The Impact of the House vs. NCAA Settlement on Division II Swimming and Scholarships

In NCAA Division II, every athletic program falls under the “equivalency” model. That means scholarships can be split among multiple athletes rather than awarding full rides. For swimming and diving, each team is capped at 8.1 equivalent scholarships per gender 

A school might fund 16 women’s swimmers with half scholarships each, or give a few full scholarships depending on need and strategy.  Most D-II swimmers receive partial scholarships—items like tuition, books, travel, or housing—not full rides .

Division II scholarships help athletes balance academic, athletic, and sometimes even work commitments, reflecting the division’s “Life in the Balance” ethos.

Many find the recruiting process overwhelming and time consuming and would like help navigating the journey.  College Swimming Consulting can help make the process smooth and easy.  Visit collegeswimmingconsulting.com for more information!

Why Choose D-II for Swimming?

There are many excellent reasons swimmers might choose this path:

1. Competitive Opportunities: Many D-II teams post times qualifying for national meets and even Olympic Trials.

2. Flexible Scholarships: Coaches can spread 8.1 scholarships across swimmers, tailoring offers to meet diverse needs.

3. Smaller Campus Feel: Many athletes prefer D-II for its combination of athletic rigor and more personalized campus experiences.

4. Partial Academic Scholarships: In addition to athletic awards, academic and need-based aid help many students close financial gaps—common in D-II settings.

Scholarship Mechanics and Team Composition

• Equivalent Model: Up to 8.1 scholarship equivalents per D-II swim team—split any way the coach deems best 

• Partial Awards Are Typical: Few swimmers receive full scholarships; most get partial assistance meant to lower overall school costs 

• Additional Scholarships: Academic awards and grants further support athletes who don’t receive full athletic funding.

• Roster vs. Scholarship Balance: Schools must navigate between scholarship limits and ideal roster sizes, often fielding more swimmers than scholarships allow.

The House v. NCAA Lawsuit and Its Impact

Summary of the Case

Filed in 2020 by swimmer Grant House and basketball player Sedona Prince, House v. NCAA challenged the NCAA’s bans on athlete compensation and benefit limitations. In June 2025, Judge Claudia Wilken approved a historic $2.8 billion settlement.

Key provisions:

• Schools can directly share up to $20.5 million annually with athletes starting July 1, 2025 (with ~4% annual increases).

• Traditional scholarship limits are removed, replaced with team roster limits (currently 30 swimmers/divers per gender).

• Athletes will also receive back pay (2016–2024).

• A new enforcement body—Independent College Sports Commission—will oversee adherence.
  

Impact on Division II Swimming

Although the settlement technically applies only to Division I, its ripple effects will influence D-II:

A. Pressure on Olympic-Sport Funding

• Revenue is projected to favor football and basketball (85–90%), leaving Olympic sports—like swimming—with a small share.

• Early reports show swimmers—especially in D-II—could lose funding due to budget reallocation or sport cuts 

B. Roster Caps vs. Scholarship Caps

• With roster limits replacing scholarship limits, D-I programs may reduce teams or roster spots.

• If D-II schools follow suit, student-athletes could face roster cuts, eligibility grandfathering notwithstanding.

C. Potential Funding Shifts

• D-II schools may reallocate partial scholarship funding or reduce sports offerings to balance their budgets.

D. Resource Reprompts & Title IX

• As revenue flows shift, maintaining gender equity (Title IX compliance) becomes more intricate. Women’s and men’s programs must be balanced appropriately .

• D-II schools likely will adopt resource pools per gender, ensuring fair spending across men’s and women’s swimming/dive programs.

E. Opportunity for Innovation

• Some D-II programs will launch sport-specific fundraising (aquatic excellence funds, donor platforms) to support swimming scholarships beyond the NCAA.

• Tap into local and national sponsors (e.g., swimwear, nutrition brands), tie athlete NIL deals with swim-specific partners, and highlight Olympic pathways to donors .

What Comes Next: Strategic Outlook for D‑II Swimming

Short-Term (Next 12 Months)

• Budget reviews at D-II athletic departments will assess cost-savings from shifting national revenue-sharing norms.

• Some programs may face cuts or downgrades amid financial uncertainty; others will double-down to stay competitive or grow.

• Scholarship and recruiting strategies may adjust: fewer large partial awards in weaker sports and more full scholarships in targeted areas.

Medium-Term (2–3 Years)

• New funding models: Teams may foster booster-backed scholarship funds, sponsorship partnerships, and NIL-focused athlete deals.

• Retain Title IX equity: As funding priorities shift, schools must carefully evaluate gender equity—across scholarships, roster spots, and resource allocation.

• Competitive repositioning: Top-performing school programs (e.g., Drury, Indianapolis, Nova Southeastern) may lean into branding themselves as elite D-II Olympic feeders.

Long-Term (4+ Years)

• Program preservation or decline: Programs that fail to adapt may be at-risk, while adaptable ones could thrive and become Olympic pipelines.

• Recruitment advantage: Stable, well-funded D-II programs may appeal to swimmers seeking balance between sport and academics without D-I pressures.

• Evolving scholarship models: The old 8.1-equivalency model may fade as new aid structures develop—beyond pure athletic scholarships.

What Swimmers and Families Should Understand

1. Scholarships will still exist: D-II funding isn’t disappearing—rather, schools will want smart allocations.

2. Stay informed: Watch board decisions on sport funding; ask athletic departments how revenue-sharing will affect scholarship strategies.

3. Tap fundraising and NIL: Understand options for athlete compensation beyond scholarship, especially via partnerships and NIL deals.

4. Explore all divisions: A top-tier D-II program may offer more scholarship money & swim resources than a mid-tier D-I team.

5. Focus on equity and health: Ask programs how they plan to maintain programs under shifting budgets.

Conclusion

The House v. NCAA settlement marks a watershed in collegiate athletics. While Division II isn’t directly routed into the revenue-sharing provisions, its secondary effects—on budgets, program viability, NCAA precedent, and Title IX expectations—will profoundly affect D-II swimming. Teams that anticipate these tectonic shifts, engage donors, and innovate in scholarship distribution and NIL opportunities could flourish. Conversely, programs that cling to outdated funding models may struggle.

For swimmer-students and their families, Division II still offers a strong, balanced route: high-level competition, meaningful scholarship aid, and academic experience. But it’s now more critical than ever to engage early with coaches, monitor school athletic budgets, and evaluate financial aid packages holistically. In the coming years, swimming at many D-II colleges will live or die by their ability to evolve—becoming more athlete-centric, entrepreneurially funded, and equity-driven than ever before.

THE KEY FACTOR IS FINDING WHERE YOU FIT BEST!I can build a custom list of colleges based on your swimmer’s times, academic goals, and preferences. I’ve been told countless times how much easier the college recruiting process was with my assistance. Contact College Swimming Consulting to make sure you aren’t missing any colleges that would be the perfect fit for your swimmer!