Olympic Sports' NCAA Future

We're about a week away from the start of the 2025-26 NCAA season, the first where student-athletes will be receiving direct payments from their school's Athletic Department (in addition to their NIL deals).  It's up to the Athletic Departments to decide which athletes will get paid and how much, but the expectation is that most of it will be funneled into football and men's and women's basketball.  Which, along with new scholarship limitations, has people legitimately worried about the future of some Olympic sports at the highest level of the NCAA.

The scholarship thing may actually have the biggest impact.  In the past, the NCAA had scholarship limits.  For the most part, full scholarships were only offered in football and basketball.  Other teams were given a certain number of athletic scholarships that they could spread across the roster however they saw fit.  The result was a lot of partial scholarships, which would often be combined with academic scholarships to cover the full cost of attendance.  That's no longer the case.

Under the terms of the House settlement, there are no more partial athletic scholarships.  All scholarships must be full rides.  The previous scholarship limits have been replaced by roster limits.  There's a maximum number of players teams can have on the roster.  They can't carry the fourth goalie or the extra bullpen catcher since those guys now require scholarships.  No more walk-ons (who every school wants since they're paying full tuition).

This is obviously going to have a huge impact on so many sports.  Particularly men's sports since schools will still need to meet all Title IX requirements.  Division I baseball, for example, will have a maximum roster size of 34 players starting this season, all of whom will be on full scholarships.  The previous limit was 40.  So, teams will have at least six fewer players each.  Likely more than that since some of the 40 were either on partial scholarships or walk-ons.

That's great news for the Division II and III programs where those players will transfer.  However, it means Division I baseball will look extremely different.  As will every other sport that will have significantly smaller rosters.  And we've already seen some of those reductions (which affect some women's programs, too).

Washington State's track & field team has eliminated sprint and field events and will be a distance-only program moving forward.  This applies to both the men's and women's teams, and is a direct result of the House settlement.  Washington State has decided to take its limited scholarships and reduced roster and focus on the distance events.  With Washington State no longer sponsoring their event (which was the entire reason they came to the school in the first place), a number of the Cougars' sprinters, jumpers and throwers have already transferred.  Which is a trend that we'll likely continue to see as schools and programs shift their focuses.

Expect other track & field programs to follow Washington State's lead.  Sure, there will still be the schools like Oregon, Arkansas and Texas that see the value in a comprehensive track & field program and continue to emphasize all four areas of the sport.  There are others, though, that will determine that it's not feasible to do so with limited scholarships and roster sizes.  And, as a result, they'll end up doing exactly what Washington State did and focus on just the distance events (cross country has its own scholarships that are separate from track & field, and a distance runner can get a cross country scholarship while a jumper can't.)

Track & field and swimming are the two sports with the greatest percentage of international athletes.  While there are international athletes in every sport, it's the individual sports of track & field and swimming where they're most prominent.  The field at the NCAA Championships is usually the same quality as what you'll see at the World Championships or Olympics (with an equally diverse number of countries represented).  Many of them go immediately from wearing their NCAA uniform to competing for their nation on the continental or global stage, then back again. 

These international athletes were already receiving full scholarships, so that won't change.  But will we see fewer of them coming over and being given those scholarships with limited rosters?  Especially since that means an American won't be receiving that scholarship?  So, it's not just American student-athletes who are being affected. 

International athletes help programs win at the NCAA level, so there will still be a significant number who come over.  I have a feeling it won't be as many, however.  There will always be a place for those difference-makers who are good enough to compete on the world stage.  With limited exceptions, they may end up being the only ones competing in the NCAA for American universities pretty soon, though.  And that may be where the House settlement is felt the most.

One of the NCAA's greatest attributes is how it's such a good development system for so many Olympic sports.  Not just Team USA.  There are so many Olympians from so many countries who compete in the NCAA in a given year.  Every four years, the NCAA and its member schools proudly proclaim the number of Olympians, the countries they're representing and their sport.  And rightfully so!  Just as they've got every reason to be proud should any of those athletes win a medal.

While I've only mentioned track & field and swimming, the same applies for the other Olympic sports.  Whether it's fencing, gymnastics, rowing, wrestling, triathlon, beach volleyball or diving, there's a good chance somebody currently competing in the NCAA either was an Olympian in Paris or will be in LA.  Some go on to become Olympians in another sport.  And the U.S. National Team in virtually every team sport is made up of athletes who first competed in the NCAA.  There are plenty of non-American team-sport Olympians, too.

It's a legitimate concern that this Olympic feeder system will take a hit because of the new NCAA rules.  Olympic sports aren't revenue-generators.  Does that mean those programs will become expendable as NCAA institutions need to reconsider their finances to cover direct payments to athletes?  We've already seen plenty of big-time schools cut or reduce programs for budgetary reasons.  It would be shocking if there weren't more.  Which will mean fewer opportunities for those student-athletes.  Which, in turn, impacts the entire sport at the NCAA level.

Football and basketball players will be the biggest beneficiaries of the direct payments to athletes.  Everyone just takes that fact for granted.  You know schools will find a way to take care of their most successful programs outside of those two sports, too (LSU baseball, Penn State women's volleyball, Oklahoma softball, for instance).  But, the fear is that will be at the expense of Olympic sports athletes.  I'm sure some schools will figure out a way to compensate everyone, whether they play football or golf.  But there are likely others who won't.  And, if that happens, who's getting short-changed?  Because you know it won't be football or basketball!