UCA opts out of NCAA Settlement, citing roster limits, enrollment impact

CONWAY, Ark. — The University of Central Arkansas has decided to chart its own course in the evolving world of college athletics.

On July 1, as the landmark House v. NCAA settlement ushered in a new era of direct payments to student-athletes, UCA announced it would not opt in … at least for now.

The move sets UCA apart from the majority of Division I schools and reveals the complexities facing smaller athletic programs as college sports undergo rapid change.

The House v. NCAA settlement, approved on June 6 by U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken, resolved three class-action lawsuits that targeted the NCAA’s longstanding restrictions on athlete compensation.

The settlement mandates not only a $2.8 billion payout in back damages to athletes dating as far back as 2016, but also enacts sweeping changes for the 2025-26 academic year: up to $20.5 million in annual revenue sharing per school, new roster limits by sport, and the removal of scholarship caps.

While many hailed the decision as a long-overdue recognition of athletes’ value, it forced universities to confront a new financial and operational realit.

In an interview, UCA athletics director Matt Whiting was candid about the university’s rationale.

“We’ve made the decision at UCA, for 2025-26, to opt out,” Whiting told Sam Lane with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. “Revenue sharing and scholarship limits are really one piece, but the big thing for us is the roster limitation.”

For UCA, the prospect of slicing dozens of roster spots from its football and baseball teams, among others, was untenable. The football program typically carries about 130 student-athletes—well above the new cap of 105. Baseball, with an average roster of 40, would likewise be forced to make cuts.

Whiting framed the decision as a matter of institutional mission and survival.

“We can be a revenue driver for UCA. We’re proud of the number of student-athletes that we have in our program. Opting in would require us to reduce by a significant amount of student-athletes in our program. And so that’s obviously lost revenue for the university during a time where enrollment across the country is declining,” he said.

At UCA, where athletics is deeply tied to campus life and tuition revenue from athletes is significant, the loss of paying student-athletes would not just hit the locker room—but the university’s bottom line.

Across the country, the NCAA’s new settlement has sparked a wave of anxious recalculations, especially among smaller Division I schools.

While powerhouse programs in the so-called Power Five conferences are expected to meet or exceed the $20.5 million revenue-sharing cap, schools with leaner budgets like UCA, whose entire athletics budget for 2024-25 is just $8.3 million face a starkly different equation.

“You’re adding a $20.5 million expense to your athletic department budget. That’s tough to do, right? I think we’re all operating lean, and we’re all operating to the best of our ability,” Whiting said. “I think the revenue across the board in college athletics is different at all levels, right? And so, ultimately, I don’t know that that is very instrumental at our level, but we’ll see.”

Under the new rules, schools that opt in will be allowed to directly compensate athletes up to $20.5 million per year, with the cap set to increase by about 4% annually through 2034. The changes also eliminate scholarship limits, meaning every rostered athlete can receive a full scholarship, a benefit for some, but a logistical challenge for programs already stretched thin.

The impact of these changes is not uniform. For larger schools, the settlement provides a way to retain top talent and remain competitive in the high-stakes world of college sports.

For mid-majors like UCA, the risk calculus is different.

Keeping more student-athletes on the roster means more tuition revenue and a broader campus impact. Cutting athletes to comply with new roster limits would mean fewer students, less revenue, and potentially, a diminished campus experience.

UCA is not alone in its approach. While approximately 82% of Division I schools opted in to the settlement for the 2025-26 year, a number of smaller institutions are waiting to see how the new landscape develops. Legal risks, Title IX compliance, and the uncertainty of how revenue sharing will affect athletic departments’ finances are all in play.

The NCAA’s implementation of the settlement has also drawn criticism and concern from coaches, athletes, and administrators.

Some argue that the new roster limits will force programs to cut opportunities for aspiring athletes, particularly walk-ons and those in non-revenue sports. Others worry that the new system will exacerbate the financial gulf between rich and poor schools, further entrenching the advantages of the largest programs.

For now, UCA’s decision to opt out is not permanent. Schools are permitted to revisit the decision annually, with the next deadline for the 2026-27 academic year set for March 1, 2026.

“We’re going to monitor things,” Whiting said. “You don’t know what happens in the future, and it’s a unique time. Who knows what will be right for all institutions, but we feel opting out at this time is in the best interest for University of Central Arkansas.”

This wait-and-see approach reflects broader uncertainty across college sports.

As universities grapple with declining enrollment, rising costs, and shifting expectations from athletes, alumni, and fans, the House settlement is both a catalyst and a crucible for change. Some see it as a long overdue reckoning, others as a challenge that could threaten the viability of smaller programs.

What is clear is that the stakes are higher than ever. For schools like UCA, the decision is about more than compliance or financial calculus. It is about preserving opportunities for students, sustaining the fabric of campus life, and adapting to a landscape that is shifting beneath their feet.

The next chapter in college athletics is being written in real time. For now, UCA has chosen caution over compliance.