Intercollegiate Athletics

From my perspective, the #10 ranking for intercollegiate athletics is a reasonable starting point. Here are some thoughts on areas of risks for intercollegiate athletics. 

Compliance & Regulation: Between NCAA rules, Title IX requirements, and the still evolving NIL environment, athletic programs already operate under one of the most complex regulatory environments on any campus. Compliance failure in athletics rarely stays quiet, and it tends to become very public, extremely fast.

Financial Exposure: Many athletic programs run at a deficit and rely heavily on revenue from one or two sports. The House v. NCAA settlement has added a new and immediate layer to this concern. With institutions now expected to share approximately $20–22 million annually in direct revenue with student-athletes, most programs are facing a significant new budget obligation with no clear or sustainable long-term funding model in place. This is not a future risk it is a present one.

Legislative Uncertainty: Adding to the complexity is the absence of a clear federal framework governing college athletics. While Congress has been actively discussing national NIL standard and broader student-athlete legislation for several years, meaningful bipartisan agreement has remained out of reach. Multiple bills have been introduced, but the lack of consensus has left institutions operating in a patchwork environment navigating inconsistent state laws, evolving NCAA policies, and unsettled legal precedent all at once. Until federal legislation is passed, this uncertainty itself is a risk that institutions need to account for in their planning.

Reputational & Legal Exposure: The House settlement is also a signal worth paying attention to beyond the dollar figure. It reflects a broader legal and cultural shift in how courts and the public view the relationship between universities and student-athletes. The amateurism model that has long underpinned college athletics has been found legally vulnerable, and more litigation is likely to follow. Institutions that have not begun reassessing their exposure in this area may find themselves behind the curve.

Student-Athlete Wellbeing: This is an area of growing institutional responsibility and one where the risk landscape is expanding. Mental health support, academic resources, and guidance around NIL opportunities are all areas where student-athletes have increasing needs and where gaps in institutional support can create both legal and reputational exposure. As expectations in this space continue to rise, it is worth assessing whether current programs and resources are keeping pace.

The #10 ranking may have been accurate when it was assigned, but the House settlement alone has materially changed the financial and legal risk profile of intercollegiate athletics. It is worth making sure our institutions are reassessed accordingly.

Looking forward to hearing how others are navigating this.

Best regards,

Paul B. Mendoza III

 Reporting Ethics or Misconduct Concerns Speak Up!

http://www.cu.edu/ethicsline. Click or tap if you trust this link." style="color: #467886; margin: 0">www.cu.edu/ethicsline  |  1-800-677-5590