As the NCAA prepares for significant changes following the preliminary approval of the landmark House v. NCAA settlement , mid-major programs such as Oakland University stand at a pivotal crossroads.
The settlement aims to resolve three lawsuits alleging antitrust violations and includes retroactive compensation for collegiate student-athletes who were unable to profit from their Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) , with back payments totaling $2.78 billion to be distributed over 10 years.
Division I institutions will be offered the option to participate in a newly restructured NCAA, which includes the ability to provide increased benefits to student-athletes and a program to oversee NIL payments. The new structure also means the replacement of traditional scholarships with roster caps.
For the Golden Grizzlies, Director of Athletics Steve Waterfield sees opting in as the best way forward. He expressed concern that schools choosing not to opt in could risk being excluded from opportunities down the road.
“Our plan right now would be to opt into the settlement as it is currently created because it gives us the opportunity to provide additional resources to student-athletes,” Waterfield said.
Regardless of whether an institution opts into the new structure, it must contribute to the back pay through revenue reductions. Additionally, deciding to participate in the settlement is not permanent and can be revisited annually.
While opting into the settlement allows Oakland to directly support student-athletes, limited athletics revenue restricts how much support mid-major programs can realistically provide. This highlights the financial disparity between schools like Oakland and high-revenue institutions in the Power Four conferences.
For example, Oakland could now offer small payments to a student-athlete for using their image in promotional materials. In contrast, larger schools with greater financial resources could provide significantly higher compensation for the same usage.
Even with the new potential financial motivation for prospective student-athletes to attend Power Four schools, Waterfield expressed that Oakland is committed to maintaining the qualities that define its appeal.
“All the things that I think people find special about Oakland now, I hope and expect they will find special about Oakland if the House settlement is approved,” Waterfield said.
Additional challenges for programs are being created by the implementation of roster caps, which set limits on team sizes rather than the amount of available scholarship money.
“There are student-athletes who are going to lose opportunities just because those roster limits are less than what those sports have had,” Waterfield said.
These caps reduce the number of opportunities available to athletes and may impact team dynamics due to smaller roster sizes.
It is also unclear how federal Title IX requirements, which ensure equal opportunities for male and female student-athletes, will affect additional benefits. Waterfield assured that Oakland would fully comply with any of the standards set.
To better navigate these challenges, Oakland has been collaborating with other schools in the Horizon League to ensure consistent implementation of new policies. One potential form of standardization includes a uniform NIL release.
“As much as we’re competitors within the league, I think we all want to try to do what’s best for the league proper because the better our league is, the better the reach of our programs,” Waterfield said.
Despite the uncertainties surrounding the House settlement, Waterfield expressed confidence in Oakland’s ability to adapt.
“We’ll get through it,” Waterfield said. “Things change, and we’ll manage it, we’ll figure it out, and we’ll do what we need to do.”
The hearing for the final approval of House v. NCAA is set for April 7.