniors (and only one junior) and have Henry Guan and one other 2025 coming in.  If you're not playing for that team now, it's hard to imagine that you will be playing there any time soon.

[LOB-Dwight]

9 hours ago, leezer99 said:

Interesting moves on the House settlement. 

 

 

if you’re a signed 2025 you will have your spot on team as planned but If you were a kid (lets say a freshmen this season 24-25) that could/would have been cut ,now you have a golden parachute allowing you a spot on any team in the country and won’t count against cap. I wonder if schools will add there 2025 verbals that they dropped/cut before signing day to this list….. and if a 2025 verbal that was cut and kid signed with a different school can his original  school add him to list and sign him. What if schools were deciding between multiple players OU, Auburn, Vandy) as to who was going to be cut. Now getting identified as a player that was going to be cut is a huge advantage if transferring down the road.  

Edited May 8 by LOB-Dwight
Typo

[TroyB123]

I guess the judge gave the objectors until May 16th to file objections and then a couple days after that to make a decision.

 

I think the chances of it going to trial have to be at least 50/50 at this point.   I don't even know if that is a bad thing or a good thing.   

[wegobomber31]

1 hour ago, LOB-Dwight said:

if you’re a signed 2025 you will have your spot on team as planned but If you were a kid (lets say a freshmen this season 24-25) that could/would have been cut ,now you have a golden parachute allowing you a spot on any team in the country and won’t count against cap. I wonder if schools will add there 2025 verbals that they dropped/cut before signing day to this list….. and if a 2025 verbal that was cut and kid signed with a different school can his original  school add him to list and sign him. What if schools were deciding between multiple players OU, Auburn, Vandy) as to who was going to be cut. Now getting identified as a player that was going to be cut is a huge advantage if transferring down the road.  

 

It seems like a very reasonable compromise solution. Hopefully it can get ratified soon.

[jigsaw1011]

If the roster limits were about saving money for the schools why would they voluntarily keep a larger roster? They will just say we don’t have the money. 

 

 

[LOB-Dwight]

2 minutes ago, wegobomber31 said:

 

It seems like a very reasonable compromise solution. Hopefully it can get ratified soon.

Agree. 

[LOB-Dwight]

5 minutes ago, jigsaw1011 said:

If the roster limits were about saving money for the schools why would they voluntarily keep a larger roster? They will just say we don’t have the money. 

 

 

I think for golf, schools will keep most of there existing players assuming kids wants to stay. 

Edited May 8 by LOB-Dwight

[jigsaw1011]

1 minute ago, LOB-Dwight said:

I think for golf schools will keep most of there existing players assuming kids wants to stay. 

Why do you think that? 

[TroyB123]

I see this summary on a random twitter account.

Quote

SETTLEMENT CHANGES TLDR: Roster limits don’t apply to:

1. D1 athletes on a ‘24-‘25 roster removed due to roster limits

2. HS athletes recruited to a D1 roster for ’25-’26 and removed due to roster limits

3. Athletes in #1 and 2 above (“DSAs”) don’t count toward roster limits for duration of athlete’s D1 eligibility (i.e. can transfer & remain exempt from roster limits)

4. 30 days from Final Approval, each D1 school required to use good-faith efforts to ID DSAs

5. Info on DSAs are available to Class Members

6. If athlete transferred b/c of roster limits, no impediment to transferring back

 

 

I'm curious to how that applies to teams that haven't made the necessary cuts yet.   Would they call their 2026 verbal commits, then 2025s, then Freshman their DSAs to keep them non-counting as long as possible?

 

On the plus side, it's not terribly unfair to the uncommitted 2026s, as many of these DSAs would be sophomore or younger, and the current Juniors and seniors leaving would still open roster spots.   

 

 

[LOB-Dwight]

25 minutes ago, jigsaw1011 said:

Why do you think that? 

Why wouldn't Oklahoma keep the guys on current team if they want to stay.  They can push the new and existing players as they have done in the past. If I was a kid on the team that was going to have been cut and I wanted to play, I'd transfer to somewhere I could play, but maybe some of these kids are okay with being on the bench or trying to improve and crack the lineup. 

[LawGenius305]

This ruling makes no sense to me for the schools. Instead of making roster cuts this year, they will have to make them next year, except for the kids who were cut and transferred. They will then have to limit recruits next year. In all honesty, it is a dumb decision.

[TroyB123]

1 minute ago, LawGenius305 said:

This ruling makes no sense to me for the schools. Instead of making roster cuts this year, they will have to make them next year, except for the kids who were cut and transferred. They will then have to limit recruits next year. In all honesty, it is a dumb decision.

So, the teams that didn't cut anyone, don't get any of these DSAs?   Can they cut people, or do they just have to wait until attrition eventually opens spots before they can add new recruits?

[LawGenius305]

2 minutes ago, TroyB123 said:

So, the teams that didn't cut anyone, don't get any of these DSAs?   Can they cut people, or do they just have to wait until attrition eventually opens spots before they can add new recruits?

I have no idea. Judge is in over her head. If they don't do it this year they will just have to do it down the line or let there be fall off from attrition. Letting players fall off due to attrition will hurt some schools more than others. Just allow them to cut and be done with it. Life is hard and this is a 1st world problem.

[jigsaw1011]

7 minutes ago, LOB-Dwight said:

Why wouldn't Oklahoma keep the guys on current team if they want to stay.  They can push the new and existing players as they have done in the past. If I was a kid on the team that was going to have been cut and I wanted to play, I'd transfer to somewhere I could play, but maybe some of these kids are okay with being on the bench or trying to improve and crack the lineup. 

That makes sense but I was thinking from the financial side of the things. A non scholarship player still costs a school money. 

[jigsaw1011]

6 minutes ago, TroyB123 said:

So, the teams that didn't cut anyone, don't get any of these DSAs?   Can they cut people, or do they just have to wait until attrition eventually opens spots before they can add new recruits?

I am thinking a coach would have to decide what players over the roster limit would have been cut and then designate them a DSA.  A school would have to do this voluntarily. 

[TroyB123]

2 minutes ago, jigsaw1011 said:

I am thinking a coach would have to decide what players over the roster limit would have been cut and then designate them a DSA.  A school would have to do this voluntarily. 

On the surface, this doesn't sound too bad for future incoming classes, 2026,2027,etc.

 

The roster spots will still open up when student's graduate or run out of eligibility, the same as they would have without any grandfathering.

 

 

[golferdad8]

6 minutes ago, LawGenius305 said:

I have no idea. Judge is in over her head. If they don't do it this year they will just have to do it down the line or let there be fall off from attrition. Letting players fall off due to attrition will hurt some schools more than others. Just allow them to cut and be done with it. Life is hard and this is a 1st world problem.

I 100% agree she’s way over her head. 

That said, wouldn’t be the first time Wilken is over her head. She screwed up Ripple for 3 years allowing the old SEC to lie lie & lie - and after wasting $300M of time & government $ - her ruling was overturned by the new SEC who dropped the suit. 

[jigsaw1011]

5 minutes ago, LawGenius305 said:

I have no idea. Judge is in over her head. If they don't do it this year they will just have to do it down the line or let there be fall off from attrition. Letting players fall off due to attrition will hurt some schools more than others. Just allow them to cut and be done with it. Life is hard and this is a 1st world problem.

I think the main issue with the settlement is the members of the class “student athletes (or House)”  are being harmed while others are being rewarded (NIL). The judge was told the roster limits would only affect a dozen student athletes. It was not the until the objectors spoke at the April 7 hearing did the judge start to realize the impact of the roster limits. 

[TroyB123]

This has potential to create a lot of last minute chaos for 2025s.

 

If a 2025 lost a verbal commit, and then went to a lower d1 or d2 school.   The original school may well want them back as a DSA, and all of a sudden these lower ranked schools are without incoming players in May/June.

[jigsaw1011]

2 minutes ago, TroyB123 said:

This has potential to create a lot of last minute chaos for 2025s.

 

If a 2025 lost a verbal commit, and then went to a lower d1 or d2 school.   The original school may well want them back as a DSA, and all of a sudden these lower ranked schools are without incoming players in May/June.

True and what if it is a high academic school the player lost a spot from? Will a player automatically gain acceptance to that school if they never bothered applying because they lost the roster spot? 
 

The settlement hasn’t even been decided yet and still could go to trial. What a mess.