KC Smurthwaite is a consultant for Athletics Admin, specializing in revenue generation, licensing, marketing, and higher education. He has almost two decades of experience in collegiate athletics and the sports and entertainment industry. Smurthwaite is a fractional employee of several athletic departments across the country. He also teaches sports management and journalism as an adjunct professor. Follow him on Twitter or connect on LinkedIn. Smurthwaite can also be reached at [email protected].
A few readers of my last post noticed my prediction: Many more schools will eventually drop from Division I to Division III non-scholarship athletics. Yes, I stand by that statement, and a lot of it has to do with the current climate of collegiate athletics.
Before diving into the House settlement, I love to remind athletic directors, student-athletes, fans, and others of a core truth: a collegiate athletics department is not the institution. And the institution is not the athletics department. In fact, your alma mater could cut sports tomorrow and continue operating without a hitch. Not to go too far down the rabbit hole, but one day, college athletics—namely football—might operate entirely outside the traditional university structure. That day isn’t here yet, but it may come.
While teaching in sports management programs across the country, I challenge students with this extra credit question (worth 25 points!): Find a Division I or II institution whose mission statement explicitly mentions success or competition in collegiate athletics. You’ll likely find references to physical education or recreation, but rarely to athletics. In essence, athletics departments are multi-million-dollar subsidiaries operating largely outside the stated mission of most institutions.
And, let’s be honest, many academic partners on campus don’t fully understand the role athletics plays. Some may have been kicked in the face during youth soccer or hit with a baseball in tee-ball and just grew up not liking sports—and that’s fine. But these are the people who now hold key decision-making roles.
Now, back to the house settlement…
With the proposed House settlement looming, the math behind college athletics is about to get a major rewrite. If Judge Claudia Wilken approves, the agreement will directly allow schools that opt-in to pay student-athletes starting July 1. Each school would be permitted to share up to $20.5 million in revenue with its athletes, with that cap increasing by 4% annually over the 10-year agreement.
The deal also includes $2.8 billion in retroactive payments to athletes who competed between 2016 and 2024 — a staggering yet still under-market value of student-athletes that have provided institutions over the past decade.
But opting in comes with strings, particularly around roster management.
Historically, NCAA sports operated with scholarship limits but no hard roster caps. Sports like men’s volleyball, which is allowed just 4.5 scholarships, could still carry 30 or more athletes—many of them walk-ons. That was a win for aspiring athletes, and even more so for institutions benefiting from full-paying students covering tuition, housing, and meals.
Now, that flexibility may disappear.
Under the settlement, scholarship limits would be replaced by formal roster caps. Schools could offer scholarships to every athlete on the roster—but they aren’t required to. At first glance, this sounds like a positive change: more scholarships for players. But in reality, the cap likely spells the end of the walk-on era.
Future roster construction will look very different, especially in non-revenue or Olympic sports. Some estimates suggest 9,000 to 10,000 roster spots could be eliminated across the NCAA.
Take track and field, for example. Teams that often carry 30+ walk-on runners will now be capped. At one institution I’ve worked with, the track program carried more than 45 walk-ons. Under the new model, those spots vanish.
Change is coming even in football—long the king of roster size. Just 18 months ago, average football rosters approached 130 athletes. The new cap? 105. While schools could expand scholarships from 85 to 105, the days of the walk-on may be numbered.
Rudy and Notre Dame? Not happening.
The trade-offs are real. While more scholarships may be available, far fewer athletes may get the chance to wear the jersey.
So what does this mean for institutions?
As hinted at earlier, it’s expensive. Adding a $20 million revenue-sharing bill to an athletic department’s budget is no small matter. Schools don’t have to contribute the full amount—but even a modest $2.5 million payout has to come from somewhere. Combine that with the loss of walk-ons, and you’re facing a double whammy.
Gone are the tuition, housing, and fees that walk-ons provided.
One administrator told me they expect 50 fewer student-athletes next year after opting in. They added, “We were always encouraged by the president’s office to bring on walk-ons—they filled dorms and paid tuition and fees.”
That same school estimates a loss of $19,000 per walk-on. Multiply that by 50, and it’s close to a million-dollar hit.
A private FCS athletic director shared their concerns with me: “We’re struggling to keep the lights on and pay our bills. Now we’re expected to cut student-athletes and pay them?”
Oh, and that school’s tuition is over $25,000. Do the math.
And as if that weren’t enough, have you Googled the term enrollment cliff lately?
College leaders and athletics administrators are now asking the hard questions:
Who are we? What do we want to be? What are we trying to accomplish here?
Those are valuable conversations—and necessary for institutional alignment. However, these factors also lead to some tough decisions, especially in smaller public and private schools.
As I said at the beginning, it’s just a numbers game.
