Starting in 2025–26, the NCAA’s House settlement will allow Division I schools to directly pay athletes up to $20.5 million annually through revenue-sharing. It’s a seismic shift in the college sports landscape, and one that nearly every Power Five and FBS school is opting into. But not everyone is hopping on board.
A total of 54 Division I schools chose to sit out this new model, with many citing operational and financial concerns, roster caps, and legal uncertainty - particularly surrounding Title IX - as reasons for their decision.
Here’s a breakdown of the schools that opted out, organized by conference, followed by the list of D-II and D-III schools that chose to opt into revenue-sharing for their D-I programs.
Full Conferences That Opted Out
Patriot League (10 of 10)
Ivy League (8 of 8)
Partial Conference Opt-Outs
Northeast Conference (8 of 9)
(LIU was the only NEC school to opt in)
Big Sky (5 of 10)
Atlantic Sun (5 of 12)
Big South (4 of 9)
MAAC (3 of 13)
Southern Conference (2 of 10)
Southland (2 of 12)
America East (2 of 9)
MEAC (1 of 8)
Summit League (1 of 9)
Mountain West (1 of 11)
Ohio Valley (1 of 11)
Big West (1 of 11)
D-II and D-III Schools That Opted IN (for D-I Sports)
Some D-II and D-III institutions field Division I teams in certain sports. These nine schools chose to opt in to revenue-sharing specifically for those teams:
School | D-I Sports Participating | |
|---|---|---|
Men’s Ice Hockey, Women’s Ice Hockey | ||
Men’s Ice Hockey, Women’s Ice Hockey | ||
Men’s Ice Hockey, Women’s Ice Hockey | ||
Men’s Ice Hockey | ||
Men’s Ice Hockey | ||
Men’s Ice Hockey, Women’s Soccer | ||
Baseball | ||
Men’s & Women’s Fencing, Men’s & Women’s Lacrosse | ||
Men’s Golf, Women’s Golf |
Why Some Schools Opted Out
While the benefits of revenue-sharing are clear - direct pay for athletes, competitive recruiting advantages - many smaller schools took a more cautious approach:
Roster Cap Concerns: The settlement introduces roster size limits (e.g., 105 in football), which could significantly impact team composition and tuition-revenue-generating walk-ons.
Title IX Uncertainty: Revenue-sharing models that lean heavily toward football and men’s basketball are likely to face Title IX scrutiny. Some schools want to wait until legal precedent offers clarity.
Financial Limitations: With tighter budgets and smaller enrollments, many of these schools feared the economic burden of sharing up to $20.5 million annually.
Timing & Planning: Some schools, like Omaha, cited already-set budgets for 2025–26 as a reason to delay participation until further planning is feasible.
What It All means
While every Power Five school and nearly every FBS program opted in, this moment still marks a critical divide in the college sports landscape. The era of direct athlete compensation is here, but not everyone is ready.
The schools opting out face trade-offs in recruiting, prestige, and competitiveness. But they also avoid legal risks and preserve flexibility as the NCAA’s future continues to evolve.
The institutions opting in, especially those from smaller divisions, are signaling their belief in the long-term value of revenue-sharing as a tool for growth, branding, and athlete opportunity.
As the legal and legislative battles unfold in the background, expect more movement ahead. This list might look very different by the time the 2026 season rolls around.
