<p>It seems like all the prestigious colleges are in either D1 or D3…</p>
<p>That’s true. But it makes sense when you think about it. </p>
<p>If a school decides to offer athletic scholarships, then it has to play in either Division I or Division II. And given this choice, a school will typically prefer Division I, assuming that they can afford it. Division I sports are more expensive than Division II sports (due to the larger number of scholarships and higher level of play), but they are far more visible and generate far more revenue. Since prestigious schools generally have strong financial resources, they can afford to opt for Division I; they don’t need to settle for Division II. </p>
<p>If a prestigious school doesn’t believe in athletic scholarships, then it can play in any division, but will typically opt for Division III. The absence of athletic scholarships is a significant handicap, and so it makes sense to play other schools with the same handicap. The Ivies, of course, play in Division I without athletic scholarships, but with limited success.</p>
<p>The bottom line, then, is that there is no incentive for a prestigious school to play in Division II. If a prestigious school offers athletic scholarships, then it makes more sense to play in Division I. If it doesn’t offer athletic scholarships, then it makes more sense to play in Division III. The only nationally-known Division II school that I can think of is the University of California, San Diego. </p>
<p>In fact, Division II sports may not make sense for any school, regardless of prestige. There is obviously a great deal of interest in college sports, but only at the Division I level. In contrast, Division II and Division III sports generate very little attention or revenue. But at least Division III sports are cheap, because there are no athletic scholarships. Division II sports do require athletic scholarships, so they are much more expensive than Division III sports – yet they generate the same minimal return. </p>
<p>The long-term viability of Division II is not clear; many schools have left Division II for Division I in recent years. The NCAA became alarmed at this trend, and in 2007 they imposed a moratorium on moves to Division I, which remains in effect until 2011-2012. It’s impossible to say what would happen to Division II without the moratorium, but obviously the NCAA perceives the situation as a concern.</p>
<p>^why can’t they just abolish division II?</p>
<p>UCSD is DII. It switched from DIII about 10 years ago.</p>
<p>
That’s probably an option that is being considered during the present moratorium. However, this step is not one that can be taken lightly, because it would have a huge impact on schools and athletes – not just in Division II, but in Divisions I and III as well.</p>
<p>Division II is the smallest division, but it still contains nearly 300 schools. If DII was eliminated, then all of those schools would either have to “upgrade” to DI, or “downgrade” to DIII. </p>
<p>Either way, the schools or the athletes are going to face huge costs. A DII school that upgrades to DI would face much greater athletic expenses, due to the higher expectations for athletic scholarships and facilities. Many DII schools would not be able to afford this. So a change of this kind would be a great concern to those schools. </p>
<p>On the other hand, if DII schools downgraded to DIII, then those schools would save money – but that’s because thousands (probably tens of thousands) of DII students would lose their athletic scholarships. So a change of this kind would obviously be a great concern to those students.</p>
<p>And in either case, there would be hundreds of new schools in DI and DIII, which would totally reshape the organization of those divisions. Entire new leagues would need to be established. </p>
<p>My guess is that change to Division II is inevitable, but it will have to be phased in slowly and gradually. The NCAA has bought itself some time to think about it under the present moratorium.</p>
<p>DII is the sanest and most defensible of the three divisions. DI consists of paraprofessional athletic programs whose institutions struggle to justify their expense and overemphasis, and DIII schools typically fudge on the non-scholarship concept by giving scholarships to top athletic recruits and calling them “leadership” or “service” scholarships. DII’s marketing angle is a sense of “balance.” There will always be a number of schools who want an athletic approach that maintains that balance.</p>
<p>
Division II does work for many schools, but it doesn’t work for others. For example, there are 21 different teams that have won DII football championships since it was established in 1973. Of those, only 11 are still playing in DII. That number might be even lower, if not for the NCAA moratorium. </p>
<p>One particular current concern is the continued viability of DII football on the West Coast. DII football is now played at a grand total of three schools on the West Coast (one each in California, Oregon, and Washington). The next closest team is in Utah. If these schools want to play football, then realistically they probably would be better off in a different division.</p>
<p>UCSD wins!</p>
<p>ucsd isnt div 2 USD is</p>
<p>University of Richmond is probably the best D2 school</p>
<p>UCSD is D2
USD and Richmond are D1</p>
<p>D1 for what?</p>