Goodbye Walk-On Nation

KIMBERLY QUIGLEY, MD, CEO of Onrise

New rules stemming from a legal settlement are poised to reshape college rosters and sideline thousands of walk-on athletes.

The NCAA Settlement and New Roster Restrictions

A landmark NCAA antitrust settlement (the House v. NCAA case) is set to radically reshape college sports – and one unintended consequence is the effective elimination of many walk-on roles. In this $2.8 billion settlement, the NCAA agreed to allow direct payments to athletes for past Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) claims and to lift scholarship limits across Division I. However, the trade-off was new roster cap rules: Schools that opt into the settlement’s payments must adhere to strict team roster limits. In simple terms, colleges can offer more scholarships now, but they cannot exceed a maximum squad size for each sport.

These new roster caps are being implemented for the 2025–26 season and mirror what used to be scholarship limits. The intent was to increase scholarships without expanding team size – but it’s having the side effect of pushing out walk-ons. According to the Associated Press, the proposed caps could cut “10,000 or more” roster spots across NCAA sports, mainly by eliminating walk-on positions in non-revenue (Olympic) sports. Even before final court approval (expected in spring 2025), colleges have started preparing: some teams have rescinded offers or cut players who would have been walk-ons, anticipating the new limit.

In summary, the NCAA’s settlement lifts scholarship ceilings but slams down a roster ceiling – and it’s the unpaid, passionate walk-ons who are getting squeezed out.

New Roster Caps: By the Numbers

What do these roster limits look like? Here are some of the key sports and how their maximum roster size (i.e. number of players allowed on the team) will change:

• Football (FBS) – Capped at 105 players (up from the 85 scholarship limit). This means an extra 20 scholarship slots, but any team that used to carry 110-120 players must trim down to 105
• Men’s Basketball – 15 players (up from 13 scholarships). Many teams already carry a couple walk-ons; now those spots may just become scholarship spots with no increase in total players
• Baseball – 34 players max. (Previously, teams were limited to 35 active players and 11.7 scholarships.) In effect, nearly the entire baseball roster can now be on scholarship, but the team can’t exceed 34 bodies
• Track & Field (Men’s) – 45 athletes (up from an equivalent of 12.6 scholarships). Many track teams field 40-50 athletes across events, most of whom were walk-ons. Under the new cap of 45, virtually all could get scholarship aid – but teams that had more than 45 participants will have to cut down
• Soccer (Women’s and Men’s) – 28 players each. Women’s soccer was allowed 14 scholarships, and men’s 9.9 (equivalency), typically rostering ~30 players; now both are capped at 28
• Rowing (Women’s) – 68 athletes (up from 20 scholarships). Women’s rowing often had enormous rosters (70+ athletes) to satisfy Title IX participation numbers. The new 68 cap means those extra “walk-on novice” rowers will be limited
• Swimming & Diving (Men’s) – 30 swimmers/divers (up from 9.9 scholarships). It’s common for swim teams to have 25–30 athletes with only ~10 scholarship equivalencies; now up to 30 can be supported, but teams cannot carry beyond 30

Every Division I sport has a new roster maximum – generally set to the typical team size. All sports will also be designated “equivalency” scholarship sports, meaning coaches can parcel out partial scholarships as they see fit. In theory, these changes let more athletes receive athletic aid. In practice, they also remove the “extra” spots that many walk-ons occupied. A football program that used to keep 120 players (85 on scholarship + 35 walk-ons) now can only keep 105 total; walk-ons get cut. Sports like track or swimming that rely on large squads of walk-ons will have to slash their rosters to meet the cap, even if some former walk-ons get scholarship money in the process.

The Vanishing Walk-On: What’s at Stake

Walk-ons have historically been a big part of D1 athletics – often 20–40% of team membership – precisely because scholarship limits were so tight that teams needed extra bodies. For example, an FBS football team’s 85 scholarships might only cover ~70% of a typical 115-player roster, with walk-ons making up the rest. In many Olympic sports, the majority of athletes are (or were) walk-ons: men’s track teams with 50+ athletes but only 12.6 scholarships, swim teams with dozens of members but single-digit scholarships, etc. Those “free” roster spots gave opportunities to passionate athletes willing to compete without financial aid.

Under the new model, those opportunities shrink dramatically. Current data and early reports show the impact:

• Thousands of lost positions: By one estimate, new roster limits will ax over 10,000 student-athlete spotsnationwide, primarily from non-revenue sports
• Walk-ons already being cut: Even before the rules take effect, programs have started informing athletes that they won’t have a roster spot next year. “Our daughter... has been informed – in an unceremonious and unnecessarily harsh manner – that she will no longer have a roster spot for the 2025-2026 season,” wrote the parents of an Ohio University soccer player (a current walk-on.)
• Rescinded walk-on offers: Colleges are also pulling back offers made to incoming walk-ons. As one objection to the settlement noted, schools have revoked offers to prospective recruits who were slated to join as walk-ons, knowing those spots won’t exist.
• Football roster crunch: In football, programs that “often carry more than 105 players” will be forced to ask dozens of athletes to leave, as a group of walk-ons from the Big 12 wrote to the court.

For these athletes, losing the walk-on spot is devastating. Most never joined the team for scholarship money – they play for love of the game, loyalty to the school, or a shot to prove themselves. Now many are faced with an abrupt end to their athletic careers. Unlike a cut made for performance reasons, these cuts are dictated by a headcount limit. You could be doing everything right and still lose your jersey just because of a numbers game.

Heart and Soul of the Team: Culture Lost

It’s often said that walk-ons are the “glue guys” and the backbone of team culture. They are the scout team players who push the starters in practice, the enthusiastic sideline supporters, and the embodiments of perseverance that inspire their teammates. Coaches frequently speak of walk-ons with deep respect:

• At Princeton, where recruits are limited, walk-ons “have been the heartbeat of our program,” says women’s rugby head coach Josie Ziluca. “We wouldn’t have a team without our walk-ons… They provide inspiration… examples of people learning the sport and earning a starting position”
• Nebraska football is famous for its walk-on tradition – a program that helped build championship teams under Coach Tom Osborne and is woven into the state’s identity. Current Nebraska coach Matt Rhule called the new 105 roster cap “the end of an era” and “absolutely heartbreaking”
• Many coaches will quietly admit that walk-ons set the tone for work ethic and resilience on a team. They’re there purely for the love of the sport and school, not an athletic scholarship. Their presence motivates scholarship players not to take their opportunity for granted. As one former walk-on described, “the hope to be recognized by your coach [as a walk-on] felt like trying to make your hard‐ass dad proud”

Come next year, many sidelines will look different. The walk-ons who used to swarm the bench in the fourth quarter of a blowout, or lead the student section in cheers, or run the scout team’s unheralded reps – they might not be there. “Whether walk-on or scholarship player, they are all Huskers for life,” Rhule said of his team. The walk-ons being forced out feel that loss acutely, and so do their teammates and coaches.

Mental Health and Identity Challenges

Walk-on athletes are often some of the most mentally resilient individuals in college sports – they have to be, to balance full academic loads, little financial aid, and the grind of Division I sports purely for personal passion and incremental reward. These are the players who voluntarily wake up at 5 a.m. for workouts without the guarantee of playing time or scholarship renewal. That builds tremendous grit, but it can also come with a mental and emotional toll.

Now, consider the impact of having that opportunity pulled away. Being cut from a team – especially for reasons outside one’s control – can be psychologically devastating. Athletes who have poured their identity into the sport suddenly find themselves without a team. Mental health experts note that athletes forced to leave their sport (due to injury, retirement, or deselection) often “routinely battle depression and anxiety” as they struggle to find purpose outside of athletics. The sudden loss of one’s athletic role can trigger a crisis of identity and emotional well-being.

Even before these roster cuts, student-athletes as a group face significant mental health challenges. In a 2019 survey, 33% of all college students reported experiencing significant symptoms of depression or anxiety – but among college athletes with mental health conditions, only 10% reach out for help.

The culture of toughness and “next man up” can often discourage athletes, especially walk-ons, from seeking support. Alarming data also show that suicide is now the second-leading cause of death among college athletes, and the rate of athlete suicides has doubled over the past decade. In other words, mental health is already a critical concern in college sports.

Walk-ons inhabit a unique psychological space: they often feel dispensable and easily replaced (as one former USC walk-on described his daily mindset), which can fuel stress and anxiety. They fight through feeling “unneeded” to prove they belong. Those who persevere frequently cite the experience as transformative – “although…exhausting and mentally draining,” it builds an unparalleled resilience.

Now imagine telling thousands of these driven athletes that, no matter how hard they worked, the decision has been made thattheir dream no longer has a roster spot. The fear is that this will have a ripple effect on student-athlete mental health: an increase in feelings of helplessness, loss, and anxiety for those cut and even those left behind (who see teammates and friends forced out).

“It’s kind of the end of an era,” Coach Rhule said somberly. For many walk-ons, it’s the abrupt end of their era of collegiate sports and coping with that will be a new challenge. Universities will need to be prepared to support these students, whether that means helping with transfers, offering mental health resources, or simply recognizing the emotional fallout. The NCAA talks a lot about supporting athlete well-being; this will be a real test of that commitment.

Legends We Might Never See Again

One way to understand the impact of eliminating walk-on roles is to consider how many sports legends started their careers as walk-ons – players who, under today’s roster caps, might never have gotten their chance. A few famous examples:

• Baker Mayfield (Oklahoma) – A Heisman Trophy winner and No. 1 NFL Draft pick, Mayfield’s journey is the quintessential walk-on fairy tale. He walked on at Texas Tech in 2013 (after being passed over for a scholarship by power-conference schools), won the starting QB job as a freshman, then transferred and walked on again at Oklahoma. He went on to win the Heisman in 2017 and lead OU to the playoff.
• Stetson Bennett IV (Georgia) – Another undersized QB who began as a walk-on, Bennett left Georgia for junior college when he was buried on the depth chart, only to return on scholarship and famously lead the Bulldogs to back-to-back national championships in 2021 and 2022. Bennett went from scout team afterthought to offensive MVP of the national title game – an “ultimate underdog tale,” as ESPN called it.
• J.J. Watt (Wisconsin) – Watt is a 3-time NFL Defensive Player of the Year and future Hall of Famer. But in 2008, he was just a kid with big dreams who walked on at Wisconsin (after starting at a smaller school). Watt famously delivered pizzas to make ends meet while he toiled as a walk-on. He blossomed into an All-American defensive end – but if Wisconsin had been constrained to 105 total players, would a transfer walk-on like Watt have gotten a second look? His story is so legendary that NCAA.com ranks him among the top walk-ons ever.
• Clay Matthews III (USC) – A former walk-on at USC, Matthews went on to be a first-round NFL draft pick and Super Bowl champion with the Green Bay Packers. At USC he had to earn his spot through sheer hustle on special teams. The new system might not allow a program like USC to carry a long-term project walk-on like Matthews on the roster. Yet without him, USC loses a future star and team leader
• Hunter Renfrow (Clemson) – Renfrow joined Clemson as a 5’10”, 155-pound walk-on receiver in 2014. By the time he graduated, he had caught the game-winning touchdown in a national championship and earned a scholarship and team captaincy. He’s now an NFL starter. Clemson’s roster in 2014 had room for a kid like Renfrow; in a capped world, Dabo Swinney might have had to say, “sorry, no spot.” Think of the iconic moments college football would have missed.
• In other sports, the stories are just as compelling. Baseball Hall-of-Famer Ozzie Smith famously walked on at Cal Poly because he couldn’t afford the tryout fee for a scholarship – he only got a chance after another player quit, and he went on to become an MLB legend.

The point is not that every walk-on is secretly a superstar in waiting – those stories are by definition rare. It’s that college sports have always left the door open, however narrowly, for the unexpected star to emerge from humble origins. Closing that door means some stories like these may never happen again. The next Baker Mayfield or J.J. Watt might never get the roster spot to even begin their journey. “Walk-ons are an important part of any college program. Many of them develop into outstanding college players and, yes, even pros,” as an NFL.com feature on walk-ons put it. By saying goodbye to Walk-On Nation, we risk saying goodbye to some of the sport’s best underdog tales.

Coaches and Athletes Speak Out

Unsurprisingly, the move to cut roster sizes has drawn heavy criticism from those within college sports. Dozens of athletes, parents, and coaches filed objections to the settlement specifically citing the harm of roster limits. Some of their voices:

• Walk-on athletes advocating: Stanford football walk-on David Kasemervisz wrote to the judge that it wasn’t fair walk-ons are excluded from the settlement’s NIL payouts – they were on the field contributing too
• Current players in limbo: The group of Big 12 walk-ons led by Camden Dempsey at Colorado not only described the personal toil of walk-ons, but also pointed out a financial irony: many walk-ons have earned NIL deals or built small businesses around their role as athletes, which will evaporate if they’re cut
• Administrators concerned: The Intercollegiate Tennis Association submitted a letter urging decision-makers to “fully vet the potential unintended consequences” of the roster cap on non-revenue sports
• Critics of NCAA’s approach: Notably, Jeffrey Kessler – the attorney for the athletes in the settlement – has distanced the settlement from the roster cuts. “The settlement does not require the NCAA to impose roster limits… They should complain to the NCAA,” Kessler said
• Gender equity worries: Some women’s sports advocates have also objected that roster cuts might disproportionately hurt female athletes. Women’s teams often carry walk-ons for Title IX roster balancing; if those spots vanish, could scholarship opportunities shift even more to football and men’s basketball? Seven female rowers pointed out that the benefits of the settlement largely favor football/men’s basketball players, while the roster caps cut women’s team spots – exacerbating inequity

Across the board, the message is clear: the college sports community is uneasy about losing walk-ons. These athletes may not have been star recruits or scholarship signees, but over the decades they’ve become an integral part of the fabric of college athletics. From practice fields to locker rooms to alumni chapters, walk-ons carry a legacy of passion-over-pay that many fear will be lost.

Conclusion: Altering the Soul of College Sports

The term “student-athlete experience” is often used by the NCAA to describe its mission. Walk-ons have long epitomized a pure version of that experience – playing for the love of the game, juggling school and sport without scholarship obligations, embodying perseverance, and contributing to campus culture in myriad ways. As one family wrote in anguish about their daughter’s cut, this outcome “starkly contrasts with the NCAA’s mission statement to provide ‘a world-class athletics and academic experience’”

By saying goodbye to the Walk-On Nation, college sports stands to lose something intangible but vital. It loses the underdog stories that inspire us, the glue guys and gals who hold teams together, and the chance for late-bloomers to find their stride. It also places new pressures on those who remain, with fewer comrades to share the load and a reminder that everyone is just a number on a roster cap.

Change is often necessary in college athletics – the system of scholarships and amateurism is indeed evolving, and rightfully so, to be more fair to athletes. But as we laud the progress of increased scholarships or NIL payments, we must also consider the cost. In this case, the cost is counted in dreams deferred and lockers emptied. It’s measured in the silence of a practice field that used to echo with the shouts of 10 extra walk-ons chasing a role that no longer exists.

College sports will go on, but perhaps with a little less heart. The hope from athletes and coaches is that schools find creative ways to keep these passionate players involved – maybe expanded support staff roles, club team transitions, or other avenues to channel their dedication. Some have called for phasing the changes in slowly or granting exceptions to keep walk-ons around. As of now, however, the writing is on the wall and the lockers are being cleaned out.

In bidding farewell to Walk-On Nation, let’s remember what these athletes have given to college sports: their time, sweat, and unyielding spirit, all for the simple privilege of being on the team. They were, in many ways, the embodiment of what college athletics were supposed to be about. Goodbye to the walk-ons – the game will miss you more than it knows.

Sources:

• ChatGPT
• Michelle Brutlag Hosick, “Settlement Documents Filed in College Athletics Class-Action Lawsuits,” NCAA.org(Jul. 26, 2024) – NCAA announcement of scholarship limits being lifted and new roster caps
• Eddie Pells, “Objections flow in on NCAA settlement over ‘unnecessarily harsh’ impact of roster limits,” AP News(Mar. 2025) – Details on projected 10,000+ lost roster spots and early cuts of walk-ons
• Associated Press, via ESPN.com, “Athletes file objections… argue for walk-ons” (Jan. 27, 2025) – Objections from athletes like Stanford walk-on David Kasemervisz and gymnast Emma Reathaford on unfairness to walk-ons
• Amanda Christovich, “House v. NCAA Objections Highlight Three Major Concerns,” Front Office Sports (Jan. 30, 2025) – Reporting on schools revoking walk-on offers and a letter from Colorado’s walk-ons (“teams like mine… will have to ask dozens to leave”)
• Kaleb Henry, “End of an Era… Absolutely Heartbreaking,” Husker Si (Nov. 18, 2024) – Nebraska Coach Matt Rhule’s comments on cutting down to 105, and his personal walk-on story
• Diego Uribe & Tate Hutchins, “The heartbeat of our program: Inside the walk-on experience,” Daily Princetonian(Sept. 2024) – Coaches’ quotes on walk-ons as “heartbeat” of teams and their equal role in culture
• Athletes for Hope, “Mental Health & Athletes” (2019) – Statistics on college student-athlete mental health (33%with significant issues; only 10% of those athletes seek help)
• Theo Bravos, “How bad can being a walk-on be?” Medium (2023) – First-person account of a USC football walk-on, highlighting mental toll and noting suicide as 2nd leading cause of death among college athletes
• NCAA News Release, “Mental health issues remain on minds of student-athletes” (May 2022) – NCAA well-being survey (mentions elevated rates of mental exhaustion/anxiety since 2020)
• SI.com (Texas Tech), “Baker Mayfield Among Best Walk-Ons in History” (Aug. 10, 2022) – Summary of Mayfield’s walk-on journey at TTU and OU, leading to Heisman and #1 NFL pick
• NCAA.com / Sports Illustrated, “17 Best Walk-Ons in CFB History” (2022) – Notable examples like J.J. Watt (walk-on at Wisconsin) and Clay Matthews (USC)
• NCAA.com, “9 of college baseball’s best walk-ons” (2020) – Examples including Shane Bieber (UCSB) and Ozzie Smith
• NFL.com, “Notable NFL players who were college walk-ons” (Feb. 2016) – “Walk-ons are an important part of any college program. Many develop into outstanding players and even pros.”