Andrew Kaiser

NESCAC Parents Group Ready To Sue Due to Football Roster Limits Conference Athletic Directors Are Readying Sanctions for Cap Violations Despite Parents’ Movement By Frank Rossi of @D3FBHuddle Sept. 7, 2025 — After attempts to work with the NESCAC to change the conference’s policy on roster limits for football teams at NESCAC schools were met with resistance and new, potentially stricter policies, a group of NESCAC parents has indicated to “In the (D3FB) Huddle” (“ITH”) their intent to potentially sue the NESCAC conference for discriminatory practices toward football players and programs, according to a point person for the group of parents, who spoke with ITH on the condition of anonymity. Until 2025, the NESCAC had a roster limit for football of just 75 players, but that limit was not imposed during COVID-impacted years when fifth-year players were prevalent. In April 2025, though, the NESCAC made two important changes: 1) for the first time ever, starting in 2026, the NESCAC will participate in the NCAA Division 3 Football Playoffs; and 2) the roster limit for football would be re-established to 84 players maximum per team and would be enforced again starting in the 2025-2026 school year. Over 300 parents signed off on letters provided to ITH, in which they implored the NESCAC to change this policy. One letter stated, “We are writing on behalf of and in solidarity with families and players at every NESCAC school who will be hurt by the newly mandated roster limit of 84 football players. With some insight into the consequences of this arbitrary and capricious action, we hope you will come to understand the insensitive and discriminatory nature of this policy.” Furthermore, the parents stated, “Now, weeks before preseason begins, these players face the prospect of losing not only their place on the team but also the community, purpose, and structure that football provides. Football is not only an extracurricular activity for them; it is a central part of their identity, a driver of academic discipline, and a foundation for friendships and support networks that extend far beyond the field.” The group claims based on empirical data, that roster limits have not worked even when they were imposed. “If the goal is competitive parity, the historical record is clear: Roster Caps Do Not Work. Over the last 20 years, NESCAC Football championships have been consistently captured by the same small group of programs, regardless of roster size….In the four post-COVID seasons, when the previous 75-person roster limit was removed, championships went primarily to the same group: Middlebury (.5), Trinity (1.5), Williams (1), and Wesleyan (1). Four NESCAC football programs, Bates, Bowdoin, Hamilton and Tufts, have not won a league championship since 2000. Roster limits do not drive parity in performance or outcome. They have not had an impact on league balance.” Despite the parents’ call to action, the NESCAC Presidents last week reaffirmed the 84-person roster limit for football while still instituting no roster limits on any other sports. In addition, according to sources, the NESCAC is fearful that schools that had the most parental involvement in the letters cited above will voluntarily breach the limits this year, leading to the Presidents requiring their NESCAC Athletic Directors to create and agree on sanctions for roster limit violations. Those new sanctions may be announced as early as this Tuesday. According to ITH’s anonymous source, “[N]o one's clear whether the sanctions are going to be heavy and draconian. If you carry more than 84 players…then you might be precluded from postseason play. You [might not] be eligible for a championship. We don't know what the sanctions will be. On the other end of the spectrum, it could be a wrist slap. It could be window dressing. Who knows?” In one of the letters, the parents made clear their intentions (in boldfaced text) if the roster limit was not removed, let alone the potential for additional sanctions: “We wish to make clear that we intend to swiftly pursue all appropriate avenues until this decision is reversed. We hope for quick and amicable resolution without the need for legal action.” The second letter, signed by about half of the 300 parents involved, suggests similar potential issues: “Breach of Implied Contract: The recruitment process and prior season participation created reasonable expectations that roster cuts may violate [law], potentially exposing NESCAC institutions to civil action and reputational damage.“ The ITH source stated that many of the parents are indeed prepared to take legal action if the conference does not reverse their present stance. The legal theories become clearer when reviewing the second letter, in which those parents raised Title IX and specific legal concerns. “Implementing roster limits disproportionately affecting football compared to other sports may violate equal protection requirements under Title IX of the Civil Rights Act….Current federal regulations state that ‘college athletic departments with $50,000,000 or less in revenue…or that do not have any revenue-generating sports should not disproportionately reduce scholarship opportunities or roster spots…’ NESCAC institutions appear to fall under these protections.” Interestingly, the House vs. NCAA settlement affecting Division I sports includes roster limits for ALL sports, according to a recent NCAA governance FAQ document: “If a Division I institution opts in to the settlement, the roster limits apply to all NCAA-sponsored teams at the institution. For a Division I sport on a Division II or III campus, if the institution opts in to the settlement, the roster limits apply to all Division I sports.” There have been other NCAA Division 3 conferences with varying types of football roster limits, but locating current such limits is not easy since COVID often forced the need to allow larger rosters. With the House vs. NCAA settlement, there is also an expectation that more would-be Division I football players may need to drop down to lower divisions because of the inability to walk onto Division I teams as easily as they once could. Yet, according to ITH’s source, some NESCAC Presidents are not going to allow that to take place for their own reasons at their schools. “[T]here's a legendary story about, I think it was the Amherst president at one point saying the reason why we want roster limits, this is going back to the ‘70s and the ‘80s when they put the 75-person-roster limit in place, was just because we don't want more football players on campus. It's that simple. And the total absence of any justification or explanation around why football is being singled out, it raises a lot of questions. And I think there are a handful of very powerful, highly endowed institutions in the NESCAC — Williams, Amherst, Bowdoin, they just don't want more football players. But that is as close to justification as anybody has been able to come because the league is otherwise silent on why this seems to be important.” According to the source, the NESCAC Presidents have not raised their own Title IX or budget justifications during discussions related to this roster limit policy, and they have not responded specifically to the parents’ Title IX and federal law arguments in the most recent re-affirmation of football roster limits. He includes that the parents’ next steps are to see the new sanctions later this week and to see which of the about 300 parents are willing to help fund the litigation they are intent to undertake to reverse the policy. “[W]e've signaled to all of the parents that the next step is likely to be legal.” Whether or not that happens appears to be squarely in the hands of the NESCAC Athletic Directors and Presidents this week. #d3fb @The3rd_Division