Looks done:
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2025/06/06/federal-judge-approves-2-8b-settlement-meaning-us-colleges-will-pay-athletes-millions/

The hangup was roster size, the solution was current walk-ons could continue without counting against new roster limits.

stu said:

---

Looks done:
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2025/06/06/federal-judge-approves-2-8b-settlement-meaning-us-colleges-will-pay-athletes-millions/

The hangup was roster size, the solution was current walk-ons could continue without counting against new roster limits.

---

The exemption for current walk-ons might be why Madsen added so many to the roster last year.

Dumb question - why was this something (roster caps) that the university wanted?

socaltownie said:

---

Dumb question - why was this something (roster caps) that the university wanted?

---

I think the schools wanted some kind of cap on spending and revenue sharing in terms of parity? People didn't like that in the current system some schools would circumvent the scholarship limits and hoard talent by using NIL to equal scholarship value. So given that reality the more effective way to limit team sizes would be a hard roster cap instead of the scholarship mechanism.

There will still potentially be inequality when it comes to schools who can offer more NIL, if vetted properly, because I can imagine that the majority of schools (and maybe even the big players) don't mind a certain degree of cost-limiting that will take place with roster caps in an attempt to slow the spending arms race (especially now that sports revenue will need to be shared which means schools won't keep as much money to operate either).