I wasn’t sure if this is the right place to ask: I’m watching the women’s national championship and there are NCAA “Driving Change” commercials that state something like “D1 scholarships are now guaranteed” and that health & wellbeing services, tutoring, and financial education are provided for D1 athletes. What does that mean about scholarships being guaranteed?
I believe it means if you are cut for performance reasons, you keep your scholarship.
2 Likes
Will the House settlement be approved? Legal experts weigh in on what judge Claudia Wilken will do
Includes multiple takes from lawyers on whether or not Judge Wilken will approve the settlement. Most of the lawyers quoted say no.
Again it seems the settlement decision has been pushed back, now until the end of June. I am curious if any college teams are stressing about scholarship limits. First it was roster cuts to get down to 24, but now they can most likely grandfather in anyone they want from the 2025 class and earlier. How many expected to have a few more full scholarships and made offers that they will not be able to keep if the settlement is denied? I am hearing whispers of backtracking dollars to a few athletes as some are getting weary of the possible denial. I personally think it will be approved but only weeks before summer practice starts. If this is denied, it will be very interesting to see what coaches do who over promised scholarship dollars.
1 Like
It looks like the Power 5 schools are automatically “opted-in” to the House settlement (SC, UCLA, Stan, Cal, Mich, ASU, IU) but do they have the money to pay for it?
For example, Cal going to the ACC cost them $26mm/year (Had $35mm in Pac-12, get $9mm from ACC) for the next 6 years. UCLA has stories of massive overspending despite getting a full share of Big-10 money ($219mm overbudget the past 6 years).
My point is, do you think the Cal and UCLA admins, given the financial hole they’re currently in, gave all their coaches the green light to spend more $$ on scholarships before they knew what they had (finalized settlement)?
I get saying “yes” to deficit spending on football, basketball, baseball, etc. but do you think an obscure sport like water polo gets that kind of love too?
2 Likes
What is the general consensus on what this means for water polo at non football schools and football schools.I assume this is different for a big 4 compared to the programs without football.
And to piggy back, knowing that the Ivy’s and Patriot League teams are opting out, what does that mean? More roster spots in the NE so more athletes looking there?
The biggest effect on water polo is that if you opt in, you have to abide by the roster limit but you can offer full scholarships to everyone on the roster.
If you opt out, you are not required to abide by the new scholarship and roster limits so you are still capped at 4.5 scholarships but you can carry as many players as you want so status quo.
Thanks for that. I wondered if there could be a financial exposure by not opting in as well, or if there is a higher likelihood of non revenue sports being cut in specific scenarios. I would think a school that had D1 football that opted in could cut more non revenue sports to fund football/basketball. But a school without football that opted in may be more likely to not cut programs. At least in theory. I am assuming a lot here so wondered if someone has knowledge on that. Thinking about the impact to upcoming HS grad classes, 2026/2027/2028.
There are lots of moving parts. The first part of your comment is probably true. Basketball caries far fewer athletes than football so it will take less money to pay them well, however most basketball teams make less money than football. To be competitive at the D1 level it is clear that you will need to opt in. In order to get any talent in football or basketball, even volleyball you will need to do more than a full ride scholarship. If water polo has not been cut yet I don’t see many more programs getting cut. Most schools planned ahead for the settlement that was 3 years in the making. Roster spot cuts get a redo thanks to the judge. I see many schools carrying 27-28 vs 32-33 three years ago, but they don’t have to get to 24 for 4 years not counting the class of 2025. Many realize it is easier to run practices and develop players with 26-28 vs 30+ Some athletic departments could reduce to 24 sooner but with full tuition paying athletes it does not make any sense to cut walk ons if you don’t need to. Especially at a private school that charges 50-60K a year for tuition. Those extra athletes probably only cost them 5K to keep, less if they don’t travel with the team. So if all incoming freshmen this 2025 season (class of 25) do not count against the roster limit the first class to count against the limit is the class of 26. I don’t see roster limits being an issue until maybe the class of 29 but for sure the class of 30 will get tight.
For the schools who decide to opt in, it is is going to be very interesting to see how many scholarships they will be using for their Olympic sports teams.
In the case of men’s water polo, will any teams go from 4.5 to 24?
No chance, I could see some getting up to 7-8. And like always, most of those will be internationals.
1 Like
I can see USC (and Michigan) being the best positioned to take advantage of this ruling - assume USC will have the most $$ on men’s and women’s to offer.
No chance—it’s all about survival now. The House ruling just changed college sports forever—but not for the better. Student-athletes in non-revenue sports now have to fight harder for fewer spots, less support, and no guarantees. Loyalty and team culture used to matter. Now it’s all money and math.
Big programs will use their NIL pool on football and basketball. Water polo will be lucky to scrape together 3–4 scholarships from whatever trickles down, and the rest will have to come from alumni and fundraising.
2 Likes
Interesting read. Even the Mighty Michigan is cutting their athletics budget 10%. Seems no programs are on the chopping block though.
Many of these schools already have roster limits under 24 institutionally.
Ah might read closer though on Michigan — cutting staff 10 percent so they can fully fund the $20million salary cap as well as add over 80 scholarships to various sports which includes women’s water polo.
This is actually smart planning to prepare to put their money into the athletes more so than redundant staff.
2 Likes
He says their adding 82 scholarships over 19 sports, but I don’t see in the article where he says what sports. However, this is consistent with the Oregon AD saying they will add more scholarships on the women’s side to balance out more NIL money going to the men.