Revenue-sharing models forced Matt Rhule to turn Nebraska’s traditional spring game into something closer to a farewell audition. On April 26, 2025, reserve players stepped onto the Memorial Stadium turf with their football futures hanging over every snap. Some were fighting for one of Nebraska’s 105 roster spots. Others already knew their time with the Cornhuskers might be ending.
Rhule wanted them to have game film. Instead of the usual Red-White Spring Game, Nebraska staged the Husker Games, combining a limited scrimmage with skills competitions. Backup players received opportunities to compete while established starters largely stayed out of the action.
The stakes had changed. College football was preparing to share millions in athletics revenue directly with players, but the same settlement introduced roster limits that threatened one of the sport’s oldest traditions.
Nebraska had spent decades developing overlooked athletes through its walk-on program. Rhule believed in that tradition because he had once taken the same route at Penn State. Now he faced decisions no amount of loyalty could soften.
For a high school senior without a scholarship offer, the consequences extended beyond Lincoln. The opportunity to spend several years developing at a major university was becoming harder to find.
College football finally had more money for its athletes. The question was whether its new financial system would leave enough room for the next walk-on.
Nebraska turned its spring game into a roster audition
Nebraska’s spring game had long served as a public celebration of Cornhuskers football. In 2024, an announced crowd of 60,452 attended the traditional event at Memorial Stadium.
One year later, Rhule had a different plan. He initially considered eliminating the spring scrimmage altogether, partly because he worried rival programs could watch Nebraska’s players on television and recruit them away.
The approaching roster reductions gave him another reason to reconsider. Nebraska had players fighting for their football futures, and the coach wanted them to leave with something useful if the program couldn’t keep them.
During an April 17, 2025 media session, Rhule explained that the replacement event would give borderline roster candidates an opportunity to demonstrate their abilities. Some players already knew they would not make the fall roster. Others still had time to convince the coaching staff.
Rhule couldn’t promise everyone a place, but he could provide game footage that another program might value.
The Husker Games gave reserves the field
On April 26, Nebraska followed through. According to HuskerOnline’s event coverage, the Huskers held a limited scrimmage featuring non-starters, alongside bench-press challenges, kicking contests, and other competitions.
The event also included women’s flag football and activities designed to entertain fans. For several reserve football players, however, the afternoon carried considerably more weight than a typical spring celebration.
A running back could demonstrate his vision against a defense. An offensive lineman could show how he handled contact, while an overlooked defensive back might earn another look from the coaching staff.
Those repetitions offered a possible route forward, whether at Nebraska or another university. Rhule had identified that objective before the event, although available reporting doesn’t establish which individual players subsequently secured transfers because of their Husker Games footage.
The coach wasn’t promising another scholarship. He wanted players who had endured Nebraska’s offseason program to receive one more chance to show what they could do.
In his April 17 news conference, Rhule explained the personal obligation behind the decision.
“I owe it to those kids to have one last chance,” he said.
Revenue-sharing models had already changed the purpose of one of college football’s most recognizable spring traditions.
Rhule understood what the roster cuts meant
Nebraska’s coach had watched his walk-ons complete winter conditioning despite knowing the new roster limit could end their careers. Some survived demanding mat drills after learning they were unlikely to make the final 105.
Rhule singled out walk-ons Jacob Brandl and Jacob Bower, questioning whether he could have maintained their demanding schedule under the same circumstances.
The coach didn’t hide behind roster projections or financial calculations.
“My job is to coach everybody,” Rhule said.
That philosophy carried particular weight at Nebraska, where Tom Osborne helped establish one of college football’s most celebrated walk-on programs. Local players entered without scholarships, strengthened practices, and occasionally developed into significant contributors.
Rhule had followed a similar path at Penn State. He understood what an opportunity could mean to an athlete who arrived without national recruiting attention.
His personal history couldn’t change the settlement, though. The coach could defend the walk-on tradition while still having to tell committed players that their places were disappearing.
Revenue sharing wasn’t ending Nebraska’s walk-on tradition. It was shrinking the room where that tradition could continue.
The House settlement made every roster spot more valuable
The financial transformation began with the House v. NCAA settlement. In June 2025, a federal judge signed off on the agreement, allowing participating Division I schools to share athletics revenue directly with players.
The initial institutional revenue-sharing cap stood at approximately $20.5 million for 2025-26. For the 2026-27 academic year, the College Sports Commission raised that figure to $21.58 million.
Those numbers govern direct athlete compensation under the settlement framework. They don’t determine how many football players a school can carry.
For walk-ons, the more consequential change came from the roster rules.
Previously, Football Bowl Subdivision programs operated under an 85-player scholarship limit. Schools could supplement those scholarship athletes with non-scholarship walk-ons, subject to other applicable roster and participation rules.
The House framework removed the sport-specific scholarship ceiling for participating schools and introduced a 105-player football roster limit.
A program with sufficient financial resources can now offer scholarships to all 105 players. However, an athlete without athletic aid still occupies one of those positions.
That difference has immediate consequences for coaches accustomed to developing larger groups of overlooked recruits.
Rhule saw the cost before the rules took effect
Rhule had warned about the coming roster squeeze months before the settlement received final approval.
During a July 2024 news conference, he discussed the proposed limit and the difficulty of cutting developmental players. His assessment reached beyond recruiting strategy.
“When you do these things someone gets paid and someone suffers,” Rhule said.
The comment captured the tradeoff facing major programs. More scholarship flexibility could improve opportunities for athletes who previously received limited support, while the roster ceiling reduced places for players still years away from contributing.
Consider a lightly recruited offensive tackle with excellent size but limited experience. He needs two years of strength training and technical development before challenging established defensive linemen.
Under the previous system, a coach might have offered him a walk-on opportunity without sacrificing one of the program’s 85 scholarships.
Now the same staff must decide whether that player deserves one of 105 total roster positions. An experienced transfer with 20 college starts could be available, offering immediate evidence of his ability against collegiate competition.
The veteran can help next Saturday. The high school prospect might become a starter two seasons later, assuming he develops as expected.
Revenue-sharing models have intensified the competition between immediate production and long-term development.
That calculation reaches every position group. A developmental lineman, reserve linebacker, or young defensive back now competes for a roster place against athletes who have already produced at the college level.
Rhule knew the advantage of finding overlooked talent. He also understood the pressure to win Big Ten games with the players available today.
Iowa State showed what walk-ons can become with time
Nebraska’s roster decisions weren’t unique. At Iowa State, the transition produced a different picture, one that showed how temporary protections could preserve opportunities for players already in the program.
According to an August 31, 2026 Associated Press report by Eric Olson, the Cyclones carried 126 football players, including 35 walk-ons.
The roster exceeded the standard 105-player ceiling because Iowa State had 21 designated student-athletes who qualified for exemptions under the House settlement.
Those protections allowed certain existing athletes to complete their eligibility without counting against the new limit. They helped preserve a larger developmental group, but only for a limited period.
As those players finish their careers, Iowa State must make harder decisions about future additions.
First-year coach Jimmy Rogers recognized what that meant for recruiting. In his Associated Press interview, Rogers recalled how programs previously had time to develop non-scholarship athletes over several seasons.
The new system made that patience more difficult, especially for players whose potential wouldn’t translate into game-day production immediately.
Aiden Flora proved the value of waiting
Iowa State running back Aiden Flora represented exactly the kind of player Rogers feared losing.
Flora arrived from Adel, Iowa, without the recruiting profile of a major college prospect. Former Cyclones coach Matt Campbell offered him a walk-on opportunity, giving him time to develop inside the program.
By 2025, Flora had emerged as one of the Big 12’s leading punt returners. His progress earned him a scholarship in January 2026.
The production justified that investment. Flora’s official Iowa State biography credited him with a 26.1-yard punt-return average and a touchdown during the 2025 season.
His biggest moment came against TCU.
With Iowa State trailing in the fourth quarter, Flora fielded a punt and raced 79 yards for the decisive touchdown. The Cyclones won 20-17, recording their first punt-return score since 2017.
That return rewarded years of work by a player who hadn’t arrived with major recruiting credentials. Flora improved through practice, special teams, and repeated opportunities to compete.
For Rogers, the challenge was preserving a system capable of developing the next player like him.
An experienced transfer might offer immediate production. A freshman walk-on could need several years before contributing at the same level.
Revenue-sharing models threaten the patience that once allowed overlooked players to become contributors.
Iowa State’s temporary exemptions helped protect that developmental approach during the transition. They couldn’t guarantee another lightly recruited prospect would receive the same opportunity.
Oklahoma State showed the walk-on route can still pay
At Oklahoma State, Carson Kolb found a way through the new system.
Kolb left Horizon High School in Scottsdale, Arizona, without a Division I scholarship offer. He wanted to play linebacker, while recruiters viewed him as a tight end.
That disagreement complicated his recruitment. Oregon State eventually offered him a walk-on opportunity in 2024, and Kolb spent two seasons contributing mainly on special teams.
He believed he could handle a larger role.
In January 2026, Kolb entered the transfer portal and searched for another opportunity. Oklahoma State invited him to join as a walk-on, but the arrangement included something he hadn’t received before: revenue-sharing compensation.
Kolb accepted the offer and went to work. By June, his performance during spring practice had convinced the Cowboys to award him a scholarship.
The new walk-on doesn’t always play for free
Kolb’s experience challenged an old assumption about college football.
A walk-on can now join a program without an athletic scholarship and still receive financial support. According to the Associated Press, some athletes receive enough revenue-sharing money to help pay rent, buy groceries, or cover part of their tuition.
Other players may receive education-related benefits, depending on their institution and individual circumstances.
For Kolb, the arrangement provided a route toward something larger. He accepted the initial financial support, impressed his coaches, and eventually secured a scholarship.
Speaking to the Associated Press, Kolb described reaching his original college football goal.
“I achieved the dream,” he said.
His story resembled a traditional walk-on success, but with a different financial beginning. Oklahoma State had provided compensation before awarding full athletic aid.
Revenue-sharing models can improve life for walk-ons who make the roster, even while reducing the number of athletes invited to join.
Kolb’s experience doesn’t prove every overlooked player will find a similar opportunity. It shows what remains possible when a coaching staff reserves room for development.
Coaches still need the players nobody notices
Walk-on contributions rarely dominate television broadcasts, but those players can shape what happens on Saturday long before kickoff.
A developmental offensive lineman might spend a freezing Tuesday afternoon blocking a future NFL pass rusher. Another player runs scout-team routes, imitating the receiver an upcoming opponent plans to feature.
Neither expects a standing ovation. Both can contribute to the preparation of players who will receive one.
Scout-team quarterbacks replicate unfamiliar offensive systems, while defensive backs practice coverage responsibilities against different route combinations. Reserve linemen absorb contact that allows coaches to distribute workloads across more players.
Those contributions don’t appear in the box score. Yet a smaller roster still needs someone to perform the same work.
Injuries expose the cost of a thinner bench
Consider a Big Ten team entering November with several injured offensive linemen. Its starters have already absorbed heavy workloads, and another physical conference opponent awaits.
The offensive line coach needs healthy bodies to run drills and prepare the starting group. Without sufficient depth, younger players may take additional repetitions or practice at unfamiliar positions.
Strong recruiting and careful workload management can reduce the damage, but injuries don’t respect roster projections.
Rhule understood that concern at Nebraska. During a November 2024 news conference, he discussed the walk-ons who wanted nothing more than to represent the university.
He singled out Grant Buda, a strong student who hoped to become an orthopedic surgeon. Rhule feared athletes with similar backgrounds would lose their opportunity under the new limit.
The concern reached beyond losing another practice player. A walk-on who never appears in a conference game might still help prepare the starters each week, while another could develop into a useful reserve after years of work.
Revenue-sharing models make those long-term investments harder to defend when every roster position carries an immediate cost.
Not every developmental athlete will eventually contribute on Saturdays. However, programs that stop taking chances on overlooked players will never discover which ones could have made it.
The first revenue-sharing ledger exposed the size of the money
On October 1, 2026, the College Sports Commission released figures from the first year of direct revenue sharing.
According to the commission, 307 schools distributed approximately $1.77 billion directly to athletes during 2025-26. Those payments reached 34,915 athletes across 45 sports.
In all, 319 Division I schools had opted into the settlement framework. Of those, 68 reached the $20.5 million compensation cap or came within five percent of it.
The figures showed how quickly institutions had begun using direct payments to attract and retain talent.
However, they didn’t identify how much individual football walk-ons received. The commission reported aggregate figures rather than a complete public breakdown of each school’s arrangements.
Its accounting also included separate scholarship and education-related spending, which shouldn’t be confused with direct revenue-sharing payments.
The totals offered athletic directors a detailed picture of compensation across college sports. They offered far less insight into the developmental opportunities disappearing from football programs.
For coaches such as Rhule and Rogers, that omission mattered. A university could record every dollar it paid an athlete without measuring the value of a player it never recruited.
The ledger couldn’t measure a lost opportunity
A wealthy university might fund scholarships for every football player. Another program could preserve non-scholarship positions and use smaller payments to help those athletes meet living expenses.
Both approaches could benefit players who make the team, but neither tells a coach whether an overlooked freshman will become a starting linebacker three years later.
That uncertainty was part of the old walk-on system. Programs carried developmental players because coaches believed some would eventually justify the investment.
Now athletic directors can calculate compensation down to the dollar while struggling to quantify opportunities that disappear before a player ever reaches campus.
The first-year figures also showed why Congress was considering another intervention. College athletics had entered an era of billion-dollar payments, yet universities still faced disagreements over compensation rules, recruiting restrictions, and roster management.
Rhule had warned about one consequence long before the national figures became public.
More athletes could receive substantial financial support, while others lost the chance to compete at a major university.
His challenge wasn’t finding enough money to reward Nebraska’s stars. It was finding room for players who hadn’t become stars yet.
Congress could increase player payments without expanding opportunity
Washington’s latest proposal responds to the same financial pressures confronting athletic directors, but it offers a different kind of solution.
On September 28, 2026, the Senate passed the bipartisan Protect College Sports Act by a 77-22 vote. The legislation proposes a federal framework for athlete compensation, eligibility, and recruiting.
Qualifying schools could spend an additional $22.5 million annually through an athlete-retention fund. Another $5 million could become available through qualifying compensation tied to women’s and Olympic sports.
The proposed payments could give major programs considerably more flexibility to keep established athletes.
However, the legislation remained pending in the House as of October 24. Universities still had to operate under the existing settlement rules.
The retention fund solves a different recruiting problem
Imagine Rhule entering an offseason with a productive linebacker attracting interest from another Big Ten program.
The player already knows Nebraska’s defense. He understands the coaching staff, has produced on Saturdays, and could leave a significant hole in the depth chart if he transfers.
Additional retention money could help Nebraska keep him.
That matters to any coach trying to maintain a competitive roster.
Now consider the kind of player Rhule had hoped to protect during the Husker Games.
An unrecruited high school senior doesn’t have college statistics or another university offering him more money. He might possess the physical tools to become a useful linebacker, but no coach knows whether he will develop.
The proposed retention fund doesn’t address that uncertainty.
It rewards the established player while doing little to create an opportunity for someone who has yet to prove himself.
The difference becomes clearer when viewed through Iowa State and Oklahoma State.
Flora needed time before becoming an All-Big 12 return specialist. Kolb needed another program willing to evaluate his potential before he secured a scholarship.
Both benefited from coaches who offered opportunities before their value became obvious.
A bigger check can keep a starter on campus. It cannot guarantee the next overlooked recruit gets a chance.
For Rhule, Rogers, and other coaches who value developmental depth, national compensation policy eventually returns to the same question: Which unproven player deserves a place on the team?
The next walk-on class faces a smaller opening
College football’s new financial system has delivered meaningful gains to athletes. Players can receive direct compensation from universities, while participating schools have greater freedom to provide athletic scholarships.
Yet those gains have not secured the future of the walk-on.
At Nebraska, Rhule gave reserve players a chance to compete before making painful roster decisions. Iowa State’s temporary exemptions kept more developmental athletes in the program, while Oklahoma State showed that a compensated walk-on could still earn a scholarship.
Flora and Kolb succeeded because coaches gave them opportunities before they had established themselves as college contributors.
The next recruiting class will reveal how many programs remain willing to make that investment.
Revenue-sharing models haven’t eliminated the college football walk-on. They’ve made the opportunity harder to earn before a player ever reaches campus.
For the next high school senior without a scholarship offer, the challenge is personal. He may have the size, discipline, and willingness to spend years earning his place. Given time, he might even become the next Flora or Kolb.
What he needs is a coach willing to take the chance.
Before he can prove himself in practice, earn a scholarship, or contribute on Saturday, somebody has to give him a locker.
College football has found more money for its players. The next question is how many players it will allow through the door.
READ MORE: Mid-October Transfer Portal Activity Exposes College Football’s Recruiting Rulebook
FAQs
What happens to college football walk-ons under revenue sharing?
Schools can pay athletes directly, but participating football programs face a 105-player roster limit. That leaves fewer opportunities for some developmental walk-ons.
Can college football teams still have walk-on players?
Yes. Programs can keep non-scholarship athletes, but those players count toward the standard roster limit unless an applicable exemption covers them.
Why did Matt Rhule change Nebraska’s spring game in 2025?
Rhule wanted reserve players to receive competitive game footage before roster cuts. Nebraska replaced its traditional spring game with the Husker Games.
Can college football walk-ons receive revenue-sharing money?
Yes. A walk-on can receive direct compensation without initially holding an athletic scholarship. Oklahoma State’s Carson Kolb followed that route before earning one.
How much can colleges pay athletes through revenue sharing?
The standard school-wide cap rose to $21.58 million for 2026-27. That amount covers participating schools’ direct athlete payments across sports.
