The NCAA and power conference leaders are grappling with a complex solution to roster limits imposed by the House v. NCAA settlement, as hundreds of Division I athletes have already been cut from teams in anticipation of the new rules, according to a Yahoo Sports article by Ross Dellenger titled “NCAA, Power Conferences Discuss Grandfathering-In Roster Spots After Judge’s Order,” published on April 29, 2025. In response to a recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, a proposal to grandfather-in roster positions has emerged, aiming to protect current athletes, those already cut in 2025, and potentially some high school recruits who lost committed spots. However, the plan remains under discussion, with significant uncertainties and logistical challenges ahead.
For months, college coaches have been meeting with athletes to inform them that their roster spots no longer exist, a direct result of the House settlement’s new roster limits, which are set to take effect on July 1, 2025. Sports like football, swimming, track, men’s volleyball, and cross country have been hit hardest, with schools trimming rosters by the dozens. At Michigan, athletic director Warde Manuel told Yahoo Sports that his program had planned to reduce its rosters by 140 athletes, while Ohio State anticipated cutting 170, per the same report. The settlement, preliminarily approved by Wilken in October 2024, replaces scholarship caps with formal roster limits, eliminating more than 5,000 roster spots across power conferences alone. For example, cross country teams, which often carry over 30 runners, face a new cap of 17, and football programs, which can roster up to 140, are now limited to 105, per NCAA.org.
Wilken’s ruling on April 23, 2025, ordered adjustments to the roster limits to protect existing athletes, following her suggestion during an April 7 hearing in Oakland to phase in the cuts through grandfathering, as reported by USA Today’s Steve Berkowitz. She criticized college leaders for “premature” roster decisions, noting that many schools acted after her preliminary approval, assuming the settlement’s terms were final. However, college executives argued they had to act early to give athletes time to transfer if their spots were eliminated, with some athletes preemptively leaving programs, per Dellenger’s sources. “Kids have made a lot of decisions. Some have transferred, some have not,” Manuel said at College Football Playoff meetings in Dallas on April 28, 2025.
The proposed grandfathering plan, discussed during meetings this week among NCAA and power conference executives and attorneys, would allow schools to protect current roster spots, reinstate athletes cut in 2025 due to the limits, and possibly extend protections to high school seniors who committed to now-eliminated spots. However, key details remain unresolved. Baylor athletic director Mack Rhoades highlighted the uncertainty, asking, “Is this a mandated grandfather-in or is it optional and each school will choose how to do that?” during an interview with Yahoo Sports at the CFP meetings. He noted that Baylor had already informed athletes of cuts, and reversing those decisions would be challenging. “There are schools, programs, and coaches and ADs who are going to have to undo some of those conversations,” Rhoades added.
The proposal faces a tight deadline, with attorneys required to submit a responsive brief to Wilken by May 7, 2025, addressing her concerns and ensuring the settlement’s final approval, which will usher in revenue sharing with athletes. The brief is expected to allow schools discretion to protect roster spots, tracking exceptions on a rolling list as athletes’ eligibility expires, per Yahoo Sports sources. However, Nebraska athletic director Troy Dannen argued against a national roster limit standard, telling Yahoo Sports, “The logistics of no roster limits are simpler than grandfathering and everyone carrying different rosters for the next four years.” He suggested that individual schools should decide, citing the transfer portal’s impact: “Athletes want to go somewhere where they can play.”
Significant concerns persist, including Title IX implications, as roster limits were designed with gender equity in mind, per a The Athletic article from March 18, 2025. One power conference athletic director told Yahoo Sports, “If you have to bring back everybody you cut, that’s a disaster. Budgets are set. We’ve eliminated staff positions based on rosters being reduced.” Manuel echoed the financial strain, noting Michigan had already adjusted its budget for 140 fewer athletes, saying, “It does have a financial implication.” The settlement’s roster limits were intended to save costs—walk-ons and partial scholarship athletes cost $20,000-$50,000 annually in medical, travel, and food expenses, per college officials—and to avoid legal challenges over scholarship restrictions, per Deseret News from April 16, 2025.
Additional complexities include how to handle athletes who have already transferred, recruits who signed elsewhere after losing spots, and the duration of protected roster spots, especially given recent eligibility lawsuits extending beyond the NCAA’s five-year clock, such as the case of former USC player Matt Gee, who won an extra year in 2023, per ESPN’s Kyle Bonagura. Attorneys must also consult mediator Eric Green and attorneys Laura Reathaford and Steve Molo, who objected to the settlement, per Wilken’s order. Molo, speaking at the April 7 hearing, emphasized fairness, saying, “A settlement has to be fair and reasonable. This isn’t,” as reported by USA Today.
The roster limit issue has been a lightning rod for criticism, even from the settlement’s named plaintiff, Grant House, who told Yahoo Sports in December 2024 that he disapproved of the limits. Manuel, however, supports the grandfathering approach, stating, “This is what we should be doing to support our current student-athletes, particularly those in that walk-on position… It’s valuable that we allow them the opportunity to finish their career on those teams.” As the NCAA and power conferences work toward a solution, the balance between fairness, financial constraints, and legal compliance remains a delicate challenge, with the outcome poised to reshape college athletics for years to come.
