D1 tennis used to run on a scholarship-money limit. At schools that opted into the House v. NCAA settlement, it now runs on a 10-player roster limit instead, for both men's and women's teams. That is not a minor tweak. It changes how many spots actually exist on a team, not just how much money is available to fill them.
If you already read our breakdown of how scholarship limits work across D1, D2, and D3, you know the D1 roster number is 10. This post covers what that post does not: why that number changed, what got eliminated to get there, and what it actually means for how many spots open up for a recruit in a given year. If you want the broader picture of how coaches actually allocate scholarship money, our complete guide to NCAA tennis scholarships covers that ground.
What changed, in plain terms
Before the House settlement, men's D1 tennis was an equivalency sport, capped at 4.5 scholarships that a coach could split across as many players as they wanted. Women's D1 tennis worked differently: it was a head-count sport, capped at 8 full scholarships, no splitting allowed. Under both systems, a program could still carry walk-ons beyond that scholarship count. There was no NCAA sport-specific roster cap comparable to what exists now.
The House settlement, approved by the court on June 6, 2025, eliminated those sport-specific scholarship caps for schools that opted into the settlement and replaced them with roster limits instead. For tennis, that roster limit is 10 players, for both men's and women's teams. A participating school can now offer a scholarship, full or partial, to any or all of those 10 roster spots. It generally cannot keep a declared roster larger than 10, aside from athletes covered by the exemption described below.
Team | Old model | Old scholarship limit | New roster limit (participating schools) |
|---|---|---|---|
Men's tennis | Equivalency (splittable) | 4.5 | 10 |
Women's tennis | Head-count (full rides only) | 8 | 10 |
The practical shift: more potential scholarship money per roster spot, but a hard ceiling on how many total spots exist. For a men's program that used to spread 4.5 scholarships across a bigger squad that included walk-ons, that is a real tightening of how many total players make the team, even though the scholarship money available per player went up. For women's programs, the shift is different: the old head-count rule meant only 8 players could get any athletic aid at all, no matter how many walk-ons filled out the roster. Now a coach can spread aid across up to 10 spots instead of just 8, which is a real gain in flexibility even though the walk-on math tightens the same way it does on the men's side.
This only applies to schools that opted in
The roster limit is not automatic for every D1 program. Schools in the settlement's defendant conferences (the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, and SEC) are automatically subject to the settlement's terms. Every other Division I school had to decide for itself whether to opt in, with a final deadline of June 30, 2025, to declare its intent for the 2025-26 academic year. A school that did not opt in generally continues to operate under the old scholarship-limit rules, not the new roster limit.
Not every school opted in. The Ivy League announced it would not join the settlement framework at all, consistent with its long-standing model of no athletic scholarships. If your child is being recruited by a school you are not certain about, ask directly whether that program opted into the settlement. It changes both the scholarship math and the roster math for that specific team.
School status | Tennis scholarship rules | Tennis roster limit |
|---|---|---|
Opted into House settlement | No sport-specific scholarship cap; up to 10 roster spots can carry aid | 10 |
Did not opt in | Old scholarship limits remain (4.5 men's equivalency, 8 women's head-count) | No new House roster limit |
D1 tennis used to run on a scholarship-money limit. At schools that opted into the House v. NCAA settlement, it now runs on a 10-player roster limit instead, for both men's and women's teams. That is not a minor tweak. It changes how many spots actually exist on a team, not just how much money is available to fill them.
If you already read our breakdown of how scholarship limits work across D1, D2, and D3, you know the D1 roster number is 10. This post covers what that post does not: why that number changed, what got eliminated to get there, and what it actually means for how many spots open up for a recruit in a given year. If you want the broader picture of how coaches actually allocate scholarship money, our complete guide to NCAA tennis scholarships covers that ground.
What changed, in plain terms
Before the House settlement, men's D1 tennis was an equivalency sport, capped at 4.5 scholarships that a coach could split across as many players as they wanted. Women's D1 tennis worked differently: it was a head-count sport, capped at 8 full scholarships, no splitting allowed. Under both systems, a program could still carry walk-ons beyond that scholarship count. There was no NCAA sport-specific roster cap comparable to what exists now.
The House settlement, approved by the court on June 6, 2025, eliminated those sport-specific scholarship caps for schools that opted into the settlement and replaced them with roster limits instead. For tennis, that roster limit is 10 players, for both men's and women's teams. A participating school can now offer a scholarship, full or partial, to any or all of those 10 roster spots. It generally cannot keep a declared roster larger than 10, aside from athletes covered by the exemption described below.
Team | Old model | Old scholarship limit | New roster limit (participating schools) |
|---|---|---|---|
Men's tennis | Equivalency (splittable) | 4.5 | 10 |
Women's tennis | Head-count (full rides only) | 8 | 10 |
The practical shift: more potential scholarship money per roster spot, but a hard ceiling on how many total spots exist. For a men's program that used to spread 4.5 scholarships across a bigger squad that included walk-ons, that is a real tightening of how many total players make the team, even though the scholarship money available per player went up. For women's programs, the shift is different: the old head-count rule meant only 8 players could get any athletic aid at all, no matter how many walk-ons filled out the roster. Now a coach can spread aid across up to 10 spots instead of just 8, which is a real gain in flexibility even though the walk-on math tightens the same way it does on the men's side.
This only applies to schools that opted in
The roster limit is not automatic for every D1 program. Schools in the settlement's defendant conferences (the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, and SEC) are automatically subject to the settlement's terms. Every other Division I school had to decide for itself whether to opt in, with a final deadline of June 30, 2025, to declare its intent for the 2025-26 academic year. A school that did not opt in generally continues to operate under the old scholarship-limit rules, not the new roster limit.
Not every school opted in. The Ivy League announced it would not join the settlement framework at all, consistent with its long-standing model of no athletic scholarships. If your child is being recruited by a school you are not certain about, ask directly whether that program opted into the settlement. It changes both the scholarship math and the roster math for that specific team.
School status | Tennis scholarship rules | Tennis roster limit |
|---|---|---|
Opted into House settlement | No sport-specific scholarship cap; up to 10 roster spots can carry aid | 10 |
Did not opt in | Old scholarship limits remain (4.5 men's equivalency, 8 women's head-count) | No new House roster limit |
What happened to walk-ons
The old model let programs carry walk-ons beyond the scholarship-funded portion of the roster, without a hard cap forcing a coach to choose between a scholarship recruit and an unpaid walk-on for the same spot. At a participating school, a newly added non-scholarship player now generally uses one of the 10 available roster places, the same as a scholarship player. A walk-on is not prohibited. A walk-on consumes a roster spot.
This is the real recruiting takeaway for a family evaluating "preferred walk-on" interest from a D1 tennis program. That offer should be understood as a roster commitment inside a fixed 10-spot team, not as an invitation to join an otherwise open-ended squad the way it might have been read a few years ago.
The Designated Student-Athlete exception
The settlement created a specific exception for athletes whose roster spots would have been eliminated by the immediate application of the new limits. A Designated Student-Athlete generally had to have been certified as eligible to practice or compete for the 2024-25 season before April 7, 2025, or recruited before April 7, 2025 with an assurance of a 2025-26 roster spot. Athletes who qualify do not count toward their sport's roster limit for the rest of their college eligibility, which for tennis generally runs on the same clock we cover in how many years a tennis d1-tennis-roster-limits-after-the-house-settlementathlete can actually compete.
This designation was not automatic for every athlete who happened to be on a roster. A participating school had to determine in good faith which athletes met the criteria and submit that list to the NCAA by July 6, 2025. Once submitted, that list could not be revised.
What this means in practice: a program can currently carry more than 10 total tennis players if some of them are Designated Student-Athletes, but incoming recruits are filling spots within the 10-player structure, not an expanded one. Rosters for winter and spring sports, which is generally how tennis is classified for this purpose, needed to be at or below the limit by the first day of competition or December 1, 2025, whichever came first, aside from designated athletes. Confirm directly with any program you are talking to whether their current roster still includes designated athletes carried over from that transition, since that affects how many actual openings exist for a new recruit.
Financial pressure on tennis programs is real, but be careful about the cause
Tennis is not a revenue sport, and the settlement's new revenue-sharing model directs the largest new spending toward football and basketball first. That has added real financial pressure on athletic departments deciding which non-revenue sports to keep funding at full strength. Division I tennis has seen program cuts in recent years, including women's tennis at Central Arkansas and men's and women's tennis at Eastern Illinois, and additional programs have announced reductions since. Reasons vary by school and can include operating costs, conference realignment, enrollment pressure, and general athletic-department budget strategy, not the House settlement alone. If a program you are talking to has been publicly discussed as at risk of elimination, that is a conversation to have directly with the coach and athletic department, ideally during an official or unofficial visit, before you commit time to that recruitment, not something to find out about after signing.
What happened to walk-ons
The old model let programs carry walk-ons beyond the scholarship-funded portion of the roster, without a hard cap forcing a coach to choose between a scholarship recruit and an unpaid walk-on for the same spot. At a participating school, a newly added non-scholarship player now generally uses one of the 10 available roster places, the same as a scholarship player. A walk-on is not prohibited. A walk-on consumes a roster spot.
This is the real recruiting takeaway for a family evaluating "preferred walk-on" interest from a D1 tennis program. That offer should be understood as a roster commitment inside a fixed 10-spot team, not as an invitation to join an otherwise open-ended squad the way it might have been read a few years ago.
The Designated Student-Athlete exception
The settlement created a specific exception for athletes whose roster spots would have been eliminated by the immediate application of the new limits. A Designated Student-Athlete generally had to have been certified as eligible to practice or compete for the 2024-25 season before April 7, 2025, or recruited before April 7, 2025 with an assurance of a 2025-26 roster spot. Athletes who qualify do not count toward their sport's roster limit for the rest of their college eligibility, which for tennis generally runs on the same clock we cover in how many years a tennis d1-tennis-roster-limits-after-the-house-settlementathlete can actually compete.
This designation was not automatic for every athlete who happened to be on a roster. A participating school had to determine in good faith which athletes met the criteria and submit that list to the NCAA by July 6, 2025. Once submitted, that list could not be revised.
What this means in practice: a program can currently carry more than 10 total tennis players if some of them are Designated Student-Athletes, but incoming recruits are filling spots within the 10-player structure, not an expanded one. Rosters for winter and spring sports, which is generally how tennis is classified for this purpose, needed to be at or below the limit by the first day of competition or December 1, 2025, whichever came first, aside from designated athletes. Confirm directly with any program you are talking to whether their current roster still includes designated athletes carried over from that transition, since that affects how many actual openings exist for a new recruit.
Financial pressure on tennis programs is real, but be careful about the cause
Tennis is not a revenue sport, and the settlement's new revenue-sharing model directs the largest new spending toward football and basketball first. That has added real financial pressure on athletic departments deciding which non-revenue sports to keep funding at full strength. Division I tennis has seen program cuts in recent years, including women's tennis at Central Arkansas and men's and women's tennis at Eastern Illinois, and additional programs have announced reductions since. Reasons vary by school and can include operating costs, conference realignment, enrollment pressure, and general athletic-department budget strategy, not the House settlement alone. If a program you are talking to has been publicly discussed as at risk of elimination, that is a conversation to have directly with the coach and athletic department, ideally during an official or unofficial visit, before you commit time to that recruitment, not something to find out about after signing.
Frequently asked questions
Does the 10-player roster limit apply to D2 and D3 tennis too?
No. The roster limit described here is specific to Division I schools that opted into the House settlement. Division II retains its own equivalency limits for tennis, and Division III does not offer athletic scholarships at all, covered in our D1, D2, and D3 scholarship limits breakdown.
If a program opted in, does that guarantee more scholarship money for my child?
No. Opting in means a program is allowed to offer scholarship money, up to a full ride, to any or all of its 10 roster spots. It does not require the school to fund every spot fully. Budget decisions are still made school by school, so ask a program directly what portion of its 10 spots are currently funded.
Does a smaller roster mean fewer chances to get recruited?
It means fewer total spots per team than some programs used to carry when walk-ons were not counted against a hard cap. It does not necessarily mean fewer scholarship opportunities, particularly for women's programs where the cap moved from 8 head-count spots to 10 roster spots eligible for aid. The real effect is fewer margins for error: with only 10 total spots, a coach has less room to take on a project player or a depth walk-on than under the old model.
Should I ask a coach whether their program opted into the settlement?
Yes. It is a direct, reasonable question, and the answer changes both the scholarship math and the roster math for that specific team. A program that did not opt in is still operating under the old scholarship-limit model.
Common mistakes parents make with this
Assuming "roster limit" and "scholarship limit" mean the same thing. They do not anymore. One caps total players, the other caps funding, and at participating schools they are no longer the same number for the same reason.
Treating a preferred walk-on offer the way families treated it a few years ago, as a foot in the door on a large team. At a participating school, it is a commitment inside a fixed 10-spot roster.
Assuming every D1 program is playing under the new rules. Some schools did not opt in, and Ivy League schools specifically are outside this framework entirely.
Not asking whether a target program's current roster still includes Designated Student-Athletes carried over above 10, which affects how many actual openings exist for incoming recruits.
Assuming a program cut is automatically about the House settlement. Some tennis program eliminations predate the settlement entirely and were driven by other financial or institutional factors.
The real answer
At participating D1 tennis programs, the potential number of athletic scholarships went up, because the old sport-specific scholarship caps were eliminated. The number of total roster spots became fixed at 10, and for programs that used to lean on a deep walk-on bench, that is a real tightening. Both things are true at once, and a parent who only hears "more scholarship money" without hearing "fixed at 10 total spots" is working from half the picture. Confirm a program's opt-in status, ask what share of its 10 spots are currently funded, and ask whether the current roster still carries Designated Student-Athletes above 10 before you build any expectations around a specific offer.
Sources
NCAA.org, "DI Board of Directors formally adopts changes to roster limits," June 23, 2025: https://www.ncaa.org/news/2025/6/23/media-center-di-board-of-directors-formally-adopts-changes-to-roster-limits.aspx — confirms the June 30, 2025 opt-in declaration deadline and the Designated Student-Athlete exemption structure.
NCAA Division I Governance, "Question and Answer: Implementation of the House Settlement," June 2025 PDF: https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/governance/d1/legislation/2024-25/June2025D1Gov_PhaseThreeInstSetQuestionandAnswer.pdf — confirms Designated Student-Athlete eligibility criteria, the July 6, 2025 submission deadline, and that non-participating institutions are not subject to the roster limits.
Ropes & Gray, "House v. NCAA Settlement Approved," June 2025: https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2025/06/house-v-ncaa-settlement-approved-era-of-direct-payments-to-college-athletes-begins — confirms settlement approval date and the Ivy League's decision not to opt in.
NIL Revolution (law firm alert), "NCAA Settlement Implementation: Key Insights for Division I Institutions," June 24, 2025: https://www.nilrevolution.com/2025/06/ncaa-settlement-implementation-key-insights-for-division-i-institutions/ — confirms the April 7, 2025 cutoff date used in the Designated Student-Athlete definition.
SI.com, "A Look at Roster Limits for Boston College After House v NCAA Settlement," June 2025: https://www.si.com/college/bostoncollege/all-things-bc/a-look-at-roster-limits-for-boston-college-after-house-v-ncaa-settlement — and "Roster Limits for Every Alabama Sport Following House v. NCAA Settlement": https://www.si.com/college/alabama/all-things-bama/roster-limits-every-alabama-sport-following-house-v-ncaa-settlement — sport-by-sport old scholarship limit vs. new roster limit figures for men's and women's tennis (4.5-to-10 and 8-to-10).
CBS News / WCCO, "How Many Students Earn Athletic Scholarships?": https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/how-many-students-earn-athletic-scholarships — and ESPN, South Carolina scholarship coverage: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11588029/university-south-carolina-gamecocks-guarantee-four-year-scholarships-headcount-sports — confirm women's tennis was classified as a head-count sport prior to the settlement.
Associated Press (via Mining Gazette), "College tennis facing threats of cuts...," Aug. 2025: https://www.mininggazette.com/sports/2025/08/college-tennis-facing-threats-of-cuts-at-same-time-many-of-its-alums-are-starring-in-pro-ranks/ — confirms recent program cuts, including Central Arkansas and Eastern Illinois tennis, and ITA comments on financial pressure on non-revenue sports.
Frequently asked questions
Does the 10-player roster limit apply to D2 and D3 tennis too?
No. The roster limit described here is specific to Division I schools that opted into the House settlement. Division II retains its own equivalency limits for tennis, and Division III does not offer athletic scholarships at all, covered in our D1, D2, and D3 scholarship limits breakdown.
If a program opted in, does that guarantee more scholarship money for my child?
No. Opting in means a program is allowed to offer scholarship money, up to a full ride, to any or all of its 10 roster spots. It does not require the school to fund every spot fully. Budget decisions are still made school by school, so ask a program directly what portion of its 10 spots are currently funded.
Does a smaller roster mean fewer chances to get recruited?
It means fewer total spots per team than some programs used to carry when walk-ons were not counted against a hard cap. It does not necessarily mean fewer scholarship opportunities, particularly for women's programs where the cap moved from 8 head-count spots to 10 roster spots eligible for aid. The real effect is fewer margins for error: with only 10 total spots, a coach has less room to take on a project player or a depth walk-on than under the old model.
Should I ask a coach whether their program opted into the settlement?
Yes. It is a direct, reasonable question, and the answer changes both the scholarship math and the roster math for that specific team. A program that did not opt in is still operating under the old scholarship-limit model.
Common mistakes parents make with this
Assuming "roster limit" and "scholarship limit" mean the same thing. They do not anymore. One caps total players, the other caps funding, and at participating schools they are no longer the same number for the same reason.
Treating a preferred walk-on offer the way families treated it a few years ago, as a foot in the door on a large team. At a participating school, it is a commitment inside a fixed 10-spot roster.
Assuming every D1 program is playing under the new rules. Some schools did not opt in, and Ivy League schools specifically are outside this framework entirely.
Not asking whether a target program's current roster still includes Designated Student-Athletes carried over above 10, which affects how many actual openings exist for incoming recruits.
Assuming a program cut is automatically about the House settlement. Some tennis program eliminations predate the settlement entirely and were driven by other financial or institutional factors.
The real answer
At participating D1 tennis programs, the potential number of athletic scholarships went up, because the old sport-specific scholarship caps were eliminated. The number of total roster spots became fixed at 10, and for programs that used to lean on a deep walk-on bench, that is a real tightening. Both things are true at once, and a parent who only hears "more scholarship money" without hearing "fixed at 10 total spots" is working from half the picture. Confirm a program's opt-in status, ask what share of its 10 spots are currently funded, and ask whether the current roster still carries Designated Student-Athletes above 10 before you build any expectations around a specific offer.
Sources
NCAA.org, "DI Board of Directors formally adopts changes to roster limits," June 23, 2025: https://www.ncaa.org/news/2025/6/23/media-center-di-board-of-directors-formally-adopts-changes-to-roster-limits.aspx — confirms the June 30, 2025 opt-in declaration deadline and the Designated Student-Athlete exemption structure.
NCAA Division I Governance, "Question and Answer: Implementation of the House Settlement," June 2025 PDF: https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/governance/d1/legislation/2024-25/June2025D1Gov_PhaseThreeInstSetQuestionandAnswer.pdf — confirms Designated Student-Athlete eligibility criteria, the July 6, 2025 submission deadline, and that non-participating institutions are not subject to the roster limits.
Ropes & Gray, "House v. NCAA Settlement Approved," June 2025: https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2025/06/house-v-ncaa-settlement-approved-era-of-direct-payments-to-college-athletes-begins — confirms settlement approval date and the Ivy League's decision not to opt in.
NIL Revolution (law firm alert), "NCAA Settlement Implementation: Key Insights for Division I Institutions," June 24, 2025: https://www.nilrevolution.com/2025/06/ncaa-settlement-implementation-key-insights-for-division-i-institutions/ — confirms the April 7, 2025 cutoff date used in the Designated Student-Athlete definition.
SI.com, "A Look at Roster Limits for Boston College After House v NCAA Settlement," June 2025: https://www.si.com/college/bostoncollege/all-things-bc/a-look-at-roster-limits-for-boston-college-after-house-v-ncaa-settlement — and "Roster Limits for Every Alabama Sport Following House v. NCAA Settlement": https://www.si.com/college/alabama/all-things-bama/roster-limits-every-alabama-sport-following-house-v-ncaa-settlement — sport-by-sport old scholarship limit vs. new roster limit figures for men's and women's tennis (4.5-to-10 and 8-to-10).
CBS News / WCCO, "How Many Students Earn Athletic Scholarships?": https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/how-many-students-earn-athletic-scholarships — and ESPN, South Carolina scholarship coverage: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11588029/university-south-carolina-gamecocks-guarantee-four-year-scholarships-headcount-sports — confirm women's tennis was classified as a head-count sport prior to the settlement.
Associated Press (via Mining Gazette), "College tennis facing threats of cuts...," Aug. 2025: https://www.mininggazette.com/sports/2025/08/college-tennis-facing-threats-of-cuts-at-same-time-many-of-its-alums-are-starring-in-pro-ranks/ — confirms recent program cuts, including Central Arkansas and Eastern Illinois tennis, and ITA comments on financial pressure on non-revenue sports.
It's not the most talented kids who get scholarships.
It's the ones with the right plan.
Our playbooks break down timelines, outreach,
and scholarship realities - by sport.
It's not the most talented kids who get scholarships.
It's the ones with the right plan.
Our playbooks break down timelines, outreach,
and scholarship realities - by sport.
