RMAC Leading the Way:
Division II Deserves a Voice in the Future of College Sports

A Position Statement from the Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference Presidents Council

Intercollegiate athletics, a uniquely American tradition, is at a pivotal moment. From the Alston decision; to new Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) policies; antitrust litigation; student-athlete employment discussions; and unrestricted transfer rules, the landscape of college sports is undergoing dramatic change. Recent developments, including the House Settlement and proposed federal measures such as the SCORE Act and the White House’s “Save College Sports” executive order, have accelerated this shift. While these efforts are often presented as solutions to preserve college athletics, they are primarily driven by the priorities and interests of Division I, particularly the Power Four conferences, whose competitive and financial realities differ greatly from those of Division II.

At the forefront of the national conversation are high-profile figures like Nick Saban and Tommy Tuberville. However, the perspectives of institutions outside Division I are consistently overlooked. The House Settlement applies only to Division I. It introduces roster limits that could jeopardize Olympic sports, creates new Title IX concerns, and fails to address the underlying causes of instability. These issues stem largely from the commercial model of Power Four football and men's basketball.

That said, there is a level of college sports where the interests of student-athletes and their education continues to be prioritized beyond the perverse influence of hyper-commercialization: Division II college athletics. To preserve that model, Division II must prioritize specific and unique reforms in key areas such as transfer rules, employment frameworks, and eligibility, among others. The critical question now is, how do we insulate Division II college athletics from the craziness in Division I and preserve the student- athlete experience?

According to the NCAA’s most recent Sports Sponsorship and Participation Report, Power Four athletes represent only a fraction of the college sports landscape, yet they dominate the headlines. Fewer than 90,000 of the nation’s more than half a million college athletes compete in those conferences compared with over 126,000 in Division II and nearly 190,000 in Division III. The majority of student-athletes are outside the Power Four, and research shows that their experience is deeply impactful. NCAA data indicates that Division II athletes are more likely than their non-athlete peers to hold leadership roles in college, while a Gallup study found they are also more likely to pursue postgraduate degrees and to secure full-time employment and managerial positions after graduation. Broader studies reinforce this pipeline to leadership: research by Ernst & Young and espnW found that 94 percent of women in the C-suite played sports, and more than half competed at the collegiate level. Together, these outcomes demonstrate the relevance of the student-athlete experience beyond the Power Four and underscore how essential it is to sustain Division II programs for the short and long term.

The Legal Fallout Is Not Contained

Nevertheless, despite being excluded from the revenue-sharing framework of the House Settlement, Division II is subject to its legal implications. The reality is that litigation at the Division I level, particularly related to antitrust law, employment status, and eligibility, has a profound trickle-down effect.

Division II is now forced to operate under legal precedents and policy changes shaped by a vastly different competitive and financial environment. This is particularly evident in the elimination of transfer restrictions. While framed as student-athlete empowerment at the top level, the result in Division II has been destabilized rosters, disrupted coaching continuity, and added strain on institutions that rely on enrollment-driven athletics programs for long-term sustainability.

The impact is not theoretical. It is showing up in eligibility cases, weakened team cultures, and the erosion of continuity within programs built on four-year developmental models. Most critically, the student educational experience is harmed. Division II coaches and administrators are being asked to retain student-athletes in a system that looks less and less like the one they committed to. Meanwhile, those same student-athletes are exposed to the high-profile headlines of Division I peers with access to resources, compensation, and branding that do not reflect the values or realities of most collegiate athletes nationwide.

It is absurd that Division II, and in truth much of Division I, is held to the same legal standards as the Power Four. Without meaningful policy differentiation, we are all subject to a legal and compliance framework designed to manage a commercial enterprise, not a purpose-based educational model.

Division II Is Different, and That Difference Matters

The difference between Division II and the Power Four is not only about financial resources. It is a difference of purpose. Power Four athletics has become a commercial enterprise. Coaches earn multi-million dollar salaries. Student-athletes receive full scholarships and professional-level support. Facilities are built with national broadcasts and branding in mind. This model reflects a level of competition that deserves attention, but it is not the only model worth protecting. Division II operates on a different foundation.

Most of our student-athletes receive partial or no athletic scholarships. Many hold part-time jobs or engage in internships, clinical placements, and student teaching. Coaches regularly adjust practice schedules to support academic priorities. Some staff members cannot afford housing in the communities where they work. Yet, our programs remain committed to high-level competition, academic success, and preparation for life after college. We are not trying to become the Power Four. We are focused on preserving a model of intercollegiate athletics that prioritizes access, balance, and education. We also recognize the importance of NIL opportunities, which allow student-athletes to benefit from their personal brand. Division II supports this progress while advocating for policies that ensure fairness, broad access, and alignment with educational priorities consistent with the non-Power Four experience.

The Power Four operate as professionalized enterprises, and their athletes deserve opportunities to share in the revenues they generate. Division II is instead an amateur, education-centered system, and our athletes should not be governed by the same rules as those competing in professionalized college sports. Clear policy differentiation is essential. We call for two distinct systems: one designed for professional college sports and one that preserves amateur athletics while protecting opportunity, balance, and educational purpose.

A New Vision for College Athletics

Building on that fundamental reality, the current governance model and the legal fallout it produces no longer reflect the diversity of today’s college sports. The policies being advanced to address Division I employment models, revenue sharing, and roster management are not compatible with the structure or mission of Division II.

Our student-athletes are already balancing academic and financial responsibilities. Our budgets are already stretched to the limit. Our programs are already maximizing limited resources. Extending Division I rules and expectations to Division II imposes requirements that do not reflect our values or our financial reality.

We need the flexibility to take a different approach. That might include a separate governance model, a new association grounded in educational priorities, or policy reforms that better support equitable access to college athletics. It might also include new models for youth development and clearer pathways for participation.

Whatever the solution may be, it must be built on the lived experiences of our campuses, our students, and our communities. It must move beyond the reality that only 4.37 percent of March Madness revenue supports the entire Division II budget, and beyond the small fraction of student-athletes competing at the commercial level, to embrace a broader vision of sustainability and purpose. We need a future model that works for all institutions and all student-athletes.

What Comes Next

We support national efforts to modernize and preserve college athletics. But those efforts must include all divisions and all voices. DII is not broken. It continues to provide affordable, meaningful, and transformative opportunities for student-athletes. It upholds the educational values that drew many of us to higher education. And it works.

We did not create the current challenges in college sports. But we are ready to be part of the solution. Division II has a story to tell. Now is the time to tell it clearly, confidently, and without apology. On behalf of our institutions and our student-athletes, the Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference is prepared to lead in shaping the future of college athletics.

About the RMAC

The Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference, headquartered in Colorado Springs, is a premier NCAA Division II conference with 15 institutions located in Colorado, Nebraska, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah. The RMAC currently competes in 22 NCAA Division II sports and has earned 67 national championships and 53 national runners-up since 1992. Founded in 1909, the RMAC is the most historic athletic conference in the western United States and Division II.