BYU-I Sports

If BYU–Idaho ever reestablished intercollegiate athletics, the choice of NCAA division would dictate its long-term trajectory. Unlike Division III, which emphasizes a non-scholarship model, NCAA Division II permits athletic scholarships, demands larger athletic budgets, and maintains a regional but highly competitive structure. For BYU–Idaho, Division II would mean embracing scholarships, adding staff, and investing in facilities, all while ensuring alignment with the university’s religious and academic mission.

Division II Framework

Division II membership is open to institutions that can demonstrate institutional control, financial commitment, and compliance with NCAA scholarship and eligibility standards. Schools moving into Division II typically complete a multiyear membership process, beginning with provisional status before attaining full privileges, including access to NCAA championships. For BYU–Idaho, the immediate challenge would be deciding on a conference home, since independence in Division II is rarely sustainable.

Primary Option: Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference (RMAC)

The RMAC represents the most logical home for a BYU–Idaho athletic department. The league stretches across Colorado, Utah, Nebraska, South Dakota, and New Mexico, with members like Colorado Mesa, MSU Denver, Westminster (Utah), Black Hills State, and Chadron State.

Pros:

• Geographic alignment: Westminster (Salt Lake City) would provide a natural in-state rivalry, just four hours from Rexburg. Travel to Colorado schools, while long, is manageable compared to other options.
• Established DII footprint: The RMAC has a long history as one of the premier conferences in Division II. Membership would provide stability and competitive balance.
• Recruiting synergy: BYU–Idaho could tap into the same Mountain West recruiting pipelines used by RMAC schools.

Cons:

• Travel distances: Trips to schools in South Dakota or New Mexico would stretch well beyond a day’s drive.
• Cost of scholarships: RMAC members operate with full or near-full athletic aid programs, meaning BYU–Idaho would need significant institutional investment to be competitive.

Despite these hurdles, the RMAC appears to be the most geographically and structurally logical option for BYU–Idaho.

Primary Option: Great Northwest Athletic Conference (GNAC)

The GNAC is another plausible destination. The league includes Alaska Anchorage, Alaska Fairbanks, Central Washington, Western Oregon, Seattle Pacific, Simon Fraser (Canada), Saint Martin’s, and Montana State Billings.

Pros:

• Regional connection: Montana State Billings is within driving distance, making it one of the closer DII opponents for BYU–Idaho.
• Academic alignment: Schools like Seattle Pacific (private, Christian) and Simon Fraser (international research university) mirror BYU–Idaho’s academic identity more than RMAC’s state-heavy membership.
• Northwest branding: The GNAC’s footprint in Washington, Oregon, and Montana is more culturally and geographically familiar to Idaho institutions.

Cons:

• Geographic sprawl: The presence of two Alaska schools makes the GNAC one of the most travel-intensive conferences in Division II. Teams must budget for flights, which raises costs dramatically.
• Membership instability: The GNAC has experienced departures and realignment pressures in recent years, raising questions about long-term stability.

If BYU–Idaho prioritized academic peers and Northwest connections, the GNAC would be attractive, though the Alaska travel burden is a major drawback.

Secondary Option: Pacific West Conference (PacWest)

The PacWest is made up mostly of private and faith-based institutions in California and Hawaii. Members include Biola, Fresno Pacific, Dominican, Chaminade, Hawaii Hilo, and Point Loma Nazarene.

Pros:

• Institutional fit: Many PacWest schools are religiously affiliated, making BYU–Idaho’s mission a natural cultural match. The faith-based presence at Biola and Fresno Pacific, in particular, would resonate with BYU–Idaho.
• Recruiting connections: California provides fertile recruiting grounds for both athletics and general student enrollment.

Cons:

• Distance: The nearest schools are in Southern California, requiring flights for nearly every contest. Hawaii-based members further complicate scheduling with expensive trips.
• Logistical burden: Travel demands would be heavier than either RMAC or GNAC, reducing practicality.

While the PacWest makes sense in terms of institutional culture, the geographic distance makes it a long shot for BYU–Idaho.

Alternative Option: Independent Membership

A handful of schools function as independents, scheduling across conference lines.

Pros:

• Flexibility: BYU–Idaho could build regional schedules against RMAC and GNAC opponents while evaluating long-term conference options.
• Low initial barrier: Allows athletics to relaunch before committing to a league.

Cons:

• No automatic postseason: Independents lack guaranteed NCAA championship access, relying on rare at-large selections.
• Scheduling burden: Filling a balanced schedule without conference partners is challenging.

This path would only be viable as a short-term solution while awaiting formal conference affiliation.

Realistic Assessment

The RMAC stands out as the most logical destination. Proximity to Westminster in Utah provides a nearby peer, while the broader Rocky Mountain network would give BYU–Idaho a natural competitive home. The GNAC represents a viable alternative but carries heavier travel demands and less stability. The PacWest matches BYU–Idaho institutionally but is impractical geographically.

Ultimately, if BYU–Idaho sought a Division II home today, RMAC membership would offer the clearest pathway to competitive stability while aligning with the university’s geographic footprint. However, the financial investment required for scholarships and expanded operations would be significant, marking a major shift from the institution’s current model.