BYU-I Sports

In recent months, conversation about the return of intercollegiate athletics at BYU–Idaho has intensified. While the truth behind the rumors remains uncertain, three potential models emerge as the most viable paths forward: NCAA Division II, NCAA Division III, and the NAIA—each with unique advantages and tradeoffs in scholarships, geography, visibility, and cost.

---

NCAA Division II
Pros:

• Offers partial scholarships (“equivalency” model), which can help attract competitive athletes.
• Regional recognition and access to NCAA postseason tournaments.
• Seen as a serious level of college athletics, with more exposure than NAIA or DIII.

Cons:

• High costs for scholarships, staffing, and compliance.
• Likely conference homes (RMAC or GNAC) would require frequent long-distance travel, including flights, driving expenses up.
• Infrastructure demands (compliance offices, athletic scholarships) are significant.

Fit for BYU–Idaho: Division II offers prestige, but the financial and travel commitments are heavy. It aligns more with mid-sized public universities than a tuition-sensitive private school.

---

NCAA Division III
Pros:

• No athletic scholarships, which keeps direct costs lower.
• Philosophy of academics first, aligning with BYU–Idaho’s focus on education.
• Still offers national championships and strong competition.

Cons:

• Only regional option is the Northwest Conference (Oregon/Washington schools), requiring regular long-distance travel.
• Limited visibility and brand recognition compared to NCAA II or NAIA.
• Operating costs for facilities, staff, and travel remain substantial even without scholarships.

Fit for BYU–Idaho: The non-scholarship model matches BYU–Idaho’s culture, but the lack of nearby DIII peers and the heavy travel burden are barriers.

---

NAIA
Pros:

• Scholarships allowed, but with more flexible caps than NCAA II, keeping costs lower.
• Regional conference options (Cascade Collegiate Conference, Frontier Conference) include Idaho and Montana schools, reducing travel expenses.
• Membership process is more accessible, with lighter compliance requirements than the NCAA.
• Strong fit for private, religiously affiliated institutions.

Cons:

• Less national visibility than NCAA divisions.
• Some perceive NAIA as a step below NCAA competition levels, though top programs compete at a high standard.

Fit for BYU–Idaho: NAIA provides the best balance of cost, competitive opportunity, and cultural alignment. Regional conference options significantly reduce travel costs, and the scholarship flexibility allows BYU–Idaho to attract talent without the expense of a full NCAA Division II model.

---

Division II offers prestige but at a steep financial and logistical cost. Division III matches BYU–Idaho philosophically but presents major geographic challenges. The NAIA emerges as the most realistic option, blending affordability, local conference alignment, and mission compatibility. For a university seeking to relaunch athletics in a sustainable way, the NAIA may be the most practical path forward