The NCAA’s roster cap could reshape the gymnastics landscape—impacting recruiting, depth, and opportunity across programs. In this roundtable, our editors discuss the pros, cons, and unknowns of this major shift.
What was your initial reaction to the proposed roster cap?
Elizabeth: Like most changes to the sport, I was hesitant. Most teams won’t have issues with limiting their rosters to 20 gymnasts, but my real concern came last recruiting cycle when Oklahoma seemingly began to prepare for the increase in scholarships that would go along with the roster cap change. I’m not necessarily worried about Oklahoma adding a ton of talent but more worried about what will happen with all of that talent. The number of lineup spots aren’t changing. Will we see talent stuck on the bench or even more transfers than we already do now?
Sara: I think the idea of a roster cap of 20 is both positive and negative; leaving me feeling on the fence. Having a smaller team can allow coaches to work with each athlete and cater to their specific needs, while the athletes themselves can have closer relationships and support one another. That being said, I do think it impacts those who may have thought they had a better chance at competing in a Power 5 conference and now have to look at other schools they didn’t consider before.
Savanna: I wasn’t a fan then, and I’m still not the biggest fan now. I understand the “everyone gets more time to work with a coach” and “there’s a possibility for 20 scholarships” arguments, but there are some teams that really benefit from a larger roster to allow for more development.
Alyssa: At first, I liked the idea of a roster cap and how it would allow for more scholarships. The more I thought about it, the more I disliked it because not every school has the resources for 20 scholarships and it seemed like a way to cluster more talent to the top schools, resulting in the chance of seeing fewer great athletes compete.
KT: I’m not fully on board with the idea. Given the success some schools have had with transfer pick-ups recently, it could actually limit opportunities for event specialists. With a roster cap, using a spot on a one-event specialist who consistently scores 9.9s might seem worthwhile. But if the team lacks depth in all-arounders and then suffers a few key injuries, coaches might start to rethink whether it’s worth taking that risk on a specialist.
Tara: Initially, I liked the cap since it prevents rosters from getting so overly big that walk-ons barely have a chance to compete, and theoretically provides an avenue for talent to spread out. However, as the cap became closer to reality and we saw a recruiting cycle where many programs assumed the cap and scholarship changes would pass, I became worried about what it meant for the parity of the sport as the top teams recruited more of the top talent that may have been spread out otherwise.
Which teams will be hit hardest by a cap? Who do you think benefits most from this change?
Elizabeth: My first thought is a team like BYU, which has a large roster and uses much of it in its lineups because it takes a specialist-first strategy over using many all-arounders. The other factor is development in college. BYU and other teams like Southern Utah don’t use underclassmen as much in competition, allowing those gymnasts to develop into strong competitors before having a strong impact later on. So while they may not be contributing at first, they aren’t doing “nothing” either. If they were never allowed the opportunity to be on the roster at all due to a cap, we may not see the breakout upperclassmen phenomenon we’ve come to expect from these teams.
Savanna: I also think BYU will take a really hard hit from this. After covering the Cougars for the last few years, I’ve really enjoyed their approach to lineups and love seeing athletes be able to hone in on one event and make it their specialty—Brynlee Andersen on beam, for example. As far as teams that benefit from this change, I would think that any team that has embraced NIL will benefit from this change.
Alyssa: As far as teams that would be hit hard, I thought of Southern Utah and its traditionally large roster being impacted by not being able to develop as many gymnasts. As for which teams stand to benefit the most, the SEC schools are going to be able to load up even more. Those schools will still need to offer equal scholarships to women’s and men’s sports with the roster limits, so those schools will look to fill up the rosters to balance out the football scholarships.
KT: As others have mentioned, the most obvious impact is on schools with traditionally large rosters. But I think there could also be unexpected consequences for programs that have historically recruited retiring elite athletes. For schools like LSU or Florida—programs that have often had injured elites on their rosters—coaches may start weighing injury history more heavily. They might begin asking whether the potential reward is worth the risk, even if the athlete can get healthy and stay that way.
Tara: BYU was my first thought, as a team that has had a large roster for as long as I can remember following college gym. It’s a rare team that actually uses a lot of its depth as well, as the Cougars have been limited in past seasons by the postseason limits already in place. Towson and Rutgers are others that have carried larger rosters in recent years. In terms of who benefits, at this point it’s schools that have the ability, and are willing, to fund the full 20 scholarships—think the Oklahomas and LSUs of the world.
How will this change impact walk-ons and depth options?
Elizabeth: Since schools can award scholarships to all rostered gymnasts now (and award partial scholarships), we’ll obviously see fewer true walk-ons. In terms of depth, I imagine it’ll come down to each school’s budget. We’re not going to see every Division I team carry 20 gymnasts; that’s just not realistic. So while the rich will get richer (and deeper), the middle and lower-tier teams will remain largely unchanged (unless, of course, they now have to turn away gymnasts they previously would have brought on due to the cap).
Sara: With the change, I have a feeling teams will resort to more all-around competitors and three event specialists to fill lineup spots. This means most two-event gymnasts or those brought in as specialists will be limited in their competition time. Competitions will bring more pressure and smaller DI schools might have more trouble recruiting since they will continue to be up against the larger schools.
Savanna: I feel sad for those athletes who are event specialists because it feels like recruiting strategies are going to change. If you’re really good on one event but can’t be a contributor on the others, it’s possible there won’t be as many opportunities at the DI level. The competition for a roster spot is going to be fierce.
Alyssa: I agree with the sentiment that the rich will get richer and the lower-tier teams will remain largely unchanged. The additional note I have is that gymnasts who may have gone to lower tier schools on scholarship after missing out on a scholarship at a top-tier school may opt to be on a scholarship in a depth role at a more prominent team now. I think you will also see less of the feel-good walk-on stories at the big schools as those teams can fill out the roster with higher-quality gymnasts.
Tara: I imagine walk-ons will change as many schools won’t have them in a sense due to the ability for every gymnast to be on scholarship, whether it be full or partial. How schools end up dividing scholarships will be interesting, as some may not be able to fund a full 20 and may opt to give more partial scholarships. Depth beyond the top teams will be interesting to watch, as some of the walk-ons previously on top teams may decide to spread out if the top teams are attracting and able to fund more top talent.
Will a cap level the playing field—or widen the gap?
Elizabeth: As I mentioned in my response to the previous question, I think it will do both in different scenarios. I believe it will all depend on each team’s budget. The ones that can afford 20 gymnasts on a full scholarship will do it. Those that can’t will be at a disadvantage or at the very least will have to become more strategic in how they utilize the smaller budgets they have.
Sara: This will widen the gap. My thought is that based on what we’ve seen in the past with smaller schools having less scholarship money, this will make it even easier for the larger schools to recruit or better their current team members since they will have the money to do so, all while keeping the talent they started with. Power 5 schools by nature have more opportunity and money so it seems they have the edge when it comes to fielding a competitive team.
Savanna: It will absolutely widen the gap. Schools that have more money at their disposal will be able to pay their athletes what they deserve. However, those who do not have access to that much money are going to struggle. They’re going to have to revisit recruiting strategies and how to get the most bang for their buck, so to speak. It’s ushering in a new era of NCAA.
Alyssa: It will widen the gap. The big money/football schools will be able to add additional scholarships and take top talent that would have otherwise gone to mid-tier programs to be stars.
KT: I can’t see it doing anything other than widening the gap for all the reasons that have been addressed above.
Tara: I think it will widen the gap, at least at first. Those that pay for more scholarships will benefit, and I imagine many of the top teams will. That said, we don’t truly know how many schools can actually fund 20, and unfortunately gymnastics isn’t the top priority for many schools to fund. The ability to offer partials may mitigate it some, but a full scholarship will always be better than a partial unless schools work out other ways to cover the gap (like academic scholarships). I’m also curious about teams that typically have smaller rosters with less walk-ons—a team like Denver where tuition is more expensive than many public universities may benefit from being able to offer partials.
Do you think it will impact injury management and redshirting?
Elizabeth: This is actually a question I have about the cap. If a team is recruiting to have 20 gymnasts on the roster every year, does that mean a senior can never redshirt and take a fifth? Do those redshirts not count toward the 20-gymnast limit? Will coaches “save” one or two spots on the roster in case gymnasts want to redshirt? The same question goes for transfers. If a coaching staff plans for 20 gymnasts every year, are they also planning to never have any transfers come into the program?
Sara: Since 2025 was the last year for athletes to take their COVID year, if they had that eligibility, it will no longer be an issue when it comes to the roster cap as those athletes have exhausted their eligibility status. This might instead be an issue for underclassmen who may have had a chance to make lineups immediately.The real question though, especially when it comes to gymnastics, is if the transfer portal will be used more often or become a limited resource due to injuries.
Savanna: I don’t want to believe that it might have an impact because I truly love seeing athletes come back for their redshirt season after an injury. However, I think that’s going to be a “wait and see” thing. I think it will definitely impact teams that tend to allow freshmen to arrive early to access rehab resources at the collegiate level.
Alyssa: I anticipate teams will plan for redshirt seasons and will leave a couple roster spots as wiggle room that can be filled with transfers if not used for redshirts. I don’t think the roster limits will change who plans to redshirt.
KT: As I mentioned above, I’m concerned that roster limits could negatively impact recruiting for gymnasts who were injured during their recruiting season or who focused on select events while recovering. It also raises new questions about how coaches will evaluate and manage having this type of athlete on their roster.
Tara: In terms of injury management, more depth means more options to rest gymnasts throughout the season if the coaches choose to do so to keep bodies fresh for postseason. I’m curious about the implications of redshirting under the caps—if a team is over the cap for the athlete’s fifth year, does that affect redshirting? And how do teams plan for that if it does?
What long-term effects do you foresee on recruiting?
Elizabeth: Mentioned previously, we’ve already seen the impact a bit with Oklahoma’s recruiting of the class of 2026 last year. My worry is there’s no way for all those very excellent gymnasts to see lineup time. There are only so many lineup spots. If this continues, I can see a couple realities. The first is where teams bring in “too many” good gymnasts—because no one enters college with the intention of transferring—and then after a season or two we see the ones who don’t compete as much as they want to transfer. The other reality is a few seasons of rosters with “too many” good gymnasts before things begin to even out again.
Sara: Recruiting has become a bigger deal over the years and using my statement of all-around and three-event gymnasts from above, the biggest impact probably will be teams having to pick just what they need. There will be limited opportunities for others to step into the spotlight and coaches will have to be strategic in how they pick the best athletes to bring in.
Savanna: I’m thinking of the transfer aspect of it all, and I’m nervous. We saw athletes like Paige Anastasi who transferred to get more lineup opportunities, and I have a feeling we’re going to see several more stories like that as these caps get put into place. But, with all schools being held to this roster size, I don’t think there are going to be as many schools that are going to look to replace in the portal and that’s going to cause issues for those athletes that are looking for a change.
Alyssa: I think the roster cap will only contribute to the increase in transfers as gymnasts look for a new opportunity. The main long-term effect I see is simply larger recruiting classes for the top teams.
KT: I’m interested to see how Oklahoma’s recruiting class of 2026 develops and what their lineups look like going forward. The team has brought in six athletes: four five-stars and two four-stars. It’ll be interesting to watch whether Oklahoma fills all its roster spots each year, as I suspect we might see some gymnasts be a little more hesitant to join a top-tier program if it means being a standout athlete who rarely sees lineup time.
Tara: Short term, top teams are benefitting from the change. Long term, I’m curious if the pendulum swings back as gymnasts realize not everyone can get lineup time when top teams are so stacked, opting for schools where they are more likely to see lineup time. The transfer portal could be interesting too, if gymnasts become unsatisfied with lineup opportunities and want a change of scenery. Gymnasts are competitive people, and it will come down to if being on a top team is worth the drawback of less lineup time.
Is there a better way to address roster size concerns?
Elizabeth: Historically, the NCAA has never done things in a way that makes the most sense, so based solely on that, the answer would have to be yes. However, I don’t necessarily know what that better way is right now.
Sara: Not totally sure what it would look like but no matter what it might look like it would be something that would affect everyone in some way.
Savanna: Is there? Sure, there probably is. Do I know what it is? Absolutely not.
Alyssa: Yes there is, but I do not know what it is.
KT: I’m really not sure. NIL has made it more important than ever to create a more level playing field, but I don’t think this solution does that. Capping rosters at 20 athletes doesn’t help a program that can still only fund 14 scholarships to compete in recruiting against a big-money NIL school that can attract 20 top gymnasts with promises of NIL deals. Honestly, I don’t know what the right answer is.
Tara: Probably, but I have no clue what it is. I have wondered what it would look like if the NCAA put the same roster limits in effect but kept scholarship rules the same, but I have no idea if that would actually help any more than the new limits.
READ THIS NEXT: How Will the House Settlement Impact NCAA Gymnastics? Your Questions, Answered
Article by the editors of College Gym News
