BYU-I Sports

Once a Viking, Always a Viking.

This website is dedicated to celebrating the legacy of Ricks College athletics while exploring the possibilities of reviving sports at BYU–Idaho. Our goal is to preserve history, spark conversation, and show how athletics can enrich student life, strengthen community spirit, and enhance the university’s identity.

  • What is the NCCAA?

    What is the NCCAA?

    If Brigham Young University–Idaho ever chose to reinstate intercollegiate athletics, one of the most strategic steps it could take would be joining the National Christian College Athletic Association (NCCAA). Founded in 1968 and headquartered in Greenville, South Carolina, the NCCAA governs intercollegiate sports at faith-based institutions in the United States and Canada. With nearly a hundred member schools, many of which also belong to the NCAA or NAIA, the NCCAA provides a unique competitive and cultural framework that could greatly enrich the athletic experience at BYU–Idaho.

    A Mission That Matches BYU–Idaho

    Unlike most athletic associations, the NCCAA is defined first and foremost by its faith-based mission. Its stated purpose is to promote athletics from a Christian perspective, creating competition that reflects the values and spiritual commitments of its member institutions. BYU–Idaho, operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, emphasizes discipleship, character development, and community service. NCCAA membership would allow the university to field teams in an environment where those priorities are not only respected but actively reinforced.

    Community engagement is central to the NCCAA. National championships often include service projects for competing teams, combining athletic achievement with outreach and ministry. For a university like BYU–Idaho, which already emphasizes service as part of its mission, this alignment would provide a natural extension of campus culture into the athletic arena.

    Complementary Membership

    One of the NCCAA’s defining traits is that it does not operate in isolation. Member schools often maintain dual affiliation with the NCAA or NAIA, and the NCCAA does not require institutions to abandon existing memberships. This flexibility is crucial for a school like BYU–Idaho, which would likely weigh the costs and benefits of competing at the NCAA Division II, Division III, or NAIA levels if athletics were restored.

    NCCAA membership would complement such participation by offering additional postseason opportunities. For example, if a BYU–Idaho team failed to qualify for an NCAA or NAIA national tournament, it could still compete for an NCCAA regional or national title. In that sense, the NCCAA functions much like basketball’s National Invitation Tournament (NIT)—a secondary postseason that keeps seasons alive and meaningful for student-athletes.

    This secondary pathway also serves schools in transition. When Biola University moved from the NAIA to NCAA Division II, it leaned on its NCCAA membership to ensure postseason opportunities during the mandatory NCAA waiting period. BYU–Idaho, if it pursued reclassification in the future, could similarly rely on the NCCAA to maintain competitive balance and morale.

    A Wide Range of Sports

    The NCCAA sponsors a broad lineup of men’s and women’s sports, similar to what NCAA and NAIA institutions offer. For men: baseball, basketball, cross country, football, golf, soccer, tennis, and indoor/outdoor track and field. For women: basketball, cross country, golf, soccer, softball, tennis, volleyball, and indoor/outdoor track and field.

    The presence of both core sports (basketball, soccer, volleyball) and Olympic-style offerings (cross country, track, tennis) matches what many smaller colleges choose as a cost-effective athletics portfolio. Should BYU–Idaho restart with a foundational set of 10–12 sports, NCCAA membership would allow those teams to compete immediately for meaningful championships.

    Competitive Quality

    Skeptics sometimes question the level of play in NCCAA competition. Participants themselves often describe it as comparable to NAIA, which places it above many small-college club leagues and in line with established intercollegiate standards. Because so many member institutions hold dual affiliations, the competition often includes teams that also face NCAA Division II or III opponents during the season.

    For BYU–Idaho, this means that NCCAA membership would not lower competitive standards but would instead provide a balanced mix of regional rivals and national tournaments. Student-athletes would gain exposure to high-level play while remaining rooted in a values-based athletic culture.

    Regional Fit and Institutional Identity

    The NCCAA divides its 92 members into multiple geographic regions, ensuring that travel costs remain manageable and rivalries are regionalized. For BYU–Idaho, which sits in Rexburg in the Mountain West, alignment with the West or North Central regions would create logical scheduling opportunities against peer institutions.

    Equally important, NCCAA membership would reinforce BYU–Idaho’s institutional identity. Many colleges treat athletics primarily as entertainment or revenue. The NCCAA instead stresses personal growth, discipleship, and service through sport. For a university that prioritizes spiritual development alongside academics, this framing would distinguish BYU–Idaho athletics from secular programs while still maintaining national relevance.

    Why NCCAA?

    If BYU–Idaho ever revives intercollegiate athletics, choosing the right affiliations will be critical. The NCAA and NAIA each provide distinct advantages, but the NCCAA offers something neither can replicate: a faith-driven, service-oriented athletic association that complements rather than replaces other memberships.

    Through dual affiliation, BYU–Idaho teams could access expanded postseason play, maintain competitive schedules, and showcase discipleship through service projects. The NCCAA’s structure would help bridge transition periods, sustain student-athlete motivation, and reinforce the university’s mission.

    In short, NCCAA membership would not just give BYU–Idaho teams more games to play. It would provide a platform where athletics becomes a direct expression of the university’s values, ensuring that competition enriches both performance and character.

  • Understanding the Differences Between NCAA and NAIA

    Understanding the Differences Between NCAA and NAIA

    As conversations about the possible return of intercollegiate athletics at BYU–Idaho continue, understanding the landscape of college sports is essential. Two primary governing bodies dominate small-college athletics in the United States: the NCAA and the NAIA. Each presents unique models of competition, scholarships, and student-athlete experience that could directly shape how athletics might look in Rexburg if the university decided to restart a program.

    Organizational Structure

    The NCAA oversees more than 1,000 schools across three divisions. Division I houses the nation’s largest athletic programs, while Divisions II and III are home to smaller institutions with varied levels of scholarships and competition. The NCAA’s governance is complex, with strict compliance and oversight systems that can make it slow to adapt.

    The NAIA is much smaller, with around 250 schools. Its single-tier structure and streamlined governance give institutions more flexibility. This adaptability could be attractive for a school like BYU–Idaho, which would be starting from scratch.

    Philosophy and Mission

    The NCAA emphasizes academics alongside athletics but varies by division. Division III does not allow athletic scholarships and stresses education first. Division II balances competition with partial scholarships. Division I prioritizes national exposure and top-level competition.

    The NAIA promotes its Champions of Character program, focusing on integrity, sportsmanship, and servant leadership. This approach aligns well with BYU–Idaho’s mission to develop discipleship and character through education and extracurriculars.

    Eligibility and Academic Standards

    NCAA eligibility rules are tiered. Division I requires the highest academic benchmarks, while Division II is slightly less restrictive. Division III institutions set their own admissions standards since no athletic scholarships are involved.

    NAIA eligibility is more streamlined. Students qualify by meeting two of three requirements: GPA, test score, or class rank. For BYU–Idaho, this would mean easier pathways for students to participate while still maintaining accountability.

    Scholarships and Financial Aid

    Scholarships represent a key dividing line.

    • NCAA D-I and D-II: Offer athletic scholarships, though amounts vary.
    • NCAA D-III: No athletic scholarships, only academic or need-based aid.
    • NAIA: Allows scholarships similar to D-II, but typically smaller in scale.

    For BYU–Idaho, the scholarship model would be a major decision point. A D-III path would keep costs lower but may limit recruiting reach. NAIA or D-II could provide partial scholarships, making athletics more attractive to student-athletes without fully committing to the financial arms race of Division I.

    Recruiting and Competition

    The NCAA enforces detailed recruiting calendars and rules, creating a standardized but rigid process. The NAIA’s rules are far looser, allowing coaches to engage with recruits earlier and more often. For a startup program like BYU–Idaho, this could mean faster recruiting cycles and more personalized relationships with prospective athletes.

    Athletic Experience and Exposure

    NCAA Division I gets the most media attention and is geared toward athletes chasing professional opportunities. Division II and III, along with the NAIA, provide high-quality competition without the same national spotlight.

    NAIA competition is often comparable to NCAA Division II. Many NAIA schools produce elite athletes, but the overall environment prioritizes balance—something that aligns with BYU–Idaho’s academic and spiritual priorities.

    For BYU–Idaho, the choice between NCAA and NAIA would determine the identity of its athletic program, as previously discussed.

    • NCAA Division II offers scholarships and strong competition but requires significant investment.
    • NCAA Division III reduces costs but eliminates athletic scholarships, making recruiting more challenging.
    • NAIA provides flexibility, character-based values, and manageable scholarships, potentially the best cultural fit for BYU–Idaho.

    Whichever path the university might choose, understanding these differences clarifies what athletics could look like in Rexburg. The decision would shape not only the competitive level of sports but also how athletics would complement BYU–Idaho’s mission and community.

  • Community Questions: What About Wrestling?

    Community Questions: What About Wrestling?

    Intercollegiate wrestling has one of the richest athletic traditions in Idaho, and Ricks College once stood at the center of that story. The Vikings fielded a powerhouse program that produced national champions and even an Olympic gold medalist in Rulon Gardner, who stunned the world in 2000 by defeating Russian legend Aleksandr Karelin in Sydney. Wrestling was a point of pride for Ricks alumni, and its legacy still echoes across the region. Yet despite this proud history, bringing wrestling back to BYU–Idaho today would be extremely difficult. The barriers come from Title IX compliance, financial realities, and the broader national decline of the sport at the NCAA Division I level.

    The most pressing issue is Title IX. The law requires that schools provide equitable athletic opportunities for men and women. Because wrestling is a men’s-only NCAA sport, it immediately raises compliance concerns. Institutions with large football rosters often cut men’s programs like wrestling to help balance opportunities. At BYU–Idaho, adding wrestling would necessitate adding new women’s teams to maintain proportionality. That requirement adds significant cost and administrative complexity. Even though women’s wrestling is growing, it is not yet widespread enough in NCAA competition to offset these challenges.

    Financial pressures make the prospect even more difficult. While mats and uniforms are inexpensive, the true costs of operating a collegiate wrestling program come from scholarships, coaching salaries, recruiting, and travel. At the Division I level, teams may award up to 9.9 scholarships, which can quickly escalate budgets. Penn State, for example, spent $1.8 million on wrestling in 2014, while NC State spent $884,000. These numbers pale in comparison to football’s $19 million annual expenses but are still significant when weighed against the minimal revenue wrestling brings in. For BYU–Idaho, which has not operated varsity athletics since 2001, absorbing such costs without revenue return would be impractical.

    Revenue generation is where wrestling faces its steepest uphill climb. Football and basketball sustain most athletic departments because of ticket sales, sponsorships, and media rights. Wrestling, even at its strongest programs, does not match those figures. Regular-season duals rarely fill arenas, and while NCAA championships sell out, those dollars do not trickle down to most institutions. A new athletic department at BYU–Idaho would almost certainly prioritize sports that can engage more students and fans while carrying lower compliance risks.

    The national decline of wrestling sponsorship at the Division I level illustrates the sport’s fragile position. Since 1988–89, 41 Division I wrestling programs have been cut, the largest drop among any men’s sport. Today only 76 Division I schools sponsor wrestling, down from more than 100 just a few decades ago. States like Ohio, once wrestling hotbeds, now have only three Division I teams. The attrition speaks to the pressures schools face and demonstrates why restoring wrestling at a new program would be a gamble.

    Other divisions, however, show different patterns. Division II has grown from 43 to 59 teams since the late 1980s, while Division III remains stable with 94 programs. NAIA and NJCAA schools also continue to sponsor wrestling, often because the sport helps them attract male students in an era of declining male enrollment. These institutions operate on enrollment-driven models and rely on tuition revenue from athletes, making wrestling sustainable. BYU–Idaho, on the other hand, has no such incentive. With tens of thousands of students already enrolled and high demand for admission, the university does not need wrestling to boost male enrollment.

    Women’s wrestling represents one area of growth and optimism. It is one of the fastest-growing high school sports and has gained traction at the NAIA and NJCAA levels, with NCAA interest continuing to build. While this trend might eventually make wrestling more attractive for institutions seeking Title IX balance, the sport remains primarily male at the NCAA level. For BYU–Idaho, which would need to build an entire athletics structure from scratch, launching women’s wrestling alongside men’s would be a major undertaking.

    For alumni who remember the glory days of Ricks College wrestling and the remarkable career of Rulon Gardner, the idea of bringing the sport back to Rexburg is appealing. It carries history, tradition, and pride. Yet the present realities of college athletics make it highly unlikely. Title IX compliance, financial limitations, weak revenue prospects, and national trends all work against it. If BYU–Idaho ever restores varsity athletics, it would almost certainly prioritize sports that require fewer compliance tradeoffs, have lower operating costs, and can engage broader segments of the student body. Wrestling’s legacy at Ricks will always remain strong, but its return to campus is improbable under the current model of intercollegiate athletics.

  • In Remembrance of Charlie Kirk & 9/11

    In Remembrance of Charlie Kirk & 9/11

    Our team at byuisports.com is profoundly grieved by the tragic death of Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated yesterday at Utah Valley University. He was a beloved husband, father, and son of God.

    Our team includes men and women across the political spectrum, many of us active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, some of us inactive members, and some that played sports at Ricks College but never joined the church. Some of us even had the unique opportunity to meet Charlie Kirk at campus events over the year. Today we recognize this is not just a political loss, but a profound wound to the heart of public discourse. On a day like 9/11, which already reminds us of external threats to our country, this attack reminds us of an internal decay: violence against the very voices who engage in civil argument and debate.

    Charlie Kirk was a fierce defender of women’s sports. He was a champion of the idea that female athletic categories must remain distinct. He held that biology, fairness, and the protection of women’s spaces are not optional talking points, but core principles. He used his platform to challenge policies he saw as undermining fairness in competition.

    In remembering Charlie, we honor his convictions even when they were controversial. We believe that defending women’s sports, ensuring equal opportunity, competitive equity, and safe, fair environments for female athletes, is a value that transcends partisanship. Our silence on this issue has always seemed complicit; now, his absence compels us to speak more clearly.

    September 11, 2001, remains a defining moment in American history. The terrorist attacks were intended to break the spirit of a nation, yet in the days that followed, Americans turned to community, faith, and symbols of unity. Sports became one of those unifying forces. Stadiums fell silent for a time, but when games resumed, they provided a stage for collective healing. Images of firefighters and first responders honored before kickoff, athletes carrying the American flag, and fans singing the national anthem with tears in their eyes reminded us that the country could stand together.

    Moments like the first pitch thrown by President George W. Bush at Yankee Stadium or NFL players holding the flag across the field were more than ceremonies. They were signals to the world that America would not collapse under the weight of tragedy. Sports gave people an outlet to grieve, to cheer, and to believe again in resilience.

    As we observe 9/11 this week, and now mourn the assassination of Charlie Kirk, we are again reminded that unity is fragile but necessary. Sports can and should continue to be a place where Americans of all backgrounds gather in common cause, refusing to let violence define our future.

    We call for justice. We call for civility. We call for a recommitment, by all sides, to protecting not only our right to speak and dissent, but our right to do so without fear of violence. And we uphold Charlie Kirk’s belief in defending women’s sports, because fairness in sport is fairness in society.

  • Title IX and the House Settlement: A Collision of Equity and Economics

    Title IX and the House Settlement: A Collision of Equity and Economics

    The June 2025 approval of the House v. NCAA settlement reshaped the entire structure of college sports. Worth nearly $2.8 billion in backpay and introducing a revenue-sharing model for Division I athletes, the agreement removed long-standing barriers that blocked direct compensation. The question now is how this new flow of money fits with the requirements of Title IX, which demands gender equity in athletics.

    Title IX prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally funded education. In sports, that means schools must provide equitable opportunities, benefits, and treatment for both men and women. Compliance is measured by the “three-prong test”: proportional opportunities, a history of expanding opportunities for women, or full accommodation of student interest and ability. Institutions need to meet only one prong, but proportionality is usually the standard that draws the most attention. Unlike NCAA rules, Title IX is federal law. The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights enforces compliance, and violations can threaten a school’s federal funding. That gives Title IX significant power over how the House settlement can be carried out.

    One major issue is direct payments.

    Starting in 2025–26, schools will be able to distribute around $20 to $22 million annually to athletes. If those dollars flow mostly to men’s sports, especially football and basketball, schools open themselves to Title IX complaints. Compensation now counts as part of “treatment and benefits,” so unequal payouts could be interpreted as discrimination.

    Another concern is roster limits. The settlement replaces scholarship caps with roster maximums, which may reduce opportunities over time. If cuts fall more heavily on women’s sports, proportionality could be at risk. Schools may also face tough budget choices. With compensation obligations rising, athletic departments might consider trimming non-revenue women’s sports. Doing so while increasing payments to men’s athletes, however, would raise compliance problems. To offset this, some may add new women’s programs like wrestling or triathlon.

    Title IX does not just respond to the settlement; it actively shapes it.

    Schools cannot concentrate benefits only on male athletes. They will need distribution systems that can hold up under OCR review. That might include setting clear formulas tied to roster sizes or program revenues, ensuring female athletes receive fair shares of compensation, and expanding opportunities where participation gaps appear. Ignoring Title IX when implementing revenue-sharing could spark lawsuits from female athletes excluded from equitable treatment.

    Several tensions are already clear. Football’s large rosters could allow it to dominate compensation pools, upsetting gender balance. NIL earnings remain uneven, with many women still trailing male athletes despite strong online followings. And courts have not yet fully defined whether revenue-sharing counts as a “benefit” under Title IX, though enforcement agencies are likely to view it that way.

    The House settlement ended the old model of amateurism, but it did not end debate about fairness. Instead, it opened a new chapter where compliance with Title IX acts as the guardrail for how schools design and distribute athlete compensation.

    The next few years will test whether institutions can both fund this new system and prove that men and women are benefiting equitably.

  • Title IX and College Athletics: Equality, Misconceptions, and Compliance

    Title IX and College Athletics: Equality, Misconceptions, and Compliance

    Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 transformed American higher education by prohibiting sex-based discrimination in federally funded educational programs. While its scope extends beyond athletics to admissions, hiring, and campus safety, its impact on sports has generated the most debate. Title IX is often misunderstood as a law that eliminates men’s teams, when its actual intent is to ensure equitable opportunities for all students. This article explains Title IX’s purpose, addresses common misconceptions, explores the “three-prong test” for compliance, and examines how athletic associations like the NCAA, NAIA, and NJCAA apply the law today.

    The Purpose of Title IX

    The statutory text of Title IX is concise: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance”.

    In practice, this means colleges and universities must:

    • Provide equitable access to educational programs.
    • Ensure gender equity in athletics participation, funding, and treatment.
    • Establish reporting mechanisms for sexual harassment and assault, as sexual misconduct was later defined as a form of discrimination under Title IX.

    In athletics, Title IX does not require identical programs for men and women but demands that institutions provide proportional opportunities and equitable support.

    Historical Context

    Before Title IX, athletic opportunities for women were scarce. In 1971, fewer than 30,000 women competed in intercollegiate athletics, compared to more than 170,000 men. By 2019, over 220,000 women participated in NCAA sports. This dramatic increase illustrates Title IX’s role in expanding access.

    Court rulings such as Alexander v. Yale (1980) extended Title IX’s scope by recognizing sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination. Meanwhile, federal enforcement—through the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR)—clarified how schools must balance men’s and women’s athletics.

    Common Misconceptions About Title IX

    Misconception 1: Title IX eliminates men’s sports

    A persistent claim is that men’s teams are “cut” because of Title IX. In reality, the law does not mandate the elimination of men’s sports. Institutions facing budget pressures sometimes reduce men’s teams rather than expand women’s offerings, but this is an administrative choice, not a statutory requirement.

    Misconception 2: Title IX requires identical funding for men’s and women’s teams

    Title IX requires equity, not identical budgets. For example, football programs naturally incur higher costs due to equipment and roster sizes. Compliance focuses on whether male and female athletes receive equivalent treatment in facilities, coaching, medical services, and recruiting, not whether each team has identical dollar allocations.

    Misconception 3: Title IX only applies to athletics

    While athletics garners the most attention, Title IX applies to admissions, employment, and campus climate. Every federally funded school must have a Title IX coordinator and grievance process for sexual harassment cases.

    The Three-Prong Test for Compliance

    OCR introduced the “three-prong test” in 1979 to evaluate athletic compliance:

    1. Proportionality – Athletic participation opportunities must be proportionate to enrollment. For example, if 55% of undergraduates are women, roughly 55% of athletic opportunities should be available to women.
    2. History of Expansion – If not proportional, an institution can show a history and continuing practice of expanding opportunities for the underrepresented sex.
    3. Full Accommodation – Schools may demonstrate that they are meeting the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex, even if participation is not proportional.

    Institutions need to meet only one of the three prongs to comply.

    Title IX Across Athletic Associations

    NCAA (Divisions I, II, III)

    The NCAA Constitution affirms gender equity as a core principle. While enforcement of Title IX comes from federal agencies, NCAA bylaws reflect its spirit by requiring:

    • Fair treatment of male and female athletes in practice schedules, facilities, and scholarships.
    • Provisions for institutional control and diversity, equity, and inclusion.
    • Governance structures (e.g., Senior Woman Administrator positions) to safeguard representation.

    NAIA

    The NAIA emphasizes institutional flexibility but still requires equity in scholarship distribution and program administration. While smaller than the NCAA, NAIA schools are subject to the same federal Title IX mandates.

    NJCAA

    The NJCAA explicitly endorses gender equity as part of its philosophy. Its handbook states that equitable opportunities must be provided in both the “quantity and quality” of participation, benefits, and resources. Given the community college mission, Title IX plays a crucial role in ensuring women’s access to athletic opportunities at two-year institutions.

    Measuring Equity in Practice

    Compliance is not just about roster numbers but also about the quality of experience. The OCR reviews factors including:

    • Facilities (stadiums, locker rooms, practice fields)
    • Coaching quality and compensation
    • Access to medical services and training staff
    • Travel accommodations and per diem allowances
    • Publicity and media coverage

    A program may meet participation proportionality but still fall short if female athletes consistently receive inferior resources.

    Enforcement and Challenges

    Title IX is enforced through OCR investigations, often triggered by complaints. High-profile cases have forced universities to revise budgets, add women’s teams, or improve resources.

    Challenges include:

    • Football’s outsized role: Large rosters make proportionality harder.
    • Budget constraints: Smaller schools may argue financial hardship in balancing programs.
    • Legal debates: Lawsuits continue to refine interpretations, particularly regarding transgender athletes and evolving definitions of sex discrimination.

    Title IX Moving Forward

    Fifty years after its passage, Title IX remains both celebrated and contested. Future issues include:

    • Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL): Ensuring female athletes benefit equally from new commercial opportunities.
    • Transgender participation: Balancing fairness, inclusion, and competitive equity.
    • Continued expansion: Emerging sports like women’s wrestling, triathlon, and rugby are being added at NCAA institutions, often as a way to enhance compliance.

    Title IX is not a zero-sum law that pits men’s and women’s sports against each other. It is a civil rights statute ensuring fairness in educational opportunities, including athletics. While compliance remains complex, its spirit is straightforward: equal opportunity, equitable treatment, and protection from discrimination.

    From the NCAA to the NJCAA, every governing body affirms gender equity as foundational. The continued challenge is not whether Title IX applies, but how institutions interpret and implement its requirements within financial and cultural realities. As athletics evolve, Title IX remains a living framework shaping opportunities for future generations of student-athletes.

  • Community Questions: Licensing & Videogames

    Community Questions: Licensing & Videogames

    Something really surprising (and welcomed) has been happening recently: our readers have been reaching out to us through DMs and email and asking questions. This has been one of the most encouraging and exciting developments since we started this project, so thank you. We’re going to start posting a weekly blog-style article answering your questions, so please keep them coming.

    One of the most frequent questions we’ve received lately has actually been about college sports video games. Now, even if BYU–Idaho were to bring back athletics, because it wouldn’t likely be at the NCAA Division I level, it’s almost guaranteed that BYU–I would never show up in an EA or 2K game. That said, we know many of you have deep ties to local schools and to BYU itself, so the interest makes sense.

    Several members of our team have direct experience working with collegiate property licensing, and a few even worked with EA when they brought back their college football title. After a lengthy email chain sorting through the current mess, here’s what we know about the increasingly unlikely college basketball games that may or may not be in development.

    When EA Sports announced the long-awaited return of its college football franchise, the immediate reaction from many fans was excitement mixed with a simple follow-up question: what about basketball? For years, college basketball video games have held this cult-classic aura. People still talk about College Hoops 2K8 like it was some kind of holy grail. It was the game where you could take Gonzaga, Davidson, or some random mid-major and shock the world. It captured the magic of March Madness in a way that felt authentic. Yet here we are in 2025, with college football making a triumphant return and basketball still sitting on the sidelines, trapped in a maze of licensing battles, corporate competition, and market hesitation.

    At first glance, basketball should be the easier play. There are fewer players on the court, more name recognition for the stars, and a tournament that commands national attention every spring. But when you start peeling back the layers, the complications pile up fast. The first problem is licensing. College football already had a centralized enough system to make EA’s return feasible. Deals with the College Football Players Association, schools, and conferences could be pulled together into something manageable. For basketball, the scale is triple. Over 350 Division I programs for men, and another 350-plus for women, each with their own quirks, logos, mascots, and arena rights. Trying to stitch all of that into one clean package isn’t just complicated, it’s borderline impossible without burning through massive amounts of money.

    And even if you cleared that hurdle, you hit the roster issue. Football rosters are stable enough that you can lock in 85 scholarship players and know most of them will be around for three or four years. Basketball is a different beast. Stars leave after one season. The transfer portal is a revolving door. International players bring their own unique NIL complications. By the time you get a roster built, it’s already obsolete. A developer would be renegotiating likenesses almost every year just to keep things current. That’s a logistical nightmare compared to football.

    Then there’s the NCAA’s crown jewel: March Madness. In football, the postseason is controlled by conferences and the College Football Playoff committee, which means EA could work around the NCAA itself. Basketball doesn’t have that luxury. March Madness is 100 percent NCAA property. No matter how good a game might be, if it doesn’t include the tournament, it’s going to feel empty. That puts the NCAA in the driver’s seat, and historically they’ve been protective, even reluctant, about handing out those rights. They’ve signaled they would be on board if the game included every Division I program and covered both men’s and women’s tournaments. But when the publishers can’t even agree on how many teams should be in the game, it stalls out.

    Broadcast rights only make things messier. Football’s presentation is straightforward: a handful of TV partners, some bowl game branding, and a few iconic stadiums. Basketball is fractured into hundreds of arenas, each with different sponsorships. Regular season games are split across ESPN, CBS, Turner, Fox, and local networks. Then you add in the conference tournaments, which matter deeply to fans but bring in their own logos, sponsors, and rights agreements. To make a game that feels real, you’d have to negotiate with half the sports media landscape. That’s a big ask.

    Even if you could clear every legal and logistical hurdle, there’s the financial elephant in the room. College football games have always sold better. They’ve built a strong following and the hype for College Football 25 shows how much demand is there. College basketball, on the other hand, has never been a sales juggernaut. EA killed its NCAA Basketball series in 2009 because revenues kept falling. 2K’s College Hoops 2K8 is beloved in hindsight, but it failed commercially at the time. So now publishers are staring at a math problem: spend a fortune on licensing for basketball and hope that the niche audience is big enough to justify it.

    The legal history doesn’t help. Both basketball and football titles were caught up in the Ed O’Bannon lawsuit, which argued that EA and the NCAA were using player likenesses without pay. That lawsuit is why both games disappeared. Football found a way back once NIL reforms made paying players possible. Basketball has all the same legal baggage, plus the NCAA bottleneck on its most important event. That’s why it died first, and why it’s been harder to revive.

    The latest wrinkle is the EA vs. 2K standoff. EA’s vision was ambitious: a standalone game with all 350-plus men’s and women’s programs, every conference, full NCAA backing, and NIL payments across the board. About 300 schools and 20 conferences were already signed on through the Collegiate Licensing Company. The idea was to release by 2028. 2K, meanwhile, had a different plan. Instead of going all in, it wanted to start smaller, weaving college programs into its NBA 2K franchise as downloadable content. If that worked, they could expand. They’ve already secured deals with several blue-blood programs.

    The sticking point is exclusivity. EA doesn’t want to move forward unless it can guarantee that every school is locked in with them. Their argument is that without exclusivity, the costs don’t make sense. 2K doesn’t care about exclusivity because they already dominate basketball with NBA 2K and can afford to experiment. EA hasn’t had a relevant basketball title since NBA Live 19, and if 2K can beat them to market with college content inside NBA 2K, EA’s standalone game might be dead on arrival. That’s why EA just rescinded its licensing offer after some schools signed with 2K. The whole project is now on ice.

    Fans are understandably frustrated. Hardcore players want every Division I school represented, just like in the old days. Casual players at least want March Madness. 2K’s promise of “more than 100 programs” doesn’t cut it for either group, since it leaves out two-thirds of Division I. EA’s version matched the fans’ dream better, but it’s stalled by business strategy. On social media, the backlash has been loud. Some are hoping the pressure forces 2K to broaden its scope, but others are already resigning themselves to a watered-down DLC rather than the comprehensive game they’ve been craving.

    The NCAA itself isn’t thrilled either. In a statement, they admitted disappointment that the market is moving toward fragmented deals rather than a unified product. They were hoping to see every program included under one banner, but with EA stepping back and 2K pushing ahead in a different direction, that vision is fading fast.

    So where does this leave us? A few possible paths still exist. 2K might expand if fan backlash continues. EA could come back later if exclusivity ever becomes feasible again. A hybrid model could launch with limited teams and grow through DLC over several years. Or maybe an indie developer tries to fill the void with customizable rosters and community mods. But right now, the idea of a full, all-inclusive college basketball video game featuring both men’s and women’s teams, complete with March Madness, looks like it’s been shelved for the foreseeable future.

    The bottom line is that football had a clearer path. Its licensing was simpler, its rosters were more stable, its postseason wasn’t under NCAA lockdown, and its sales history gave publishers confidence. Basketball had all the opposite conditions: fractured licensing, unstable rosters, heavy NCAA control, and weaker commercial track records. Pile on a corporate tug-of-war between EA and 2K, and the road gets even bumpier.

    For you, our readers, that means the wait continues. College football is back and thriving, but if you were hoping to cut down the virtual nets at the Final Four any time soon, you’ll probably be waiting a long while. Until the business side of things finds common ground, the dream of reviving college basketball gaming glory will stay stuck in the past.

  • How the House Settlement Could Delay BYU–Idaho from Adding Sports

    How the House Settlement Could Delay BYU–Idaho from Adding Sports

    For years, rumors have swirled in Rexburg about the possibility of BYU–Idaho bringing back intercollegiate athletics. The school, formerly known as Ricks College, once boasted one of the most successful junior college programs in the nation before transitioning into a four-year university in 2001 and dropping varsity sports entirely. Since then, BYU–Idaho has invested heavily in intramurals and recreation, but some students and alumni continue to wonder if the school might one day field teams again.

    On the surface, the timing might seem right. Neighboring schools across Idaho compete in the NCAA and NAIA, and BYU–Idaho has the enrollment, facilities, and talent pool to sustain a competitive athletic department. Yet, one major obstacle looms: the House v. NCAA settlement. This landmark legal agreement, finalized in June 2025, is reshaping the entire financial and governance structure of college athletics. For a school without varsity sports, the settlement creates more reasons to wait than to jump in.

    The Basics of the House Settlement

    The lawsuit, House v. NCAA, was filed in 2020 by former Arizona State swimmer Grant House and basketball player Sedona Prince. They argued that the NCAA and major conferences illegally restricted athletes from earning money from their name, image, and likeness (NIL) and from sharing in broadcast revenues. In May 2024, the NCAA agreed to a $2.75 billion settlement, later approved by Judge Claudia Wilken in June 2025.

    The deal changes college sports in several key ways:

    • Direct payments to athletes. Schools at the Division I level can now share up to $20 million annually with athletes.
    • Revenue sharing. Broadcast and commercial revenue can be distributed directly to players.
    • Roster limits. Traditional scholarship caps are replaced by roster caps, giving schools more flexibility but also forcing tough roster decisions.
    • Retroactive damages. Current and former athletes who competed after 2016 will receive part of the multibillion-dollar payout.

    While this settlement directly impacts Division I schools, its ripple effects extend across the entire college sports ecosystem, including Division II, Division III, and the NAIA.

    Financial Uncertainty for New Entrants

    The most obvious reason a school like BYU–Idaho would hesitate is money. The NCAA is funding the massive $2.75 billion payout partly by reducing distributions to all member schools over the next decade. Even schools with no role in past NIL restrictions are affected.

    That means if BYU–Idaho were to join the NCAA today, it could enter at a time when distributions are shrinking and membership dues are rising. Instead of athletics being a manageable investment, the university could find itself saddled with unexpected costs tied to litigation it had nothing to do with. By waiting, BYU–Idaho avoids buying into the NCAA’s financial obligations during its most unstable period.

    Shifting Rules and Compliance

    The House settlement is not just about money, it fundamentally rewrites NCAA rulebooks. Roster limits, NIL oversight, and revenue-sharing agreements are still being clarified. Additional lawsuits are already pending, including cases about athlete employment status and potential Title IX implications of revenue sharing.

    If BYU–Idaho entered the NCAA now, it would face a moving target. Compliance staff would be tasked with enforcing rules that could change again within a year or two, leaving the institution constantly scrambling to adapt. For a school starting from scratch, this uncertainty makes planning nearly impossible.

    Recruiting Disadvantages

    While Division II, Division III, and NAIA schools are not directly required to share revenue with athletes, the recruiting landscape has changed permanently. Athletes now know that Division I programs can put cash on the table. Even if BYU–Idaho entered at a non-DI level, it would have to compete for recruits in a world where money is openly part of the equation.

    That makes it much harder to build momentum for a new program. Imagine trying to convince a promising soccer or basketball recruit to join a startup team at BYU–Idaho while DI schools nearby are offering financial packages. For a brand-new athletic department, those are tough odds.

    Risk Management and Institutional Strategy

    From an administrative standpoint, BYU–Idaho’s current position is a safe one. Without varsity athletics, it has no exposure to lawsuits, no compliance headaches, and no financial obligations tied to the NCAA’s legal troubles. Jumping in now would expose the university to all of those risks before the dust settles.

    BYU–Idaho also has to consider its unique institutional mission. As a university owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it makes decisions with a long-term, conservative outlook. Taking a wait-and-see approach fits that pattern. It allows the school to observe how NCAA reforms play out, how Title IX challenges are resolved, and whether additional lawsuits fundamentally reshape college athletics even further.

    Settlement Implementation and Appeals

    Finally, it is important to note that the House settlement is not fully complete. While the court approved the deal in June 2025, implementation will take years, and appeals are still possible. Distribution plans for athletes, compliance requirements for schools, and the practical effects of roster limits are all still being worked out.

    If BYU–Idaho launched athletics today, it would be building on shifting legal ground. Waiting until the system stabilizes ensures that any new athletic program is based on clear, settled rules.

    The Bottom Line

    The House settlement represents the most dramatic change to college sports in modern history. For powerhouse Division I programs, it means paying athletes directly and navigating a new financial model. For schools in Divisions II, III, and even the NAIA, it means operating in the shadow of those changes, with increased recruiting competition and ongoing uncertainty.

    For BYU–Idaho, the timing simply isn’t right. Starting an athletic program in the middle of ongoing lawsuits and unsettled reforms would expose the school to financial risk and compliance chaos. The prudent path is to wait until the legal dust settles, the new NCAA model stabilizes, and the university can make decisions based on a clear, predictable framework.

    Until then, the roar of Ricks College athletics will remain a memory… and the return of BYU–Idaho sports will stay on hold.

  • College Sports in Idaho

    College Sports in Idaho

    Collegiate athletics in Idaho spans every level of competition, from the national spotlight of NCAA Division I football at Boise State to powerhouse junior college programs at the College of Southern Idaho. The state features a diverse mix of public universities, private colleges, and community colleges that collectively offer student-athletes opportunities in nearly every major sport. With schools competing in the NCAA, NAIA, and NJCAA, Idaho’s athletic landscape blends nationally recognized programs with smaller institutions that excel regionally and in select sports. This variety makes Idaho a unique case study in how different tiers of college athletics coexist within a single state.

    NCAA Division I

    Boise State Broncos (FBS)

    Boise State University is Idaho’s flagship athletic program, competing at the Division I level in the Mountain West Conference. The Broncos are nationally recognized for football, particularly their 2007 Fiesta Bowl victory, which propelled the program to national prominence. Beyond football, Boise State sponsors a wide range of sports including men’s and women’s basketball, soccer, track and field, cross country, gymnastics, and more. The school’s Albertsons Stadium, with its iconic blue turf, is one of the most recognizable venues in college sports. Boise State has leveraged its athletic success into broader institutional growth, using visibility from football and basketball to strengthen enrollment and brand identity.

    Idaho Vandals (FCS)

    The University of Idaho competes in the Big Sky Conference, sponsoring a balanced lineup of men’s and women’s sports. The Vandals’ football program, which has shifted between the FBS and FCS levels, currently competes in the Big Sky and plays home games in the unique Kibbie Dome, an enclosed stadium that also hosts basketball and track. Beyond football, Idaho supports basketball, soccer, volleyball, golf, tennis, track, and cross country. The Vandals have a strong tradition in track and field and distance running, with multiple conference titles. Located in Moscow, the program plays a key role in Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho’s sports landscape, maintaining regional rivalries with Eastern Washington, Montana, and Idaho State.

    Idaho State Bengals (FCS)

    Idaho State University, located in Pocatello, competes in the Big Sky Conference at the FCS level. The Bengals sponsor football, basketball, volleyball, cross country, track and field, softball, and tennis, with Holt Arena serving as the centerpiece facility. Built in 1970, Holt Arena was one of the first indoor domed stadiums in college athletics and continues to host ISU’s football and track teams. Idaho State athletics emphasize accessibility and regional identity, drawing heavily from Southeast Idaho’s high schools for student-athletes and fan support. Rivalries with the University of Idaho and Weber State are central to ISU’s sports culture, particularly in football and basketball.

    NCAA Division II

    Northwest Nazarene Nighthawks

    Northwest Nazarene University (NNU) is Idaho’s only NCAA Division II member, competing in the Great Northwest Athletic Conference (GNAC). The Nighthawks sponsor basketball, baseball, softball, soccer, volleyball, golf, and track and field. NNU emphasizes a balance between athletic competition and its Christian mission, providing student-athletes the chance to compete regionally against schools from Washington, Oregon, Montana, and Alaska. The school’s baseball program has been a GNAC contender, while men’s basketball and women’s soccer have also enjoyed postseason appearances. NNU offers Idaho athletes a unique niche: a private, faith-based option to play NCAA sports at a highly competitive level without leaving the state.

    NCAA Division III

    N/A

    Currently, there are no universities in Idaho that compete at the NCAA DIII level.

    NAIA

    College of Idaho Coyotes

    The College of Idaho, a private liberal arts institution in Caldwell, competes in the Cascade Collegiate Conference (CCC) of the NAIA. The Coyotes field more than 20 varsity teams, including basketball, soccer, volleyball, baseball, softball, track, cross country, swimming, and lacrosse. Football was reinstated in 2014 and has since become a point of pride, with the team competing in the Frontier Conference. The Yotes emphasize a well-rounded athletic culture, excelling in distance running and baseball while steadily growing in football and basketball. With a strong commitment to small-college athletics, the College of Idaho has established itself as one of the most successful NAIA programs in the Northwest.

    Lewis–Clark State Warriors

    Lewis–Clark State College, located in Lewiston, is nationally known for its powerhouse baseball program. The Warriors host the annual NAIA World Series, which has cemented their reputation as one of the premier small-college baseball programs in the country. Beyond baseball, LCSC competes in the Cascade Collegiate Conference in basketball, cross country, track and field, golf, and tennis. The school’s emphasis on athletic excellence is paired with a mission to serve the educational and community needs of North-Central Idaho. The Warriors’ consistent NAIA baseball dominance has made the program a national brand, while other sports continue to thrive regionally within the CCC.

    NJCAA

    North Idaho Cardinals

    North Idaho College, a two-year institution in Coeur d’Alene, competes in the Northwest Athletic Conference (NWAC) after years in the NJCAA. The Cardinals sponsor men’s and women’s basketball, soccer, wrestling, golf, and volleyball. Wrestling has been a particular point of pride, with NIC producing multiple NJCAA national champions before transitioning to the NWAC. The college provides a strong athletic pathway for Idaho athletes looking to compete at the junior college level, often serving as a launching point to NCAA and NAIA programs. The school’s location near the Washington border makes it a natural competitor for Spokane and Eastern Washington colleges.

    Southern Idaho Golden Eagles

    The College of Southern Idaho (CSI) is one of the most successful junior college athletic programs in the nation. Based in Twin Falls, CSI has earned national championships in men’s basketball and volleyball, along with strong programs in baseball, softball, track and field, and rodeo. The Golden Eagles’ men’s basketball program is legendary at the NJCAA level, with multiple national titles and a reputation for producing Division I transfers. CSI’s volleyball team has also won national championships, establishing the school as a consistent power in multiple sports. With strong local support and a tradition of excellence, CSI is a cornerstone of junior college athletics in Idaho.

    InstitutionGoverning BodyLocationKey SportsAthletic Highlights
    Boise State BroncosNCAA Division I FBS (Mountain West)BoiseFootball, Basketball, Soccer, Track, GymnasticsFamous for blue turf; 2007 Fiesta Bowl win; nationally recognized football program
    Idaho VandalsNCAA Division I FCS (Big Sky)MoscowFootball, Basketball, Volleyball, Soccer, Track, Cross CountryFootball in Kibbie Dome; strong track tradition; rivalries with Idaho State and Montana schools
    Idaho State BengalsNCAA Division I FCS (Big Sky)PocatelloFootball, Basketball, Volleyball, Softball, TrackHolt Arena—first domed stadium; key rivalries with Idaho and Weber State
    Northwest Nazarene NighthawksNCAA Division II (GNAC)NampaBasketball, Baseball, Softball, Soccer, Volleyball, Track, GolfOnly NCAA DII school in Idaho; faith-based private program; competitive in baseball and basketball
    College of Idaho CoyotesNAIA (CCC / Frontier for Football)CaldwellFootball, Basketball, Baseball, Softball, Soccer, Volleyball, Track, SwimmingFootball reinstated 2014; nationally strong in cross country, baseball; broad sport offerings
    Lewis–Clark State WarriorsNAIA (CCC)LewistonBaseball, Basketball, Track, Golf, TennisHosts NAIA World Series; baseball dynasty with multiple national titles
    North Idaho CardinalsNJCAA (NWAC)Coeur d’AleneBasketball, Soccer, Volleyball, Wrestling, GolfStrong wrestling tradition; produces NCAA/NAIA transfers; competes heavily with Spokane-area schools
    Southern Idaho Golden EaglesNJCAA (no conference)Twin FallsBasketball, Volleyball, Baseball, Softball, Track, RodeoMen’s basketball national powerhouse; volleyball national titles; consistent NJCAA dominance

  • The House Settlement

    The House Settlement

    On June 6, 2025, Judge Claudia Wilken approved the House v. NCAA settlement, a landmark antitrust agreement that has fundamentally changed the business of college athletics. The settlement ends years of litigation over athlete compensation and ushers in a revenue-sharing model unprecedented in the NCAA’s history.

    Background

    The lawsuit began in 2020 when Arizona State swimmer Grant House and then-Oregon basketball player Sedona Prince filed suit against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences. They alleged that the NCAA’s restrictions on name, image, and likeness (NIL) earnings and broadcast revenue violated antitrust laws. The case built upon earlier victories for athletes in O’Bannon v. NCAA (2014) and Alston v. NCAA (2021), both also decided by Judge Wilken.

    In 2023, the court granted class-action certification, expanding the case to include all Division I athletes dating back to 2016. Faced with billions in potential damages, the NCAA and its member conferences chose to settle.

    Key Terms of the Settlement

    • $2.8 Billion in Backpay: Over the next decade, the NCAA and its conferences will distribute nearly $2.8 billion to current and former Division I athletes who competed since 2016. These payments cover lost NIL opportunities, exclusion from broadcast revenues, and other antitrust damages.
    • Revenue Sharing: Beginning with the 2025–26 academic year, schools may share up to roughly $20–22 million annually with athletes. This represents about 22% of the revenues at top athletic programs.
    • Scholarship Limits Replaced with Roster Caps: Traditional scholarship maximums will be removed. Instead, teams will operate under roster size limits. While this grants schools more flexibility in how they allocate funds, it could reduce opportunities for walk-ons or lower-priority athletes. To protect those already enrolled or recruited, the court required a grandfathering provision.
    • Payment Responsibilities: The NCAA will fund about 41% of the settlement, with the rest divided among the Power Five conferences, the Group of Five, Football Championship Subdivision schools, and non-football Division I institutions.

    Implications for College Athletics

    The settlement marks a decisive break from the amateurism model that governed college sports for more than a century. Direct payments to athletes are now permissible, legitimizing what many schools were already indirectly facilitating through NIL deals. For the first time, players will share in the billions generated by media rights, ticket sales, and sponsorships.

    Still, questions remain. How schools distribute revenue among sports will shape the competitive landscape. Football and men’s basketball are likely to capture the lion’s share, but Title IX requires equitable treatment for female athletes. Ensuring compliance could trigger further litigation.

    Additionally, the settlement does not resolve whether athletes are “employees” entitled to unionize or collectively bargain. Cases pending before the National Labor Relations Board could push the system further toward professionalization.

    Looking Forward

    Implementation will be complex. Athletic departments must build infrastructure to manage payments while balancing budgets across sports. Smaller Division I schools may struggle to match payouts from wealthier programs, potentially widening the gap between tiers of competition.

    Even with uncertainties, the House settlement represents a historic shift. After years of legal and legislative battles, Division I athletes will finally share in the economic rewards of college sports. The decision has set a new baseline for compensation, one likely to shape the next generation of NCAA governance.