After a one year delay, NCAA Division I Bylaw 20.2.4.4 officially goes into effect August 1, 2025. The legislation will require Division I institutions to complete a compliance review involving an authority outside of the athletics department at least once every four years. Like many pieces of new legislation, the text provides institutions with a high-level sketch of what they will need to do: what these reviews will actually look like in practice will only become clear with time – and more discrete guidance from the NCAA Division I Legislative Committee.

What do we know about the new legislation?

What one can glean about this new requirement from the text of the legislation and its rationale is somewhat scant – and perhaps purposely so. The proposal itself acknowledges that the Bylaw is intended to set a consistent standard for institutional accountability while allowing flexibility for implementation on campus.

We know the reviews must occur once every four years and must involve an authority outside of athletics. And while the reviews must happen every four years, the Legislative Committee will decide and potentially redefine the reviews’ scope every year, with a focus on areas that are “integral to serving the needs of student-athletes,” as viewed through the lens of the student-athlete holistic model. With an effective August 1 date, this makes spring and summer 2025 an important period for this group to develop the first iteration of areas to review.

We also know from the published resources that the scope will include whether all university staff who directly or indirectly support compliance efforts, like registrars, admissions officers, and financial aid officers, are being educated appropriately, thus expanding the reviews’ radius beyond traditional athletics staff. We know that the review’s findings must cross the desk of the school’s president and athletics director and finally, we know there will be consequences for not completing reviews. However, like the exact scope of the reviews, we don’t know what the consequences are yet.

What can we infer about the new compliance review scope?

Reading both the lines of the legislation and the spaces in between, these reviews may look different or reach further than yester-year compliance reviews institutions may have undergone (either voluntarily or involuntarily). The emphasis on measuring whether the institution is “appropriately serving and supporting student-athletes…” suggests the reviews will focus less on visit paperwork, phone logs and gear policies and more on areas like NIL resources, financial literacy, mental health services, and availability of tutors (for example).

While the proposal notes the legislation aims to standardize accountability and consider areas identified by the Legislative Committee, the bylaw’s built-in flexibility also suggests that implementation will vary widely, largely based on resources, mission, areas of priority for the university in a given year, and perhaps conference office expectations. As noted, the Legislative Committee will set a minimum scope, but risk-averse institutions may take the opportunity to assess their athletics enterprise as a whole. The breadth and depth of these reviews may – and permissibly so – vary from school to school.

The legislation hedges a bit when it comes to the role the entity outside of athletics will play in the review, noting only it “must involve an authority outside of the athletics department.” The extent of the authority’s involvement is undefined and the types of authority that may be involved are broad. Some will choose to keep the review in-house and lean, utilizing their FAR, as the legislation explicitly permits. Others will utilize existing campus resources and offices like internal audits, risk management or general counsel. Still others will engage outside counsel who have experience in both traditional athletics compliance reviews as well as the many moving pieces of athletics departments and priority areas integral to the student-athlete experience. The methodology of the review is also left up to the authority conducting it, and could conceivably involve interviews, document review and significant analysis.

What might Universities do to Prepare for the modernized Compliance Review?

Although this bylaw isn’t splashy and won’t result in headlines on ESPN or a major infractions case, it does pivot toward a student-athlete-centric focus which is newsworthy for the industry. It’s a Division I membership accountability measure, a mechanism to codify existing best practices, invite outside perspective and review on compliance and resource functions supporting student-athletes, and encouraging internal alignment from the Athletics Department to President’s Office on its approach to athletics compliance and the holistic student model for student-athletes.

The flexibility of the legislation is largely institution friendly. While the review must take place once in a four-year period, it does not dictate it must occur in year one. Institutions can take some time to button up their policies and procedures and ensure they are supporting student-athletes in a holistic way, while awaiting more discrete guidance from the Legislative Committee on the exact scope, which is anticipated summer 2025. With the potential House settlement and all that will bring on the horizon, institutions may take the opportunity to preemptively review their department – while others may weigh this as a reason to wait. Schools can be thoughtful about who the right authority is to involve in the reviews. If they want to keep the review entirely in-house, they can start sketching out some internal operating procedures and engaging the selected authority to get staffing and a timeline in place. Schools that decide an external entity is better suited can then start any RFP or budgeting process to ensure they find the right fit.

What should University consider when selecting an entity outside of athletics for the review?

Whether utilizing a university office outside the athletics department to conduct the review or a university selecting an outside firm to conduct the review, universities should be mindful that the new compliance review’s scope may have a significant new look and feel. Specifically, the Legislative Committee may identify novel review categories that the traditional athletics compliance review never encompassed. The traditional athletics compliance review almost exclusively focused on athletics compliance functions such as rules education, monitoring, documentation, communications, and violation reporting history. This new-age athletics compliance review may call for more versatility from the entity brought in to conduct the review and universities preparing for their review should keep that top of mind.

What else might the new compliance reviews prompt?

One potential byproduct of the modernized Division I compliance review requirement is that it may be a means to assess athletics and institutional staffing levels to ensure efficiency and alignment to best support student-athletes.

With the NCAA Division I Manual going through major deregulation (vis a vis the House settlement terms compelling deregulation) paired with an expanding emphasis and focus on student-athlete-centric services and support areas (e.g., financial literacy, mental health, branding), how an athletics department and university staffing are set-up, right-sized, or re-constituted may be one of the priority “sub-plots” an institution brings to the table for its next compliance review.

Student-Athlete Experience is the Driver

Bylaw 20.2.4.4 may turn out to play a crucial role in fostering both a culture of compliance within NCAA institutions and elevated awareness and efficiency in student-athlete centered resources. Legislated or not, regular reviews not only help identify and rectify compliance issues but also promote transparency and integrity in athletic programs and set a foundation for a great student-athlete experience. Institutions that proactively engage with this bylaw can enhance their reputation and ensure an environment that supports this new generation of student-athletes.