🏈 🔵 Could The NCAA Really Get Rid Of Walk-Ons?
Recent reports have signified that Power Four administrators and the NCAA are considering “significantly reducing” future roster sizes to satisfy a new athlete compensation model.
Welcome to Blue Chip Journal by Adam Breneman — a 2x per-week newsletter with analysis, hot takes, and news on all things college football, NIL, and recruiting. Subscribe now and join nearly 13,000 other sports fans, and share this newsletter with all the college football fans you know!
Could The NCAA Really Get Rid Of Walk-Ons?
Hey friends,
There’s no doubt that tradition is the lifeblood of college football.
The pageantry, unity, and spirit curated on Saturdays have separated the sport from the NFL for decades.
Recently, conference expansion, limiting transfer portal restrictions, the adoption of a two-minute warning, and similar clock rules following first-downs have all pulled college football closer to the professional game.
About two weeks ago, Yahoo Sports’ Ross Dellenger reported that another traditional college football mainstay could be on its way out — walk-ons.
Between JJ Watt, Baker Mayfield, Stetson Bennett, and Hunter Renfrow, plenty of non-scholarship assets have become some of the most revered college players in recent memory.
Let’s dive into why the concept of walk-ons could soon be a figment of the past while discussing the ramifications of the NCAA’s looming decision:
Why Limit Walk-Ons?
Dellenger reported that Power Four administrators and the NCAA are considering “significantly reducing” future roster sizes to satisfy a new athlete compensation model.
The model would create a clearer, concrete solution to NIL discrepancies present from the elite programs to bottom feeders.
As a result, rosters of 115 to 120 players now, which include walk-ons, would shrink to 85 to 95 players.
Currently, the NCAA caps programs with 85 full-ride, scholarship players on each team.
So, why would this happen?
According to Dellenger, “All of it [is] rooted in a settlement agreement of various antitrust lawsuits.”
Over the next two years, the NCAA is expected to owe roughly $2.9 billion in damages to former players.
By limiting roster capacities, it would be easier for Power Four schools to equally distribute their $20 million allotment stemming from media rights revenue.
Additionally, while the new model would include roster limitations, it wouldn’t include scholarship restrictions.
For example, if the NCAA allows 95 players on a team at a given time, schools would be able to dip into expanded financial aid capabilities to provide paid-for academic services to additional players.
Like most people are quick to assume, the move simply isn’t the NCAA and administrators looking to taint college football’s uniqueness.
Quite simply, the change would solely be one to protect the NCAA, conferences, and university athletic departments from looming legal concerns.
Limiting roster sizes would protect the NCAA and its member schools in three ways:
1.) It would be a preemptive measure to avoid future antitrust lawsuits dealing with athlete restrictions compared to teammates.
2.) Schools could afford more freedom to balance Title IX laws, requiring “equal benefits to women and men athletes.”
3.) Expenses would be reduced for programs that stick to 85-scholarship players.
While some administrators are already on board with the proposed change, Dellenger says the limitations were met “with backlash,” largely coming from athletic directors and coaches.
This newsletter is presented by... PrizePicks
PrizePicks is the easiest way to play daily fantasy. Getting started is very simple — register for an account, make a deposit, and pick more or less on 2-6 player stats to win payouts of up to 25x!
Aside from offering an initial deposit match of up to $100, fans can now use my promo code AdamB for an even BIGGER discount upon downloading the app. Click on the link below to get started today!
Will The Change Happen Soon?
Last week, Nebraska head coach Matt Rhule talked about the negative ramifications removing walk-ons would have for college football’s immediate future.
“I think it’d be awful,” Rhule said. “… For every player that ends up with a high-end commercial, there's 100 players that are becoming better people by having played college football and being part of a team and those are the people that usually end up running our country, running our corporations, running our businesses.”
From a moral sense, Rhule is right.
But, from a legal sense, the NCAA might not have a viable alternative as it inches closer to a future revenue-sharing model.
$2.9 billion in back damages mostly due to unfair “employment conditions” for previous student-athletes isn’t a small figure to scoff at.
If the NCAA wants to unload legal loopholes off of its hands, it would be smart to adopt this decision, despite it being in the disinterest of what makes college football so special.
Like most of the sport’s changes, this wouldn’t happen immediately.
A viable, revenue-sharing model would have to spearhead this movement, which wouldn’t come into effect until fall 2025 at the earliest.
If you have any questions, comments, or feedback, please don’t hesitate to reach out to me by email at adam@brenemanmedia.com.
You can also find me on Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, LinkedIn or Facebook.
Shoutout to Connor Krause for helping to write this newsletter and putting it together!
Interested in advertising with Blue Chip Journal? Email me.