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).

Congress may be on it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2025/06/09/ncaa-antitrust-protection/

calumnus said:

---

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.

---

Exactly and look for the staff to now pursue adding a very good walk on. Since those prior one's kept, do not count against the roster limits.

On that note, does anyone know why all of last year's walkons except BJ Fisher disappeared from the roster? With the House settlement rule and Madsen's last-year preference for fielding a bunch of guys in sweats and no uniforms every game, I would have thought they keep those guys.

barsad said:

---

On that note, does anyone know why all of last year's walkons except BJ Fisher disappeared from the roster? With the House settlement rule and Madsen's last-year preference for fielding a bunch of guys in sweats and no uniforms every game, I would have thought they keep those guys.

---

I think it is because they entered the Portal, so they are technically still recruitable athletes. Madsen will welcome them back, but Cal cannot list them until they are enrolled in Summer or Fall classes.

All the walkons entered the Portal (cue up that Star Trek portal graphic)?
If that's the case then I really don't get how Portal recruiting works. A walkon at Cal who may have zero real minutes on a college floor thinks another school will make a scholarship offer with only high school stats to work with?
I personally don't think a 15-scholarship roster needs a practice squad of walkons, let them compete hard against each other.