The House Settlement and Lacrosse: What Changed in 2025 | RosterWise™

What the settlement actually did

The House settlement combined three federal antitrust cases — House v. NCAA, Hubbard v. NCAA, and Carter v. NCAA — into a single resolution. Per USA Lacrosse magazine’s coverage of the June 6, 2025 approval, the settlement included approximately $2.8 billion in damages for former and current athletes who could not profit from name, image, and likeness during the previous decade, plus a forward-looking framework that allows participating schools to share revenue directly with athletes and replaces sport-specific scholarship limits with sport-specific roster caps.

The settlement’s structure for participating schools includes three core changes:

• Revenue sharing: Schools that opt into the settlement could share up to $20.5 million with student-athletes during the 2025-26 academic year — the settlement’s first year, and the most recent figure the NCAA has published. The cap is recalculated from the settlement’s formula every three years and rises four percent in the second and third year of each three-year period. The NCAA has not published a 2026-27 dollar figure.
• Scholarship limits eliminated: Sport-specific scholarship caps are removed at opt-in schools. Programs can offer scholarships to every athlete on the roster, up to the new roster cap.
• Roster caps introduced: Each sport has a new roster cap that participating schools must observe.

These changes took effect for the 2025-26 academic year.

The lacrosse-specific numbers

Per USA Lacrosse magazine’s coverage of the settlement’s lacrosse implications:

Men’s NCAA Division I lacrosse:

• Previous scholarship limit: 12.6 (equivalency scholarships divisible among roster players)
• New scholarship limit: up to 48 (with the ability to award full or partial scholarships to every athlete on the roster)
• New roster cap: 48 players
• Average D1 men’s lacrosse roster in 2024: 52.7 players

Women’s NCAA Division I lacrosse:

• Previous scholarship limit: 12 (equivalency scholarships divisible among roster players)
• New scholarship limit: up to 38 (with the ability to award full or partial scholarships to every athlete on the roster)
• New roster cap: 38 players
• Average D1 women’s lacrosse roster in 2024: 34.7 players

To put the scholarship change in perspective: at an opt-in school, a men’s D1 lacrosse program that previously had to spread 12.6 equivalency scholarships across its entire roster could now offer athletic aid to all 48 roster players. The change is structural: the limit is now on roster size, not on scholarships.

The numbers also include hard reality

The settlement’s roster cap creates a real tradeoff for lacrosse programs. Per USA Lacrosse magazine’s coverage, the average 2024 D1 men’s lacrosse roster was 52.7 players against a new cap of 48. USA Lacrosse estimated in June 2025, the day the settlement was approved, that this meant “an average of 4.7 players per team - approximately 362 players overall - will lose the opportunity to compete at the Division I level.” That figure is the magazine’s forecast rather than a tally of what has since occurred.

The women’s side looked different on that measure. Per the same USA Lacrosse coverage, the average 2024 D1 women’s lacrosse roster was 34.7 — below the new 38-player cap. An average below the cap does not mean no program had to reduce: an opt-in program carrying more than 38 players had to come down to the limit, apart from any Designated Student-Athletes (below). We don’t have pre-settlement roster data to say how many did.

Correction, October 9, 2026. An earlier version of this paragraph said “most women’s D1 programs were not forced to cut players” and that the impact was “less widespread than on the men’s side.” An average roster size does not establish either, and we have no other source for them, so we removed them.

For families with athletes already rostered at D1 programs in 2024-25, the settlement included a one-time protection mechanism: Designated Student-Athletes (DSAs). Per USA Lacrosse magazine, schools could identify currently rostered athletes (or incoming 2025-26 freshmen) who would have been cut under the new roster limits and grandfather them in. DSAs do not count against the school’s roster cap during the remaining years of their eligibility. The DSA designation also remains with the student-athlete throughout their college career — meaning a DSA who transfers to another school continues to not count against the receiving school’s roster cap. This was a one-time exemption; it applies only to athletes identified as DSAs by the July 6, 2025 deadline.

Scholarship expansion versus roster reduction

The most important honest framing for families is this: the settlement simultaneously expanded scholarship opportunity and reduced roster opportunity in NCAA Division I men’s lacrosse. More players can now be on scholarship, but fewer players can be on the roster.

For women’s NCAA Division I lacrosse, the average 2024 roster (34.7, per USA Lacrosse magazine) was already below the new 38-player limit, and the scholarship limit of 12 was replaced by that roster limit. Per USA Lacrosse magazine’s coverage of head coach reactions, North Carolina head coach Jenny Levy described the settlement as a long-overdue opportunity to reward women’s lacrosse athletes the way other sports had been rewarding theirs, with USA Lacrosse reporting that North Carolina hopes to sustain 38 scholarships on the women’s side.

Title IX also enters the picture. At opt-in schools, football’s roster limit is 105, against its pre-settlement limit of 85 scholarships. How a school balances any added football aid against its women’s sports, and how it accounts for Title IX in doing so, is that school’s decision — ask the women’s lacrosse program directly whether its aid has changed.

Correction, October 9, 2026. An earlier version of this section said women’s D1 lacrosse’s “roster impact was minimal,” and that because football may add 20 scholarships, “women’s sports become eligible for matching scholarship increases to maintain Title IX compliance,” with women’s lacrosse one of the sports that “may benefit.” Later on this page we also said “Title IX compliance requires matching scholarship growth on the women’s side.” We had no source for those statements about what Title IX requires or how schools will respond, so we rewrote them as questions to ask the school.

Programs don’t have to fund up to the cap

One point to keep in mind: the new roster caps are MAXIMUMS, not requirements. The settlement allows participating schools to award scholarships up to the cap, but it does not require any specific funding level. Whether a particular men’s D1 lacrosse program offers 48 scholarships, 25, or fewer depends entirely on that school’s budget, athletic department priorities, and program-specific decisions.

Per USA Lacrosse magazine (August 1, 2024), former Denver head coach and current IMLCA president Bill Tierney described the realistic distribution of program responses as falling into five categories:

1. Programs that significantly increase scholarships — potentially funding 25 or more scholarships
2. Programs that continue to support what previously existed (around 12.6 for men’s, around 12 for women’s)
3. Programs that remain in Division I but reduce their scholarship funding below previous levels
4. Programs that drop scholarships entirely and move to a club model
5. Programs that drop lacrosse entirely

Tierney is quoted by USA Lacrosse magazine acknowledging the competitive implications: “Schools that decide to go big in lacrosse — Hopkins, maybe Northwestern women — they might do that. If they do, it’s going to make the separation even wider.”

We don’t have data on how programs are distributing funding. Families should not assume that “up to 48 scholarships” means any specific program will actually award 48.

What this means for recruiting families

For families navigating lacrosse recruiting in 2025-26 and beyond, the settlement creates several practical realities:

Scholarship math is now school-specific. The previous 12.6 / 12 framework was a uniform limit across all D1 programs. Today, scholarship reality varies from one school to another. The conversation a family has with one program about athletic aid may look completely different from the conversation with another program at the same competitive level. Families need to ask each program specifically: “How is your program funding scholarships under the new settlement framework?”

Roster math is now tighter, particularly for men. With the men’s D1 roster cap at 48 and previous averages near 53, men’s D1 programs are operating with less roster flexibility than before. Walk-on opportunities and developmental roster spots that previously existed may not exist now. For men’s recruits who would have been the 50th player on a 52-player roster, that spot may no longer be available at all.

Ask about Title IX. With football’s roster limit at 105 at opt-in schools, ask how the school is accounting for Title IX across men’s and women’s athletic aid, and what that means for women’s lacrosse.

The DSA exemption is finite. The one-time DSA designation applied only to athletes a school identified on its Designated Student-Athlete list — athletes who were rostered for 2024-25, or recruited, before April 7, 2025, and who would have been removed from the roster because of the new limits — with the list due by July 6, 2025. The roster limits themselves took effect July 1, 2025. For recruits in the 2025-26 cycle and beyond, the new roster caps apply without grandfather protections.

Correction, October 9, 2026. An earlier version of this paragraph called July 6, 2025 the settlement’s “implementation” date and said the DSA designation applied to “athletes rostered before” it. July 6, 2025 was the deadline for a school’s DSA list; the roster limits took effect July 1, 2025, and DSA eligibility turned on being rostered or recruited before April 7, 2025 (NCAA House implementation Q&A, Questions C11, C12, C15 and C16).

Not all schools opted in. Schools that did not opt into the House settlement continue to operate under the previous NCAA framework. Per USA Lacrosse magazine, families should ask each school whether it has opted into the House settlement — the answer affects scholarship structure, roster limits, and revenue sharing eligibility.

The recruiting impact during the transition

Some effects follow directly from the settlement’s structure. Others are not known yet.

Walk-on spots are inside the limit. The previous structure allowed programs to carry walk-ons beyond their scholarship roster. The new structure caps the entire roster, not just the scholarship roster — meaning some traditional walk-on spots may no longer exist at programs operating at the cap.

What we don’t know. How programs are changing their scholarship amounts, recruiting-class sizes, and use of the transfer portal under the settlement is not something we have data on. Ask each program directly:

• How are you funding scholarships under the settlement, and what would an offer to my athlete look like?
• How many players do you expect to add in my athlete’s class, and at which positions?
• Do you plan to add players through the transfer portal at my athlete’s position?

Correction, October 9, 2026. An earlier version of this section said transfer portal activity “may increase” and “becomes a more frequent option,” that previous D1 programs “awarded equivalency scholarships averaging 60-70% of the cap value,” that future scholarships “may be awarded more frequently as full scholarships at well-funded programs,” and that programs “previously carried 18-20 freshmen per year.” None of it had a source, so we removed it and listed the questions to ask instead.

What hasn’t yet played out

Several aspects of the settlement’s impact on lacrosse are still developing:

How many programs will actually fund up to the cap. We don’t have data on how many programs fund athletic aid at what level, so ask each program what it funds.

What revenue sharing will look like for lacrosse athletes. The benefits cap — $20.5 million per school in 2025-26 — is an institution-wide ceiling, not a per-sport allocation. The NCAA’s House implementation Q&A says each Participating Institution “may provide benefits, at its discretion, to a student-athlete” so long as the combined value across all of its student-athletes stays under that cap. It does not divide the pool among sports. How much, if anything, reaches a lacrosse roster is therefore a decision each athletics department makes on its own — and it is not something any governing body publishes. Ask the program whether it receives revenue-share money at all, and if so what the figure was last year. See NIL and Revenue Sharing for the full set of questions to ask.

How the broader landscape will evolve. We don’t forecast program additions, cuts, or funding changes. Bill Tierney’s five categories above are one coach’s view, published in August 2024, of how programs might respond.

Correction, October 9, 2026. An earlier version of this paragraph said some programs “may drop lacrosse entirely under the new financial pressure,” others “may significantly increase funding to gain competitive separation,” and that a “stable equilibrium” would take several recruiting cycles to emerge. Those were predictions, which we don’t publish, so we removed them.

D2, D3, NAIA, and NJCAA lacrosse

The roster limits and the removal of sport-specific scholarship limits described on this page are Division I rules (Bylaw 17.2 of the 2026-27 NCAA Division I Manual). Other divisions have their own structures:

NCAA Division II: Division II men’s and women’s lacrosse continue under Division II’s own equivalency scholarship limits (2026-27 NCAA Division II Manual, Bylaw 15.4.2.1).

NCAA Division III: D3 schools do not award athletic scholarships under any framework. The House settlement does not change this for D3 lacrosse.

NAIA: The NAIA operates under its own framework and is not directly subject to the House settlement.

NJCAA: Junior college lacrosse continues under NJCAA rules — for men only. The NJCAA discontinued women’s lacrosse as a sponsored sport beginning with the 2024-25 academic year.

For families considering programs across divisions, the structural changes on this page are Division I changes.

Correction, October 9, 2026. An earlier version of this section said Division II schools “may or may not opt into elements of the settlement” and that other divisions “have not seen comparable scholarship or roster changes.” We had no source for either. The roster limits are in the Division I Manual, and Division II lacrosse has its own scholarship limits in the Division II Manual; the section now says that.

Common misconceptions about the settlement and lacrosse

Misconception: “All D1 men’s lacrosse programs now offer 48 scholarships.”

Reality: 48 is the roster limit at opt-in schools, and a program may award athletic aid up to it, but nothing requires a program to fund 48 scholarships. We don’t have data on how many programs fund at what level, so ask each program directly about its scholarship funding.

Misconception: “Walk-on opportunities at D1 lacrosse are eliminated.”

Reality: The settlement does not eliminate walk-ons, but at opt-in schools walk-ons and scholarship players now count toward the same roster limit. A men’s program that carried more than 48 players before the settlement has to fit within 48 now, apart from any Designated Student-Athletes.

Misconception: “The settlement means lacrosse recruits will all get full scholarships.”

Reality: The settlement allows programs to offer athletic aid to more athletes, but it does not require full scholarships; a program can still award partial ones. The mix of full and partial scholarships at a specific program depends entirely on that program’s funding choices.

Misconception: “My athlete was a walk-on at a D1 program before the settlement, so they’re protected as a DSA.”

Reality: DSA status applies only if the athlete was identified as a DSA by the July 6, 2025 deadline. Athletes who were rostered but not designated as DSAs by that date do not have grandfather protection.

Misconception: “Women’s D1 lacrosse benefited the most from the settlement.”

Reality: We don’t rank which sport benefited most. At opt-in schools, women’s D1 lacrosse went from a limit of 12 equivalency scholarships to a 38-player roster limit with no separate scholarship limit, and USA Lacrosse magazine put the average 2024 women’s D1 roster (34.7 players) below the new limit. Whether a program’s athletes actually receive more aid depends on what that school chooses to fund.

Correction, October 9, 2026. Earlier versions of these answers (here and in the FAQ above) said “many programs will continue funding at previous levels or below,” that walk-on opportunities “still exist at many D1 programs,” that “partial scholarships remain common in lacrosse,” and that women’s lacrosse “avoided the roster reduction impact that hit men’s lacrosse.” We had no source for those statements, so we rewrote them to what the rules establish.

Every recruit’s journey is different

The House settlement reshaped the structural framework of NCAA Division I lacrosse. But how it plays out for any individual recruit depends entirely on the specific schools she or he is considering. At some schools, a program may now fund more athletic aid than it could before; at others, funding may be unchanged; and a program operating at its roster limit may have no room to add a walk-on. Use this guide as context to inform conversations with each program your athlete is considering — and ask direct, specific questions about scholarship funding and roster planning under the new framework. The headline numbers are real, but the program-by-program reality is what will actually shape your athlete’s experience.

Correction, October 9, 2026. An earlier version of this page’s call-to-action said knowing “which programs are increasing scholarship investment, which are maintaining the status quo, and which are reducing their commitment” is essential information, beside a description of what RosterWise analyzes — implying the app shows it. It doesn’t: the RosterWise Lacrosse app has no program-level scholarship or funding data. The call-to-action also promised “transfer portal activity”; the app shows the transfers listed on each roster, not transfer-portal data. We corrected both.

House settlement implementation is still moving, and the money figures are dated. The revenue-sharing figures here reflect the 2025-26 academic year — the settlement’s first year and the most recent for which the NCAA has published a cap — verified against the NCAA’s House implementation Q&A (updated February 11, 2026) on 2026-08-26. That Q&A caps what a school may provide in total and leaves the split among sports to each institution’s discretion; it publishes no allocation, and neither do we. Verify current roster and scholarship limits at NCAA.org, check benefits-cap rules with the College Sports Commission, and confirm what a specific program actually funds with its coaching staff.