When talk surfaces about the possible return of intercollegiate athletics at BYU–Idaho, one sport inevitably enters the conversation: football. For many schools across the United States, football is the centerpiece of the athletics department, a rallying point for students and alumni, and a source of identity on campus. Yet for BYU–Idaho, football is the single most improbable sport to be reinstated under any governing structure, be it NCAA Division II, NCAA Division III, or NAIA.
The reasons are structural and enduring. They relate to cost, scholarships, geography, institutional mission, and liability. As the expenses of college football continue to escalate, even at small colleges, BYU–Idaho’s circumstances make football not just unlikely, but virtually impossible.
1. Cost Structure
Football is expensive at every level of intercollegiate play. Even small-college programs that compete far from the glitz of the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) spend the majority of their budgets keeping a team on the field. For BYU–Idaho, this cost structure creates an insurmountable barrier.
Roster size. A functioning football program requires more than 100 student-athletes between offense, defense, and special teams. That number dwarfs the rosters of other sports. A full track team may carry 40 athletes, and basketball only 12–15. Football’s scale alone drives up the cost of uniforms, equipment, and travel.
Staffing. Supporting that many athletes demands a coaching staff of 8–12 full-time coaches, along with athletic trainers, a strength staff, and recruiting personnel. These positions add salary obligations that far exceed other sports.
Facilities. A competitive football team cannot operate without major facility investments: a stadium that meets governing body requirements, locker rooms, turf fields, lights, and press facilities. Building or renovating such infrastructure requires tens of millions of dollars. For a university that previously eliminated varsity sports to control costs, this level of capital investment is unrealistic.
Operating costs. Football’s ongoing expenses are the heaviest of any sport. Travel for 100 athletes and staff, insurance premiums, replacement of helmets and pads, and recruiting costs accumulate annually. At most small colleges, football consumes between 50 and 60 percent of the total athletic budget. That imbalance undermines the sustainability of the entire department.
2. Scholarships
Scholarship policy is another structural barrier.
- Division II. The NCAA allows up to 36 equivalency scholarships for football. Even if split among the roster, that represents the largest aid budget in the department.
- NAIA. Football programs may award up to 24 scholarships, still a major outlay compared to other sports.
- Division III. No athletic scholarships are allowed. But because football rosters are so large, the costs of coaching, travel, and facilities remain extremely high even without scholarship budgets.
BYU–Idaho has historically avoided scholarship-driven athletics, preferring to support students with academic and need-based aid. Adding a sport that demands the largest financial aid commitment would contradict that philosophy.
3. Conference and Travel Challenges
Even if BYU–Idaho had the resources, geography creates another obstacle: there is no natural football conference fit.
- RMAC (Division II): The Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference sponsors football, but most members are in Colorado and New Mexico. Travel would be long and costly.
- Frontier Conference (NAIA): The Frontier, centered in Montana, includes football programs, but again, travel distances are significant.
- Northwest Conference (Division III): The NWC, home to private colleges in Oregon and Washington, does not offer a local Idaho football option.
Without a nearby league, BYU–Idaho would be forced into independent scheduling, which is unstable and often more expensive. A football team without a clear conference home struggles to secure games, let alone championships.
4. Institutional Philosophy
The philosophy of BYU–Idaho also makes football incompatible.
In 2000, the university eliminated all intercollegiate athletics, citing cost and mission alignment. Leadership emphasized academic priorities and spiritual development, moving competitive activities into a strong intramural and club sports system. That decision reflected a belief that varsity athletics, as structured in the United States, did not fit the university’s mission.
Among all sports, football is the least mission-justifiable. It carries the highest costs, greatest risks, and the most external pressure to keep up with national trends. The “arms race” in football—spending on facilities, recruiting, and staff—runs counter to BYU–Idaho’s model of simplicity and stewardship.
The larger Church Educational System (CES) already invests heavily in football at BYU in Provo, which competes at the Football Bowl Subdivision level in the Big 12 Conference. Duplicating that investment at BYU–Idaho would be redundant and unsupported. From a system-wide perspective, one major football program fulfills the CES presence in the sport.
5. Liability and Risk
Beyond costs and philosophy, football carries the highest risk profile of any college sport.
- Injury rates. Football leads all sports in concussions and serious orthopedic injuries. That exposure creates long-term medical obligations and raises ethical questions about athlete safety.
- Insurance premiums. Insuring a football team is dramatically more expensive than insuring other sports. Universities without massive endowments or media contracts struggle to absorb these premiums.
- National trend. Across the country, small colleges are cutting football to stabilize budgets and reduce liability. Programs in the NAIA, Division II, and even Division I FCS have folded in the past decade, often citing the inability to keep up with rising costs. Starting a new program in this climate would be an outlier decision.
Examples:
- Humboldt State (CA) cut Division II football in 2018 due to rising costs.
- St. Olaf College (MN) briefly dropped football in 2016 before reinstating it under heavy alumni pressure.
- Northwestern Oklahoma State and Bacone College (OK) eliminated their football programs in recent years citing financial strain.
- Hartwick College (NY) dropped football in 2022, redirecting funds to other sports and academics.
These examples highlight the national reality: football is not just hard to start—it is increasingly difficult to sustain.
Comparative Cost Profile
| Governing Body | Scholarships Allowed | Roster Size (Typical) | Annual Operating Costs (Est.) | Share of Athletics Budget | BYU–Idaho Feasibility |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NCAA DII | 36 equivalency max | 100+ | $2–3 million | 50–60% | Unsustainable |
| NCAA DIII | None | 100+ | $1.5–2.5 million | 50–60% | No aid burden, but still cost-heavy |
| NAIA | 24 equivalency max | 100+ | $1.2–2 million | 45–55% | Lower than NCAA, but still too high |
Football at BYU–Idaho is improbable for a combination of reasons:
- Financially unsustainable at startup. The capital and operating costs would overwhelm the department.
- No natural conference fit nearby. Travel demands would compound expenses.
- Philosophically inconsistent. The institution moved away from scholarship-driven athletics, and football is the most scholarship-intensive sport.
- Redundant within CES. BYU–Provo already carries the flagship football identity.
- High risk. Injury and insurance liabilities make football the most dangerous sport to operate.
- National precedent. Other small colleges are cutting football rather than adding it.
Final Assessment
In the national imagination, football often defines a college’s athletic identity. But not every institution is built to sustain it. For BYU–Idaho, football is the single most unlikely sport to ever return. The structural obstacles—costs, scholarships, travel, philosophy, and liability—are too significant to overcome.
If athletics do return, they will come in the form of balanced, sustainable sports like basketball, soccer, volleyball, track, and cross country. Those programs offer broad student opportunities without overwhelming the budget or contradicting institutional priorities.
In an era when even established programs are cutting football, BYU–Idaho’s decision to avoid it is not only consistent with its mission but also financially prudent. For the foreseeable future, football at BYU–Idaho belongs only to history, not to the school’s athletic future.
BYU-I Sports 
Leave a comment