Last weekend saw a milestone moment for college athletics, as a federal judge approved a settlement of three antitrust cases against the NCAA and Power Five conferences related to athlete compensation.
In short, the ruling opens the door for schools to directly pay players, differing from the collective-based model that has gained prominence over the last several years. This ruling is a further domino effect of the initial NIL rulings in 2021, which finally allowed athletes to profit from their name, image and likeness. As part of the ruling, current and former college athletes dating back to 2016 will receive a portion of $2.8 billion in backpay.
Advertisement
While the only constant in college athletics at the moment is ongoing change, this weekend’s ruling leads to several clear structural changes entering the upcoming 2025 college football season. First, schools may directly pay their players up to $20.5 million per year, in addition to the money they make from outside sources. As noted, this is the first step toward college football, and likely basketball as well, becoming a professional entity where players enter into employment contracts with each program.
Second, which shouldn’t be ignored, the current athletic scholarship model is soon to be no more. Instead, schools that opt into the revenue-sharing model will have strict roster limits. That specific clause won’t be enforced for the next few years, as its immediate implementation entering the 2025 season would have seen thousands of athletes kicked off their teams.
Another footnote from the settlement and its fallout is the newly formed College Sports Commission, which will work to enforce the sport’s new rules and structure. The initiative will be operated by the conferences instead of the NCAA, continuing the shift away from the organization as college athletics’ governing body.
Those are the main news points from the house settlement. Given the events in the last half-decade, it likely won’t be long until another ruling leads to even more significant changes.
Advertisement
Now, an important question: What does the settlement mean for Wisconsin football?
What the NCAA house settlement means for Wisconsin football
Nov 16, 2024; Madison, Wisconsin, USA; Wisconsin Badgers head coach Luke Fickell during the game against the Oregon Ducks at Camp Randall Stadium. Mandatory Credit: Jeff Hanisch-Imagn Images
Despite recent performance, Wisconsin’s place as one of college football’s premier brands is safe. While it operates far from the top tier of Georgia, Alabama, Texas and Ohio State, any sweeping changes to the sport won’t leave the program behind. The Badgers‘ brand as a leading Big Ten program and the program’s financial backing all enforce that reality. 2025’s on-field results, for example, won’t change Wisconsin’s overall place in the sport.
Advertisement
That all must be noted when discussing changes to college athletics. The major losers from the upcoming changes will be the programs at the fringe of the nation’s top 70, or those that don’t generate the revenue to keep up with premier brands.
So, that said, the move to a revenue-sharing model may be good news for the Badgers. Any step toward a regulated salary cap and an even playing field would greatly benefit the program. It would mean, in an ideal world, that it gets the same salary pool as its competitors, compared to the current reality of its collective operating at a significant disadvantage to that of top donor bases. That still may be a bit optimistic, as there likely won’t ever be answers for the under-the-table money that helps to lure recruits to top programs.
But as a Big Ten member with a significant fan base, Wisconsin generates the revenue to keep up financially — its athletic department earned $150,100,977 during the 2023-24 fiscal year, good for 22nd in the nation.
More will become clear as the new model is implemented and enforced. But on the surface, revenue-sharing is good news for the Badgers.
Advertisement
On the other hand, there is one piece of the house settlement that is bad news for the program, or at least one of the pillars on which it was built. That is the move to a roster-limit model, from the current scholarship-limit structure.
The fallout of that move: the eventual elimination of walk-ons.
Programs can still take a portion of their roster limit and focus on in-state players who may have walked on in the past. But strict roster limits — 105 players in football and 15 in men’s and women’s basketball — will force Wisconsin and other walk-on-heavy programs to prioritize higher-ranked players and more guaranteed contributors.
It should be noted that the 105-player limit in football is a 20-player increase from the NCAA’s current scholarship limit, but is in line with its overall roster limit. That number dropped from 120 late last year — a change that dealt the first blow to the sport’s walk-on culture.
Advertisement
Wisconsin could still choose to dedicate 20 or more spots each year to walk-ons (five in each class). But program depth will become as important as ever under the new revenue-sharing model, especially if programs gain the ability to sign players to multi-year contracts.
Back before NIL and the transfer portal began to dominate the sport’s roster management, when roster limits were at 120 players, Wisconsin took anywhere from seven to 10 walk-ons per year. It would have anywhere from 28 to 40 walk-ons within the program at any time. That total has predictably dipped over the last few years — Luke Fickell added five and four walk-ons in the 2023 and 2024 classes, respectively.
That trend isn’t due to a philosophy change under Fickell, but rather significant changes to the sport’s structure. The house settlement and implementation of a revenue-sharing model should only continue that trend. Even if it doesn’t fully destroy Wisconsin’s time-honored walk-on culture, it will significantly decrease its prominence. It’s a numbers game — taking 10 walk-ons per year compared to just three or four dramatically increases the chances those players contribute.
Without large walk-on classes, we may have never seen Jim Leonhard, Joe Panos, Mark Tauscher, J.J. Watt, Chad Cascadden, Jason Doering, Chris Maragos, and others develop into prominent contributors, plus, in some cases, program greats.
Advertisement
It’s no secret that Wisconsin’s walk-on culture has been integral to its success since Barry Alvarez took over in 1990. While the program’s place in the sport may be secure, its walk-on culture could be on its way toward elimination.
Contact/Follow @TheBadgersWire on X (formerly Twitter) and like our page on Facebook to follow ongoing coverage of Wisconsin Badgers news, notes and opinion
This article originally appeared on Badgers Wire: NCAA house settlement impact on Wisconsin football’s walk-on culture