College football's next big change: Could walk-ons be eliminated? (2024)

Stetson Bennett was one of the best college football stories of all time. “Rudy,” whatever you think of it, is still one of the most well-known sports movies. They were walk-ons, but those spots … could be going away.

In their place could be a world in which schools that care deeply about certain sports can double and triple how many players they put on scholarship: Mississippi State baseball having 35 players on scholarship, Georgia trying to get back to its gymnastics glory days by going up to 25 scholarships and so on.

Theoretically, this could occur in just the latest plot twist to the college athletic model. Here’s what would happen:

• The scholarship limits for sports, such as 85 for football, would be eliminated.

• But they would be replaced by lower roster caps for each sport. Such as 85 for football.

This could be agreed to as part of a settlement of the House vs. NCAA case, which is expected to result in revenue sharing with athletes. (If it happens, such a settlement could come in the next two weeks.)

Or getting rid of scholarship limits while putting in roster caps could happen independently of that. Either way, it would be a monumental change.

For years, NCAA scholarship limits have been seen as a means of (trying to) establish parity among schools, with all FBS football programs adhering to the 85 limit, all men’s basketball programs limited to 13 scholarships, baseball to 11.7, and so on. (You can look at a full list, by sport and NCAA division here.)

Scholarship limits were partially about cost-cutting, which is why they could be part of the House settlement.

“If there are more scholarships, then there’s more revenue going to athletes,” said Mit Winter, an attorney specializing in college sports. “It’s not direct cash payments, unlike revenue sharing, but schools want to get some credit as part of this settlement for adding these scholarships.”

But those scholarships would come in other sports, if the football limit stays at 85 — and mean the end of walk-ons. There already are roster limits in most sports, 120 being that number in football. So for years, there was a clear dividing line — scholarship and walk-ons — in the major sports, and baseball, gymnastics and other sports had a more awkward arrangement of partial scholarships: 35 baseball players, only 11.7 scholarships to spread around the team.

Many details of a potential House settlement are still being worked out, so the scholarship limit-roster cap move is not final. But here are the reasons for its consideration:

• Cost-cutting: Walk-ons still cost the program some money, whether it’s through travel or equipment, and at some schools, those players get Alston payments. So if the football roster size is cut, that’s some money to divert to revenue sharing and other sports.

• Trying to head off litigation: Since lawyers are already suing the NCAA over name, image and likeness; transfers; and seemingly everything else, the scholarship limit could be ripe for the taking. A roster cap would be more defensible because it was done for competitive reasons. (Or so goes the thinking.)

• Teams are exceeding the scholarship limits anyway: Players not on scholarship can receive NIL money to cover all their costs. Some football programs are upfront about using NIL to surpass 85, and it’s easy to imagine some teams in non-revenue sports are doing the same.

The SEC has wanted expanded scholarship limits for certain sports — such as baseball — for years. Two years ago, the NCAA’s transformation committee, with SEC commissioner Greg Sankey running point, discussed expanded scholarship caps for sports other than football and basketball. The idea eventually was dropped but has now come back to include all sports.

The impact on football, of course, will be what gets the most attention. Football coaches, especially at the highest levels, would be concerned. It’s a physical sport in which players get hurt. There’s also a reason walk-ons exist, and it’s not just in the hope of finding the next Bennett: Kickers, punters and long snappers are often walk-ons. The key would then be if the roster cap is above 85, and if so, how far.

This might be a way to convince smaller programs to sign on: The fewer walk-ons the big programs can take, the more of a trickle-down effect it has on the smaller ones. There are many stories about recruits who had offers from small programs but wanted to play at a bigger program so they were willing to walk on. Now if they can’t, they will go to a smaller program.

But there’s a chance there are no roster caps. Let the market decide or at least the schools: If Alabama wants to splurge for 125 football scholarships in a certain year, let it. If Vanderbilt wants to pay for 35 scholarship baseball players, more power to the Commodores. If you have resources, not having a scholarship cap allows you more autonomy and flexibility.

“It’ll allow schools to really decide what sports they want to emphasize,” Winter said.

Still, since everyone — almost everyone — wants to emphasize football, this will be the area to watch. Is there an absolute roster limit that is set at 85? Does it get expanded to 100? Is there no cap at all or no change at all?

We should know more soon.

(Photo of Stetson Bennett: Jeffrey Vest / Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)

Seth Emerson is a senior writer for The Athletic covering Georgia and the SEC. Seth joined The Athletic in 2018 from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and also covered the Bulldogs and the SEC for The Albany Herald from 2002-05. Seth also covered South Carolina for The State from 2005-10. Follow Seth on Twitter @SethWEmerson