I also wish NCAA would limit international players to 2-3 per team like NCAA Volleyball has done. There is very little room for US players at D1 schools
1 Like
NCAA volleyball has international limit rule? Can you please send a link on that?
1 Like
As far as I know, the NCAA has not set a limit on the number of international players that can play on a men’s or women’s volleyball team. For example, Long Beach State lists 8 international players on the roster for its men’s 2025 volleyball team.
Article from 2014 following scholarship caps in 1991 and roster limits in 2008:
I misunderstood my friend. It’s two international player limit on the court at a time. Darn. I thought I was onto something.
1 Like
Landmark day for college sports as judge holds final hearing on major NCAA settlement
[Full article:]
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/07/nx-s1-5354232/paying-college-athletes-ncaa-legal-settlement
Sections about roster limits:
After hours of statements and arguments from lawyers and a handful of current, former and future student-athletes, Judge Claudia Wilken appeared most concerned about objections related to the imposition of roster limits and legal questions about how the settlement would apply to future athletes. Plaintiffs’ lawyers and attorneys for the defendants, the NCAA and its major conferences, both urged the judge to approve the settlement.
Judge Wilken set a deadline next week for lawyers to file a response to the objections raised at Monday’s hearing. The proposed settlement was “worth pursuing,” she said, a suggestion that she would ultimately approve it. But her questions indicated that she may favor some modifications, such as a grandfather clause to ease the impact of the roster limits.
The most compelling objectors appeared to be current or incoming students who’ve been informed that they will no longer have a roster spot after the settlement is approved, due to roster limits shrinking the size of their team. That’s left athletes to face the prospect of paying for tuition that they had expected to receive a scholarship for — or scramble to find a new school for next season. The total number of eliminated roster spots could be in the thousands.
Wilken suggested several times that roster limits be reexamined for athletes who would be acutely affected by a sudden change — such as a grandfather clause, or a gradual phase-in of the limits.
3 Likes
Roster limit changes not offered in latest filing on NCAA settlement
Summary: Attorneys working on the $2.8 billion legal settlement designed to reshape college sports filed a brief Monday night that did not include changes a judge suggested regarding team roster limits, saying such a late change to that rule would create havoc.
What a mess! 
I know it really doesn’t matter but this section just doesn’t quite add up to me:
The brief also argued that one of the most overlooked parts of the roster limits is how much more aid would go to athletes.
“Indeed, while it is unfortunate that a small number of athletes may ultimately have lost roster spots as a result of the settlement, the settlement afforded them an opportunity to compete for scholarships (or larger scholarships) and additional compensation and benefits that were not previously available,” they attorneys wrote.
I take issue with “…small number of athletes…” but even taking this statement at face value, I don’t agree. I guess if you’re in a revenue generating sport you could get more compensation (remember this is only from the schools not NIL). However, for the vast NUMBER of other athletes, where are these additional funds going to come from? Sure you COULD fund all these spots fully, but how are they going to do that exactly?
The budgets for Football are going up by 20 full scholarships, PLUS other compensation to those athletes. And while that means 20 more full scholarships on the women’s side - additional compensation from the schools is not subject to Title IX. So, while their argument is technically true, in practice it seems to be fallacious.
Again, given the timeline here, the train has likely left the station on this. But the reasoning and characterization of how this has already impacted current student-athletes seems obtuse at best and duplicitous at worst.
Perhaps I’m missing something. LMK!
2 Likes
Apparently the NCAA lawyers don’t see an issue with 20-30 men’s D1 water polo players get cut due to roster limits. The judge asked them to find a compromise and they have decided to ignore her request. They are using the excuse that most schools have already reduced their rosters and that is true. However some still have some kids that they would keep if they could but will have to drop solid players to make room for the next class of hopefuls. Most of those players will quit, some may go D2 or D3, however those schools will be impacted quickly. Top Recruits need spots to show if they have what it takes or not. You have one season to prove yourself, if you are lucky you get the spring season as well. No more developing for the Junior or Senior year. If you are not working harder than the rest of your freshmen class you can expect to be cut. Most schools are bringing in 5-7 players so if you don’t finish the season 17th or higher on the depth chart (for returning players), expect to be cut unless the coach has plans for you or your parents donate a lot of money to the program…
@Getit2theset You nailed it. This section of the article is basically saying what you’re saying:
“The new rules propose roster limits and make everyone eligible for scholarships. It could increase the total amount of aid available but is expected to cost athletes thousands of roster spots across the country as schools look to cut expenses to absorb higher costs.”
The adding money part of the above statement applies to revenue-generating sports and the cutting money part applies to non-revenue generating (mostly Olympic) sports.
As to the train leaving the station, this Sportico article ( House v. NCAA Settlement Lawyers Stand Firm on Roster Limits ) offers some hope:
"Wilken has invited comments on the joint report, although comments must be submitted quickly and briefly: The deadline is by the end of Tuesday and comments are confined to a single page. Submitted comments are in no way binding on Wilken, but she has discretion to find them influential. She could potentially schedule another hearing to discuss concerns with the settlement.
The college sports industry is largely proceeding as if Wilken will approve the settlement and that it will be in place for the 2025-26 academic year. That timeline, however, is not Wilken’s. She’ll take as long as she deems necessary to evaluate the settlement."
1 Like
Maybe we’ll send the judge a summary of this and other threads here on WPEX!
2 Likes
I think it’s hard to argue with the judge’s rational here, but so much “damage” has already been done. How many athletes have already been cut and moved on to other places or out of school altogether? How do you put that toothpaste back in the tube?
Nevertheless, it’s better late than never. But what a mess!
4 Likes
I find it hard to believe the NCAA when they state that there are only 600 athletes being affected. If the number was really that small, then why was it such a sticking point with them?
2 Likes
They are lying 100 percent. I personally know of 4 kids who were cut already, and three teams who have not finished their last round of cuts. One team was told 2 more kids in May, one team is not telling the current players until AUGUST. Hearing it from WP, Soccer, beach volleyball. The number has to be in the thousands. The question is, will coaches wait to hear the news and change their numbers, or continue with the plan? Two kids I know who are waiting to hear are at private D1 schools, paying 50K a year in tuition alone. You would think the school would like to keep that money coming in if they could, but you never know. Neither of them will stay at their current school if they are cut. Unfortunately they did not chose the school for academics, only to play water polo. Both see better options for academics at schools that don’t have water polo.
Also hearing many mid to low D1 schools are going hard after JUCO kids, curious if they expect the JUCO years to not count against eligibility moving forward? So we have 19 year old’s with 3-4 years left getting cut for 21 year old’s who have at least 2 years left but a chance of 3-4. Wild times.. I guess the kids who are cut should drop to JUCO and bounce back and show up the coaches who cut them.. JUCO could be very interesting next year if half the cut kids swallow their pride to keep playing the sport they gave up so much for growing up.
Rise of the Roster Resistance: House v. NCAA’s Unwelcome Underdogs
[Excerpt] Time and again, over the last decade, the association invoked the voices and stories of walk-ons and nonrevenue sport participants to bolster its case that the “collegiate model” could only endure if it prevented college athletes from earning money from their skill. But now, with the NCAA having mostly abandoned those ramparts of the debate, these same athletes became an inconvenience to resolving three antitrust cases that have threatened the future of its commercial enterprise.
Highlights the NCAA’s hypocrisy and the Plaintiff’s attorneys’ conflicts of interest.
Maybe it’s time for some much needed intervention 
Content cannot be retrieved…
2 Likes
Hey it’s better than nothing and article clearly indicates the committee will examine “ preserving the Olympic sport structure“. It a long shot but it is a shot 
Content cannot be retrieved…