NCAA Roster Limit Changes: A Comprehensive Overview of a Game-Changer in College Sports
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has announced significant changes to its roster limit policies across a range of sports. These alterations represent one of the most significant changes in collegiate athletics in recent years, with wide-ranging implications for coaches, student-athletes, and athletic programs. Understanding these changes, the logic behind them, and their potential impact is crucial for everyone involved in college sports.
These changes to roster limit policies have occurred as a result of the well-documented House Settlement agreement. This agreement involves the proposed sharing of revenue with NCAA college athletes and making the number of scholarship spots available on a program to be aligned to the roster limit.
Why has this been negotiated into the settlement agreements? Given all the losses the NCAA has incurred lately, the organisation didn’t want to risk another defeat. The plaintiff lawyers, meanwhile, saw it as a chance to increase the number of athletes receiving scholarships. The new system allows schools flexibility to decide how many scholarships within the roster limit they want to give out.
Key Roster & Scholarship Restrictions
– Scholarship restrictions replaced with roster size limits
– 750 additional scholarship spots available across college sports
– Men’s and women’s soccer will each have 28 scholarships available
– Women’s field hockey will have 27 scholarships available
– Men’s and women’s golf will each have 9 scholarships available
– Men’s and women’s track and field will each have 45 scholarships available
– Men’s and women’s tennis will each have 10 scholarships available
– New rules come into effect from the start of the 2025-26 academic year
– Coincides with new model permitting schools to share revenue with athletes
Detailed Breakdown of the Roster Limit Changes
The roster limit changes vary across different sports, reflecting the unique demands and structures of each. See below an overview of the most significant sporting adjustments:
| Sport | Previous Roster Limit | New Roster Limit | Increase |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tumbling (W) | 14 | 55 | 41 |
| Baseball (M) | 11.7 | 34 | 22.3 |
| Basketball (M) | 13 | 15 | 2 |
| Basketball (W) | 15 | 15 | 0 |
| Beach Volleyball (W) | 6 | 19 | 13 |
| Bowling (W) | 5 | 11 | 6 |
| Cross Country (M) | 5 | 17 | 12 |
| Cross Country (W) | 6 | 17 | 11 |
| Equestrian (W) | 15 | 50 | 35 |
| Fencing (M) | 4.5 | 24 | 19.5 |
| Fencing (W) | 5 | 24 | 19 |
| Field Hockey (W) | 12 | 27 | 15 |
| Football (M) | 85 | 105 | 20 |
| Golf (M) | 4.5 | 9 | 4.5 |
| Golf (W) | 6 | 9 | 3 |
| Gym (M) | 6.3 | 20 | 13.7 |
| Gym (W) | 12 | 20 | 8 |
| Ice Hockey (M) | 18 | 26 | 8 |
| Ice Hockey (W) | 18 | 26 | 8 |
| Track (M) | 12.6 | 45 | 35.4 |
| Track (W) | 18 | 45 | 27 |
| Lacrosse (M) | 12.6 | 48 | 35.4 |
| Lacrosse (W) | 12 | 38 | 26 |
| Rifle (Both) | 3.6 | 12 | 8.4 |
| Rowing (W) | 20 | 68 | 48 |
| Skiing (M) | 6.3 | 16 | 9.7 |
| Skiing (W) | 7 | 16 | 9 |
| Soccer (M) | 9.9 | 28 | 18.1 |
| Soccer (W) | 14 | 28 | 14 |
| Softball (W) | 12 | 25 | 13 |
| Stunt (Both) | 14 | 65 | 51 |
| Swim (M) | 9.9 | 30 | 20.1 |
| Swim (W) | 14 | 30 | 16 |
| Tennis (M) | 4.5 | 10 | 5.5 |
| Tennis (W) | 8 | 10 | 2 |
| Triathlon (W) | 6.5 | 14 | 7.5 |
| Volleyball (M) | 4.5 | 18 | 13.5 |
| Volleyball (W) | 12 | 18 | 6 |
| Water Polo (M) | 4.5 | 24 | 19.5 |
| Water Polo (W) | 8 | 24 | 16 |
| Wrestling (M) | 9.9 | 30 | 20.1 |
| Wrestling (W) | 10 | 30 | 20 |
The Background: Why Change Now?
The NCAA’s decision to modify roster limits is rooted in a confluence of factors that have been evolving over time. Among these are the growing number of student-athletes participating in collegiate sports, the dynamic nature of these sports, and the financial pressures that many athletic programs are grappling with. However, the COVID-19 pandemic served as a catalyst, exposing vulnerabilities in the existing structure and underscoring the need for greater flexibility in roster management. During the pandemic, many teams faced unexpected challenges, including player absences due to illness, disruptions to training schedules, and the need for expanded rosters to ensure the continuation of competitive seasons. This period highlighted the rigidity of the existing roster limits, prompting the NCAA to reevaluate and ultimately revise these limits to better meet the needs of modern college sports.
- American Football: College football, the flagship sport of many universities, has seen one of the most substantial changes. The NCAA has introduced a more flexible roster cap, allowing programs to carry up to 105 players, including non-scholarship walk-ons. This is an increase from the previous limit of 85 scholarship players. This change is designed to help teams maintain depth and continuity, especially in the face of injuries, redshirts, and the natural ebb and flow of player development.This adjustment also addresses the increased movement of players through the transfer portal, giving coaches more leeway to manage their rosters and maintain a competitive balance. The new limit also provides opportunities for walk-ons to contribute, which can be crucial for building a strong, cohesive team culture.
- Basketball: Both men’s and women’s basketball teams have seen a slight increase in roster limits, with the NCAA now allowing up to 15 players per team, up from 13. This change offers coaches greater flexibility in managing their lineups, particularly when dealing with injuries or when developing younger players who may need time to adjust to the college game.The additional roster spots also create more opportunities for players to earn scholarships and playing time, which can be a significant draw for recruits considering their college options.
- Baseball and Softball: For sports like baseball and softball, where the length of the season and the frequency of games demand a deeper bench, the NCAA has expanded the roster limits to 34 and 25 players. This change reflects the need for greater depth, particularly in pitching staffs, where injuries and fatigue are common challenges over the course of a long season.The increase in roster size is also expected to allow for more strategic management of redshirts and player development, giving coaches the ability to bring in more young talent and groom them for future roles on the team.
- Men’s and Women’s Soccer: In soccer, the roster limit has been raised to 28 players. This change is relatively modest but still significant, especially for programs that rely on frequent substitutions and squad rotations to maintain a high level of play. The increase will help coaches better manage player workloads and injuries, while also providing more opportunities for athletes to participate in the program.
- Olympic Sports: For a range of Olympic sports – including track and field, swimming, gymnastics the NCAA has implemented more nuanced changes. These sports often require a large number of participants to fill various events and roles. By slightly increasing roster sizes, the NCAA aims to enhance participation and development opportunities for a broader range of athletes, including walk-ons and those in developmental stages.
- Other Sports: You may be wondering why sports such as rugby aren’t listed and impacted by these scholarship limits, that is because men’s rugby is not an official NCAA sport and is governed by USA Rugby.These changes are particularly important for schools with strong traditions in Olympic sports, where maintaining a large and competitive roster is essential for success at conference and national levels.
Implications for Coaches
For coaches, the new roster limits present both opportunities and challenges. On the one hand, the increased flexibility allows for better management of squads, particularly in sports with high injury rates or where player development is crucial. Coaches can now bring in more talent and manage it in ways that were previously restricted by tighter roster limits.
However, the larger rosters also introduce new complexities. Coaches will need to balance the desire to give all players adequate playing time with the need to maintain team chemistry and morale. Additionally, managing larger groups of athletes requires more careful planning and communication, as well as ensuring that all players remain engaged and motivated throughout the season. Another critical aspect is the impact on recruitment. The expanded roster limits may allow coaches to take more risks on recruiting developmental players or those who may need more time to adjust to the college game. This could diversify the talent pool and potentially uncover hidden gems who might not have had the opportunity under previous limits.
Impact on Student-Athletes
For student-athletes, the NCAA’s new roster limits could translate into more opportunities to join collegiate programs, especially for walk-ons who might not have been considered under stricter roster limits. This expansion could provide a pathway for more athletes to continue their athletic careers at the collegiate level, which is especially important for those who are late bloomers or who excel in less traditional recruiting regions.
However, with larger rosters comes increased competition for playing time and scholarships. Athletes may find themselves in a more competitive environment, where earning a spot on the field or court becomes more challenging. This could lead to heightened pressure to perform, both in practices and in games, as athletes vie for the limited opportunities to showcase their talents. Additionally, the mental and physical demands on athletes may increase as they compete within deeper rosters. Coaches and athletic departments will need to be mindful of the well-being of their student-athletes, ensuring that the increased competition does not lead to burnout or other negative outcomes.
Financial and Institutional Considerations
The financial implications of these changes are another important factor. Larger rosters mean more athletes to support, which could strain budgets, especially for smaller programs with limited resources. Schools will need to carefully balance their rosters with a mix of scholarship and non-scholarship athletes to manage costs effectively. For programs with robust athletic departments and strong financial backing, these changes may be easier to implement. However, for smaller schools, the expanded roster limits could necessitate difficult decisions about which sports to invest in and how to allocate resources. This could lead to increased disparities between larger, well-funded programs and smaller institutions.
The Broader Impact on College Sports
The NCAA’s decision to adjust roster limits is likely to have a ripple effect across the landscape of college sports including impacting other governing bodies such as the NAIA and NJCAA. For one, it could influence how conferences and schools approach scheduling and competition, particularly in sports with larger rosters. The changes may also impact the transfer market, as athletes seek out programs where they believe they have the best chance to play and develop. Moreover, these changes could alter the dynamic of college sports by increasing the emphasis on depth and team-building strategies. Programs that are able to effectively manage larger rosters and develop talent may gain a competitive edge, leading to shifts in power within conferences and across the national landscape.
Athletic departments
Title IX compliance remains a paramount issue for all athletic departments: Scholarships must be set according to male-female enrollment ratios, according to federal law. Should football or baseball programs provide scholarships up to the roster limit, they must be offset by providing the same number of additional scholarships (42.3) for female sports or reducing scholarships from the pool of other men’s sports. That could lead to some campuses eliminating men’s sports or perhaps adding new women’s teams. But departments are not required to fill every scholarship. Like in baseball or wrestling, scholarships can be split in every sport moving forward, which could limit the Title IX impact.
Combined with the revenue-sharing structure in place for 2025-26, schools will look to save costs where they can. One idea is for the NCAA to end the 16-sport sponsorship mandate for FBS schools, which is 14 for other Division I programs. Lowering the mandate, or getting rid of it, could allow some schools to keep their athletic departments afloat, though as the pandemic showed, schools risk political and legal blowback when they openly consider cutting sports. Another option for some schools is to keep all their sports but not provide scholarships for some and instead fund players through NIL, revenue sharing, financial aid, whatever combination gets it done. And then there’s the long-term fix of a separate governance structure controlling only football, which could alleviate some issues but create others along the way.
Conclusion
The NCAA’s new roster limit changes represent a significant shift in the administration of college sports, offering both opportunities and challenges for coaches, athletes, and institutions. While these changes are designed to provide more flexibility and create more opportunities for participation, their true impact will only become clear as programs adapt to the new rules. As the 2024 seasons unfold, athletic programs across the country will be navigating this new landscape, with the potential for both positive outcomes and unforeseen challenges. The coming years will be critical in assessing how these changes influence the competitive balance, financial health, and overall experience of college athletics. For now, the NCAA’s roster limit changes are a bold step into a new era of collegiate sports, one that promises to be as dynamic and evolving as the games themselves.