The post-House settlement recruiting environment.

The current status as of mid-2026.

The House v. NCAA settlement was approved on June 6, 2025, and its provisions took effect on July 1, 2025. As of mid-2026, one full academic year of post-settlement operation has occurred. This section covers what the current status actually is, since the environment remains in genuine flux and generic recruiting content on the internet has largely not caught up to the operational reality.

The core settlement framework is now in effect and operating. The revenue-sharing cap ($20.5 million for 2025-26) is being applied at opt-in schools. Sport-specific roster limits (football 105, basketball 15, baseball 34, soccer 28, and others) are being enforced. The NIL Go clearinghouse has processed more than 21,000 deals worth approximately $166.5 million in approved value since launching in June 2025, with an additional $29.3 million in deals rejected. The Written Offer of Athletics Aid has replaced the National Letter of Intent as the commitment document at scholarship-offering programs.

At the same time, substantial uncertainty remains. The University Participation Agreement, which gives the College Sports Commission enforcement authority, has been the subject of extended negotiation and remains not fully adopted at all Power Four programs as of mid-2026. The Ili-Mirer class action lawsuit filed in June 2025 by USC linebacker Talanoa Ili and Stanford quarterback Charlie Mirer challenges the NIL Go clearinghouse and the $20.5 million revenue-sharing cap under antitrust law. Congressional legislation, the Protect College Sports Act of 2026, is pending and could federally preempt some of the settlement's provisions. NIL Go's review backlog on deals involving associated entities has created substantial delays that continue to draw scrutiny.

What this means for families making current-cycle decisions

Three practical implications for families in the 2026-27 recruiting cycle:

• The core framework is real and enforceable. Roster limits are being applied. Revenue-sharing distributions are occurring. NIL Go reviews are the current gatekeeping mechanism for third-party deals. Families should plan around these provisions as the operational reality, not as pending future changes.
• Enforcement teeth remain uncertain. Some observers and participants believe that CSC enforcement remains too weak to fully police settlement compliance, and that programs continue to arrange NIL and revenue-share distributions in ways that push against or exceed settlement limits. This uncertainty affects the practical value of NIL commitments in particular.
• Structural changes may still occur. The Ili-Mirer suit could suspend NIL Go enforcement. Federal legislation could preempt settlement terms. Additional class actions could challenge other provisions. Families making significant decisions based on current settlement mechanics should build in awareness that specific provisions could change during a student-athlete's recruiting cycle.

The five-year path to the settlement.

The House settlement did not emerge from a single lawsuit. It resolves three separate antitrust class actions (House, Hubbard, and Carter) that built on a decade of prior litigation challenging NCAA amateurism restrictions. Understanding this history explains what the settlement actually resolved and what it did not. Families whose recruiting cycle is affected by these changes benefit from knowing what came before, because the pending legal challenges to the settlement often echo arguments from the earlier cases.

The prior cases that established the legal foundation

Four prior antitrust cases established the legal framework the House plaintiffs built on:

• O'Bannon v. NCAA (2014). Former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon successfully challenged NCAA restrictions on using athletes' names, images, and likenesses in video games and broadcasts. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the NCAA's compensation restrictions violated antitrust law, opening the door to subsequent challenges.
• Alston v. NCAA (2021). The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that NCAA restrictions on education-related benefits (computers, tutoring, study-abroad expenses) violated antitrust law. Justice Kavanaugh's concurring opinion signaled that broader restrictions on athlete compensation were vulnerable to future challenges.
• State NIL laws (2019-2021). California's Fair Pay to Play Act (signed 2019, effective 2023) triggered a cascade of state NIL laws that made NCAA amateurism restrictions unenforceable. The NCAA responded with interim NIL policies in July 2021 that permitted third-party NIL deals while attempting to maintain restrictions on pay-for-play arrangements.
• Johnson v. NCAA (ongoing). Separate litigation challenging whether student-athletes should be classified as employees under federal labor law. Not resolved by the House settlement.

The three cases the House settlement resolved

The settlement approved on June 6, 2025 combines resolution of three distinct class actions:

The combined settlement fund totals approximately $2.8 billion in back damages, paid over 10 years from 2025 through 2035. Approximately 101,935 athletes opted into the class by submitting claim forms, representing about 26.2% of the estimated 389,700 possible class members. Football and men's basketball players from Power Four programs are expected to receive the largest per-athlete shares.

What the settlement did not resolve

Understanding what the settlement did not address is as important as understanding what it did. Three specific questions remain unresolved:

• Employee status. Whether student-athletes should be classified as employees under federal labor law remains contested in the Johnson case and elsewhere. Employee classification would carry implications for wages, worker's compensation, unionization rights, and tax treatment that the House settlement's framework does not address.
• Title IX application to revenue sharing. How Title IX gender equity requirements apply to direct revenue-share distributions to athletes remains legally uncertain. Most schools have adopted distribution formulas that heavily weight football and men's basketball (approximately 75% + 15%), but this allocation could face Title IX challenges.
• The state NIL law patchwork. Seventeen states have NIL laws that arguably conflict with settlement provisions. The Ili-Mirer lawsuit filed in June 2025 challenges NIL Go and the revenue-sharing cap under both federal antitrust law and these state NIL statutes.

Revenue sharing and the 22% formula.

The settlement's most consequential forward-looking provision is direct revenue sharing between schools and student-athletes. For the 2025-26 academic year, opt-in schools may share up to $20.5 million per school with their athletes. This cap will grow annually and reach approximately $32.9 million by 2034-35. Understanding how the cap is calculated, how schools distribute their revenue-share pools, and what families should not assume about payments is essential for making informed recruiting decisions.

How the $20.5 million cap is calculated

The $20.5 million cap for 2025-26 represents approximately 22% of the average Power Five school's revenue from three specific categories: media rights, ticket sales, and sponsorships. The 22% figure was negotiated in the settlement and reflects a compromise between plaintiffs seeking higher percentages and defendants seeking lower ones. The cap grows annually based on projected Power Five revenue growth, at approximately 4% per year in the early years of the settlement, which is why the cap is expected to reach approximately $32.9 million by 2034-35.

The cap applies to combined revenue-share payments and other permitted benefits provided by the institution to student-athletes. Payments that exceed the cap in a given academic year count against the following year's cap, creating a deferred-payment carry-forward mechanism. This is intended to discourage cap violations by making excess payments a burden on future flexibility rather than a one-time event.

How schools actually distribute their revenue-share pools

The settlement does not require any specific distribution formula. Schools are free to allocate their $20.5 million pool as they choose, subject to Title IX considerations and any state law constraints. In practice, most Power Four schools have adopted distribution formulas that mirror the back-payment allocation from the settlement's damages calculation:

These distribution percentages are typical rather than mandatory. Some schools have adopted different allocations. Some have kept their specific allocation formulas confidential to preserve recruiting competitive advantage. The practical implication for families whose student-athletes are in Olympic sports (swimming, tennis, gymnastics, water polo, track and field, and others) is that direct revenue-share dollars are typically limited even at opt-in Power Four programs.

What families should not assume about revenue-share payments

Three specific assumptions have surfaced repeatedly in families' recruiting conversations that do not match the operational reality:

• Revenue-share payments are not automatic for all roster athletes at opt-in schools. Individual athlete allocations within each sport are determined by the school and the coaching staff, typically based on athletic value to the program. Star players may receive substantial individual allocations; other roster athletes may receive minimal or zero direct revenue-share payments.
• The distribution formula percentages apply to the school's revenue-share pool, not to individual athlete guarantees. A soccer player at an opt-in school with a 75/15/5/5 distribution has no guaranteed share of the 5% Olympic sports pool. That pool is allocated across all Olympic sports at the school combined, then within each sport based on the school's determination.
• Revenue-share payments do not replace need-based financial aid or athletic scholarships. These operate as additional compensation on top of the athletic scholarship. A student-athlete with a full athletic scholarship at an opt-in school may also receive a revenue-share payment; the two mechanisms are separate.

Roster limits and the Designated Student-Athlete provision.

The settlement replaced sport-specific scholarship caps with sport-specific roster limits. Under the new model, opt-in schools can offer full or partial scholarships to every player on the roster, subject to the total roster cap for the sport. This produces both opportunity (more scholarship spots available in absolute terms) and constraint (fewer total roster spots at many programs). The Designated Student-Athlete provision, added late in settlement negotiations, grandfathers certain existing athletes to smooth the transition.

Sport-specific roster limits for opt-in D1 programs

These limits apply only at schools that opt into the settlement. Non-opt-in D1 schools continue to operate under pre-settlement scholarship rules for their programs. The distinction matters practically: a family evaluating a program should verify whether the school has opted in and how the roster math actually looks at the specific program.

The Designated Student-Athlete provision in detail

The DSA provision was added late in settlement negotiations after Judge Wilken raised concerns that immediate roster limit implementation would eliminate approximately 5,000 athletes from rosters. The provision creates a one-time grandfathering mechanism with three key elements:

• Eligibility for DSA designation. Athletes who were on a team's roster during the 2024-25 academic year, or who were recruited before April 7, 2025, can be designated as DSAs by their institution. This includes athletes who had accepted verbal or written commitments even if they had not yet enrolled.
• Duration of exemption. DSA status exempts the athlete from roster limits for the duration of their remaining eligibility. Once designated, an athlete keeps DSA status regardless of transfers or other changes.
• Institutional discretion. Schools were not required to designate all eligible athletes as DSAs. Some schools chose to designate fewer athletes than eligible in order to accelerate roster contraction toward long-term limits. Schools submitted their DSA lists to the NCAA by July 6, 2025.

The July 6, 2025 deadline has passed. Institutions that opt into the settlement after 2025-26 cannot use the DSA exemption. This means that non-Power Four schools considering opt-in for 2026-27 or later must operate under full roster limits from the beginning of their opt-in period, without the grandfathering flexibility that Power Four schools received.

The practical implications for families in the 2026-27 recruiting cycle

Four specific effects reshape recruiting for families in the current cycle:

• Walk-on opportunities have contracted substantially at opt-in football programs. The 105 roster cap eliminated the traditional walk-on-to-scholarship pathway at most Power Four football programs. Families whose recruiting strategy assumed walk-on positioning need to recalibrate.
• Baseball roster availability is unusually tight through 2027. The reduction from ~40-person rosters to 34 combined with DSA grandfathering means some baseball programs are temporarily above the 34 cap and will not add new recruits until DSAs graduate or transfer. This affects baseball recruiting timing at many opt-in programs.
• Olympic sport roster spots are more constrained than they were pre-settlement. Sports like water polo, track and field, and swimming face particular pressure because previous roster sizes at many programs exceeded the new caps substantially.
• Non-opt-in schools have become relatively more attractive for some families. Programs that have not opted in continue to operate under pre-settlement rules, which can provide more roster flexibility for some athletes. This applies to some non-Power Four D1 programs, Ivy League, and D3.

NIL Go and the $600 review threshold.

NIL Go is the clearinghouse platform that reviews third-party NIL deals under the settlement's framework. Any deal valued at $600 or more must be submitted for review. As of mid-2026, the platform has processed more than 21,000 deals, with operational patterns that families should understand before treating any NIL commitment as final.

How NIL Go actually operates

NIL Go is operated by the College Sports Commission using technical infrastructure built by Deloitte. The platform reviews submitted deals for two primary criteria: legitimate business purpose and fair-market compensation. Both criteria are intended to distinguish genuine third-party NIL deals from disguised pay-for-play arrangements that would circumvent the revenue-sharing cap.

The review process involves three stages. First, the deal is submitted with documentation of the terms, the payer, the payee, and the deliverables. Second, NIL Go assesses whether the compensation is commensurate with the services being provided and whether the payer has a legitimate business purpose (not just booster funding disguised as a business transaction). Third, the deal is either approved, rejected, or returned for additional information.

The current operational reality as of mid-2026

Publicly reported figures from the College Sports Commission indicate the following operational patterns through early 2026:

The associated entity review problem

The single largest operational challenge NIL Go faces involves what the College Sports Commission calls "associated entities": boosters, NIL collectives, school-affiliated multimedia rightsholders (Learfield, Playfly), and other entities with existing school relationships. NIL deals through associated entities accounted for approximately 63% of deal volume and 78% of deal value in the January-February 2026 window, according to CSC data.

Associated entity deals require substantially more scrutiny than genuine independent third-party deals because they are the primary vehicle for schools to circumvent the revenue-sharing cap. CSC CEO Bryan Seeley has publicly acknowledged that "the NIL market in college athletics is not a normal organic market," noting that schools are actively "manufacturing NIL for their student athletes." The extra scrutiny required to distinguish legitimate associated entity deals from disguised pay-for-play arrangements has produced backlogs that were not anticipated when the NIL Go platform was designed.

The practical effect for families is that NIL deals through boosters, collectives, or school-affiliated entities may take significantly longer than 7 days to clear, may require multiple rounds of documentation submission, and may ultimately be rejected if the fair-market compensation threshold cannot be established.

What families should verify before treating an NIL commitment as final

Three specific verification steps distinguish substantive NIL commitments from provisional expectations:

• Has the deal been submitted to NIL Go? Any deal of $600 or more must go through the clearinghouse. If the submission has not occurred, the deal is not yet in the review pipeline and cannot be enforced. Ask for confirmation of submission.
• Is the payer classified as an associated entity? Associated entity deals face heightened scrutiny and longer review times. Families should understand which category the deal falls into, since this affects both approval probability and timing.
• What are the specific deliverables and the fair-market basis? Deals must document specific services the athlete provides and specific compensation for those services. Vague "brand ambassadorship" language without specific deliverables often fails review. Families should understand what the athlete is committing to do in exchange for the compensation.

The College Sports Commission and enforcement.

The College Sports Commission (CSC) is the independent enforcement entity created by the Power Four conferences to implement the House settlement provisions. Understanding how the CSC operates, who leads it, and what its practical enforcement authority is helps families understand what commitments actually mean in the current environment.

Structure and leadership

The CSC operates as an independent entity separate from the NCAA. It reports to the Power Four commissioners (Jim Phillips of the ACC, Tony Petitti of the Big Ten, Brett Yormark of the Big 12, and Greg Sankey of the SEC) rather than to NCAA governance. This structural independence is intentional: the CSC was designed to enforce settlement provisions without being constrained by the NCAA's historical governance patterns that produced the litigation the settlement resolved.

The CSC's CEO is Bryan Seeley, a former federal prosecutor. Seeley took the role in mid-2025 after the settlement's approval and has publicly discussed the operational challenges the commission faces. The CSC oversees two primary platforms: NIL Go for third-party NIL deal review (covered in Section 5) and the College Athlete Payment System (CAPS) for reporting revenue-share distributions from opt-in schools.

The University Participation Agreement

The University Participation Agreement is the document that gives the CSC actual enforcement authority over member institutions. The agreement binds signing schools to CSC rules, prevents schools from challenging CSC enforcement decisions through jury trials, and requires schools to submit to arbitration for disputes. Without a signed participation agreement, the CSC's ability to compel compliance is substantially weaker.

The agreement was sent to Power Four schools in November 2025 after months of negotiation over specific provisions. Key holdups involved penalty structure (specifically, disagreement within the Big Ten about whether postseason bans should be available as CSC penalties) and the scope of arbitration binding. As of early 2026, the agreement was still under revision, with additional provisions being negotiated at the conference level.

On January 14, 2026, the presidents of Arizona, Georgia, Virginia Tech, and Washington issued a joint statement urging institutions to support and execute the participation agreement, acknowledging that it has flaws but concluding that it "provides a viable mechanism to turn the House settlement from principle into practice." This statement signaled that even institutional leaders recognize that CSC enforcement authority remains constrained pending broader adoption.

What CSC enforcement can and cannot currently do

The CSC's practical enforcement authority breaks into three categories:

• NIL Go clearinghouse review. Fully operational. Deals are reviewed, approved, or rejected. Rejected deals face substantial risk of not being paid, though enforcement depends on the school's cooperation with the CSC framework.
• Revenue-share cap monitoring. Operational through the CAPS reporting system. Schools report their distributions and the CSC monitors for cap compliance. Enforcement of cap violations depends on the participation agreement.
• Discipline for settlement violations. This is where enforcement authority is most constrained. The CSC issued a January 9, 2026 letter to member institutions expressing "serious concerns" about NIL and revenue-sharing arrangements being offered to student-athletes, but the practical discipline mechanism remains pending the participation agreement's full adoption.

The Written Offer of Athletics Aid and what changed.

The National Letter of Intent was eliminated in October 2024 after decades as the primary athletic recruiting commitment document. Its replacement, the Written Offer of Athletics Aid, functions similarly in some ways but differs in others that matter for families navigating recruiting commitments in the current environment.

What the NLI was and why it was eliminated

The National Letter of Intent was a binding document that student-athletes signed during specific signing periods to commit to a specific institution. Signing the NLI created a one-year commitment to enroll at the school and receive athletic aid. Breaking the NLI carried substantial consequences including loss of one year of eligibility and inability to receive athletic aid at any other Division I school for a year.

The NLI was eliminated in October 2024 as part of broader NCAA reforms addressing recruiting-related restrictions that had faced antitrust scrutiny. The specific concern was that the NLI's penalty structure functioned as a restraint of athlete mobility that was difficult to justify under evolving antitrust standards.

What the Written Offer of Athletics Aid does

The Written Offer of Athletics Aid documents the specific terms of the athletic aid offer between the athlete and the institution. It creates a binding commitment when signed, but differs from the NLI in three specific ways:

• The commitment mechanics differ. The NLI was a standard document with uniform terms across schools. The Written Offer is institution-specific and includes the specific terms of the athletic aid being offered, which vary by school and by sport.
• The penalty structure differs. Breaking a Written Offer does not automatically carry the one-year eligibility and cross-institutional aid penalty that NLI violations produced. Consequences for withdrawing from a Written Offer commitment are governed by institutional policy and NCAA rules that apply broadly rather than by the specific document's language.
• Signing timing has changed. The NLI had specific signing periods that varied by sport. The Written Offer of Athletics Aid can be signed on a wider range of dates, though sport-specific signing periods still exist as coordinating windows within which most commitments are documented.

How Written Offers apply across different program types

The strategic implication for families

Two specific practical implications matter for families navigating commitments in the post-NLI environment:

First, the reduced penalty structure for breaking Written Offers means that verbal commitments matter less than they used to. Under the NLI regime, an athlete who signed and then withdrew faced substantial consequences. Under the Written Offer regime, the consequences are institution-specific and generally milder. Families should understand what specific consequences a coach or school would impose for a withdrawal before treating either a verbal or written commitment as fully binding on the athlete.

Second, the specific terms of the Written Offer matter more than they did with the NLI, because each Written Offer is institution-specific rather than a standardized form. Families should read the entire Written Offer document carefully before signing, understand what the athletic aid actually commits (specific scholarship amount, duration, renewal conditions), and ask questions about any language that is ambiguous or unfamiliar.

Ivy League, D3, and non-opt-in D1 schools.

The House settlement applies only to schools that opt into its provisions. Ivy League, D3, and non-opt-in D1 schools operate under substantially different rules, and understanding these differences is important for families whose recruiting includes non-opt-in programs. This section is under-covered in most competing content because generic recruiting guides focus on Power Four D1 programs and miss the meaningful distinctions across the broader college athletics landscape.

Ivy League schools

The Ivy League operates fundamentally outside the settlement's scholarship and revenue-sharing framework. Ivy schools do not offer athletic scholarships and do not opt into settlement revenue-sharing provisions. Instead, Ivy recruiting operates within the Academic Index constraint, which requires that recruited athletes' academic profiles fall within one standard deviation of the school's non-athlete AI average.

What this means practically for families targeting Ivy programs:

• Roster limits do not apply. Ivy programs operate under Ivy League-specific roster policies rather than House settlement roster limits. Roster availability is determined by each school's athletic department and coaching staff.
• Revenue-sharing does not apply. Ivy recruits do not receive direct compensation for athletic participation. The financial aid path for Ivy families runs through need-based aid, which for many families produces net costs comparable to or lower than out-of-state D1 attendance.
• NIL Go clearinghouse does not apply to Ivy athletes' third-party NIL deals in the same way. Ivy schools have not adopted the NIL Go framework and Ivy athletes generally operate with NIL under general NCAA policies rather than House settlement provisions.
• The commitment document is the Likely Letter, followed by formal admission. This continues unchanged.

Division III schools

D3 schools do not offer athletic scholarships and do not opt into settlement revenue-sharing provisions. D3 recruiting operates through the institutional admissions process, with the coaching staff providing input on academic profiles that admissions offices then evaluate.

The practical differences for D3 families:

• Roster limits are institution-specific, not settlement-derived. Each D3 program operates roster sizes according to conference and institutional policies. These have not changed as a result of the House settlement.
• Athletic aid is not permitted, but need-based and merit aid can be substantial. Many top D3 programs offer strong need-based aid that produces attractive net costs for many families.
• Time commitments are lower than D1. D3 has stricter time limits on required athletic activity than D1, which affects the academic-athletic balance.
• Commitment is documented through institutional admissions, not through Written Offers of Athletics Aid.

Non-opt-in D1 schools

Non-Power Four D1 schools had until June 30, 2025 to decide whether to opt into the settlement for the 2025-26 academic year. Schools that did not opt in continue to operate under pre-settlement rules for their programs. Some schools opted in for some years but not others, and non-Power Four schools can generally revisit their opt-in decision annually.

For families evaluating non-opt-in D1 programs, three specific differences matter:

• Pre-settlement scholarship caps continue to apply. Football's 85-scholarship limit, baseball's 11.7-scholarship equivalent, and other sport-specific limits remain in effect at non-opt-in programs. This can produce different roster math than at opt-in programs.
• Direct revenue sharing is not permitted. Non-opt-in schools cannot share revenue directly with athletes under the settlement framework.
• NIL Go review does not apply the same way. Non-opt-in schools' athletes operate under general NCAA NIL policies rather than House settlement provisions. This can create different NIL opportunities but also less institutional infrastructure for deal review.

The uncertainty landscape going forward.

The House settlement is not the end of the college athletics compensation debate. Multiple pending legal challenges, ongoing regulatory developments, and possible federal legislation could substantially reshape the environment during the next several recruiting cycles. Families making significant recruiting decisions should understand what could change and when.

The Ili-Mirer class action lawsuit

USC linebacker Talanoa Ili and Stanford quarterback Charlie Mirer filed a class action lawsuit on June 9, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, before Judge Claudia Wilken (the same judge who approved the House settlement). The suit does not challenge the settlement itself but rather challenges its implementation, specifically the College Sports Commission's NIL Go clearinghouse and the $20.5 million revenue-sharing cap.

The plaintiffs argue that NIL Go and the revenue cap violate NIL laws in 17 states, including California, New York, Ohio, and Michigan, and violate Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. They seek an injunction suspending clearinghouse enforcement and triple damages. Reports differ on the filing's length: Yahoo Sports describes an 81-page complaint, while On3 reported an 88-page suit. The defendants include NCAA President Charlie Baker, CSC CEO Bryan Seeley, and the four Power Four commissioners.

If the plaintiffs succeed, the practical implications would be substantial. A successful injunction could suspend the NIL Go clearinghouse mechanism, allowing NIL deals to proceed without the current review process. Triple damages awards would create financial pressure on the CSC and the conferences that could accelerate structural changes. Even if the plaintiffs do not fully succeed, the litigation reflects ongoing legal vulnerability of the settlement's implementation framework.

The Protect College Sports Act of 2026

Congress is currently considering the Protect College Sports Act of 2026, a proposed federal NIL reform bill. If enacted, the legislation could federally preempt some state NIL laws that currently conflict with settlement provisions, potentially strengthening enforcement of the current framework. Alternatively, if the legislation takes a different approach, it could federally supersede the settlement framework entirely.

Federal legislation in this area has been discussed for several years without passage. The current bill has more legislative momentum than previous efforts, but families should not rely on specific federal changes materializing during a specific recruiting cycle.

Other pending or possible legal challenges

Three additional legal fronts could reshape the environment:

• Johnson v. NCAA and employee status. Separate litigation challenging whether student-athletes should be classified as employees under federal labor law continues to work through the courts. A ruling that recognizes employee status would have implications for wages, worker's compensation, unionization, and tax treatment that the House settlement does not address.
• Title IX applications to revenue sharing. The typical 75/15/5/5 distribution formula concentrates revenue-share dollars in men's football and basketball. Title IX gender equity requirements could produce challenges to this allocation approach, potentially requiring schools to rebalance distributions.
• Additional class actions. Other current or former athletes could challenge specific settlement provisions or implementation decisions. The relatively low opt-in rate (26.2%) for the class action itself suggests some potential class members remained outside the settlement and could pursue separate litigation.

What LA families should do, FAQ, and next steps.

The post-House settlement environment affects LA families with student-athletes in specific ways that connect to the LA-specific recruiting dynamics covered elsewhere in the PCG guide ecosystem. This section summarizes practical implications, addresses frequently asked questions, and points families toward the appropriate next steps.

Six practical steps for LA families in the current environment

1. Verify opt-in status at each target school. USC, UCLA, Stanford, and Cal are all Power Four opt-in schools. Non-Power Four programs (including some in California) have annual opt-in decisions. The opt-in status affects roster limits, revenue-share opportunities, and NIL Go review requirements.
2. Understand the specific school's roster availability. Roster limits combined with DSA grandfathering produce different practical roster math at each school. Some programs remain above the settlement roster caps due to DSAs and will not add new recruits until DSAs graduate or transfer.
3. Treat NIL commitments with appropriate skepticism. The NIL Go review process, the CSC enforcement uncertainty, and the pending Ili-Mirer lawsuit all affect the practical value of NIL commitments. Written documentation, specific deliverables, and NIL Go submission status all matter.
4. Read Written Offers of Athletics Aid carefully before signing. The document is institution-specific, and terms vary. Understand what the specific offer commits, what conditions apply to renewal, and what happens if the athlete needs to withdraw or transfer.
5. Consider non-opt-in options honestly. Ivy League, D3, and non-opt-in D1 programs may offer better fit for some student-athletes than opt-in Power Four programs, particularly for Olympic sport athletes and academically-strong athletes. Do not default to the highest-brand-name program without evaluating fit.
6. Coordinate the academic profile work with the recruiting timeline. Regardless of program type, admissions decisions still require the full academic profile. Recruited athletes at Ivy programs need the AI within band; recruited athletes at selective D1 programs still need admission at the school's academic standards. Junior year academic profile development matters as much for recruited athletes as for non-recruited applicants.

Frequently asked questions

When did the National Letter of Intent end?

The NLI was eliminated in October 2024. It has been replaced by the Written Offer of Athletics Aid at scholarship-offering programs. Ivy League commitments continue to use Likely Letters. D3 commitments continue to use institutional agreements. Section 7 of this guide covers the mechanics.

Do all D1 schools have the same roster limits?

No. Roster limits apply only at schools that opted into the House settlement. Non-opt-in D1 schools continue to operate under pre-settlement scholarship caps. Section 4 covers the specific roster limits at opt-in schools and the practical implications of the differences.

How much money can my student-athlete actually receive from revenue sharing?

This varies substantially by school, sport, and individual athlete. The typical distribution formula concentrates 75% of the pool in football and 15% in men's basketball, leaving 10% for all other sports combined. Olympic sport athletes at opt-in schools may receive minimal or zero direct revenue-share payments. Section 3 covers the distribution mechanics and what families should not assume.

Does the House settlement affect Ivy League recruiting?

Not directly. Ivy schools do not opt into the settlement's revenue-sharing provisions and do not offer athletic scholarships. Ivy recruiting continues to operate under the Academic Index constraint. However, the broader D1 environment changes affect the competitive landscape that Ivy recruits also navigate. Section 8 covers the Ivy-specific implications and how the AI works.

What is NIL Go and when do we need to use it?

NIL Go is the clearinghouse platform that reviews third-party NIL deals of $600 or more. Any deal at that threshold or above must be submitted. Deals through boosters, collectives, or school-affiliated entities require additional scrutiny. Section 5 covers the operational mechanics and what to verify.

Related PCG resources

• The Los Angeles Athletic Recruiting Guide covers the LA-specific recruiting landscape, USC and UCLA local dynamics, the recruiting timeline by sport, D1 vs. Ivy path comparison, and common pitfalls that recur with LA families. This guide focuses on the settlement mechanics; the LA guide provides the LA-specific context.
• The Ivy League Academic Index Calculator and Guide covers the AI formula in operational depth, the historical evolution since Michele Hernandez's 1997 disclosure, sport-specific band tolerances, the non-Ivy conferences (Patriot League, NESCAC) that use similar frameworks, and the test-optional strategic decision. Includes an interactive calculator with school-by-school comparison bars against each Ivy school's estimated non-athlete AI average.
• The California College Financial Aid Guide covers Cal Grant, Middle Class Scholarship, OBBBA changes, and CSS Profile mechanics that affect the financial calculations LA families make when comparing scholarship offers, revenue-share opportunities, and need-based aid across different program types.
• The Human Advantage in the AI Era Guide covers the AI-era essay coaching that recruited athletes need as much as non-athletes, since admission at Ivy and selective private programs still requires the full academic profile including compelling essay development.