In 2020, current and former Division I athletes filed a lawsuit in federal court accusing the NCAA and then-existing “Power Five” conferences of restricting their ability to earn money from the commercial use of their name, image, and likeness (NIL). They argued, among other things, that NCAA rules illegally prevented them being fairly compensated, which constituted antitrust violations stemming from a longstanding anticompetitive “amateurism” system. The case, called “House versus NCAA,” finally settled this past summer. While beneficial to the covered athletes from a monetary standpoint, the settlement also precipitated significant roster limits on non-revenue Division I sports (essentially everything except football and men’s basketball). In so doing, the settlement inadvertently reduced opportunities for high school athletes hoping to compete at the Division 1 level by creating an environment that prioritizes immediate impact and results over athlete development. Gone are the days of walk-ons and developmental roster spots in favor of college-tested transfers.
The reason for this is simple. With the previous system, non-revenue sports were allowed a limited number of scholarships, but they could have teams as large as they wanted and coaches could divide available scholarships however they preferred. This flexibility allowed developmental or walk-on athletes, who were not on scholarship, to compete at the Division I level. Indeed, coaches had time to develop athletes, resulting in a more inclusive approach to building a team.
In contrast, the new system fundamentally shifts from developing athlete potential to demanding immediate competitive impact. Non-revenue sports are now permitted to offer full scholarships to every member of the team. But because of this seemingly positive change, there are strict limits on team size in order to control costs. This effectively eliminates walk-on opportunities and forces coaches to evaluate talent, not for potential, but for immediate contributions to team success. In other words, while the new system is beneficial for those who are lucky enough to receive roster spots and, therefore, scholarships, it significantly diminishes opportunities for athlete development. The high school athlete with potential is relegated to competing at lower collegiate levels, or not at all.
Gracelyn Laudermilch, a cross country and track star at Northeast Bradford High School in Rome, Pennsylvania, was stripped of her previously promised roster spot at her dream college as a result of the new roster limits, leaving her in a bind. She flew out to California to testify against approval of the settlement.
“I believe this settlement is unfair,” Laudermilch said. “The roster limits destroy the hard work and dreams of thousands of student athletes like me all over the nation.”
I can sympathize, and the new system has me worried. I am a high school junior cross country and distance track athlete looking to compete in college. Roster limits are forcing me to adjust my expectations and school preferences. For instance, while I might have preferred to compete at the Division I level at a larger school with a geographically diverse student body and seemingly limitless opportunities, I may have to adjust to focus on smaller schools that lack large institutional benefits. I have already seen firsthand a situation where a former teammate of mine started at a Power 5 school and was de-rostered due to roster restrictions, forcing him to drop to an obscure Division 1 school in order to continue his career. I can only imagine how difficult that can be.
In the end, while the new NCAA settlement may be framed as necessary modernization or evolution, it does not mean it’s better. The old system was far more faithful to what college sports stand for and preserved something essential: opportunity.
