As a longtime follower of collegiate athletics and someone who has spent more hours than I care to admit analyzing conference structures, I find the landscape of NCAA football to be one of the most fascinating, and occasionally confusing, ecosystems in all of sports. The question of how teams are organized isn't just administrative trivia; it defines rivalries, shapes championship paths, and creates the very fabric of the season's narrative. Today, I want to walk you through a complete guide to understanding all NCAA football teams and their divisions, drawing from the broader principles that govern collegiate sports. It’s a system of constant evolution, much like we see in other NCAA-sponsored sports. Just the other day, I was reading about the NCAA Season 100 juniors basketball tournament, where PERPETUAL and Letran, last year’s finalists, clinched their semifinals spots. That news, while about a different sport and a specific Philippine league, perfectly illustrates a core NCAA concept: a structured divisional or bracket system where past performance sets the stage for current playoff positioning, creating a clear path to a national championship.
At its core, the NCAA football structure is built on a three-division model: Division I (split into the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) and Football Championship Subdivision (FCS)), Division II, and Division III. This isn't just about skill level, though that's a major component; it's a philosophical and operational framework. Division I FBS is the big show, the one that dominates television broadcasts. Here, you have 133 teams as of the 2023 season, competing for spots in prestigious bowl games and the four-team College Football Playoff. The teams are largely organized into ten conferences, like the SEC, Big Ten, and ACC, plus a handful of independents like Notre Dame, a personal favorite of mine for their stubborn and tradition-rich standalone status. The FBS doesn't use a strict divisional playoff within the NCAA, but its conferences often have internal divisions. The SEC, for instance, has long been split into East and West, a setup that creates iconic annual crossover rivalries and determines who plays in the conference championship game. I’ve always felt this divisional setup within conferences is pure genius for narrative building—it guarantees certain matchups and creates two distinct paths to the same goal.
Then you have Division I FCS, which comprises 128 teams. This is where you find powerhouse programs like North Dakota State, which has won 9 of the last 12 FCS national championships, an utterly dominant run that I argue is more impressive than any dynasty in the FBS given the playoff format. The key differentiator here is the postseason: a sanctioned 24-team NCAA tournament that culminates in a true national championship game. The FCS is also conference-based, with leagues like the Missouri Valley Football Conference and the Big Sky. The beauty of the FCS is its purity of competition; the focus feels slightly less commercial and more directly on the sport and the championship trophy. Stepping down to Division II, with about 170 teams, and Division III, with over 240, the model shifts again. These divisions emphasize a greater balance between athletics and academics, with DIII famously not offering athletic scholarships. Their national tournaments are expansive, involving 28 teams in DII and 32 in DIII. The geographic conference alignments here are crucial, minimizing travel and fostering intense regional rivalries. I have a soft spot for DIII; the passion is unmistakable, and the play is often more innovative without the pressure of national TV deals.
Understanding these divisions requires more than memorizing names; it's about grasping the consequences of each level. The resource disparity is staggering. An average FBS Power Five program might operate with a budget exceeding $150 million, while a strong DIII program functions on maybe $1.5 million. This impacts everything from facilities to coaching salaries to recruitment reach. The path to a "national champion" is also fundamentally different. The FBS uses a selective committee and a four-team playoff (expanding to twelve teams in 2024, a change I wholeheartedly support as it will finally recognize the depth of talent beyond just two or three conferences). The FCS, DII, and DIII all use inclusive, merit-based tournaments. This creates a beautiful parity in its own way—any team that gets hot at the right time can make a legendary run. It’s the same principle we saw with PERPETUAL and Letran securing their semifinal spots in that NCAA basketball tournament; win the games in your bracket, and you advance. The structure creates the opportunity for drama.
So, why does this complex system matter to us as fans? It creates the tiers of competition that allow for different kinds of stories. The monolithic, high-stakes drama of the SEC belongs to the FBS. The gritty, tournament-focused quest of a Sam Houston State belongs to the FCS. The local, community-driven spirit of a Mount Union in DIII offers yet another flavor. Each division serves a different purpose and caters to a different aspect of the collegiate athletic ideal. My personal view is that the NCAA’s divisional structure, for all its flaws and constant debates about realignment, is remarkably effective at providing a platform for thousands of student-athletes. It’s not perfect—the name, image, and likeness (NIL) era is shaking the very foundations of amateurism, particularly in the FBS—but the framework of divisions allows for some semblance of order. It gives every team, from the Alabama Crimson Tide to a small liberal arts college, a defined league and a championship to chase. In the end, much like in that NCAA Season 100 basketball tournament, the divisions set the stage. They create the brackets, the rivalries, and the pathways. Our job as fans is to understand that map, so we can better appreciate the incredible journey each team is on, no matter which division they call home.