F&M wrestling and Hobart lacrosse are both non-scholarship.
I've always been puzzled by the stubbornness of the pro-DI Hobart folks. They were a DIII powerhouse and decided to "move up" without the benefit of scholarships, but by being unable to give scholarships in DI, they don't make a dent. Like Hartwick, they announced a move back to DIII about a decade ago and there was so much outcry from alums that they reversed course. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but I suppose going back to DIII in men's lacrosse - where the landscape is far more competitive than it was when they left, would sort of be lose-lose to some people. There is almost no chance they'd replicate their previous dominance - I guess as a non-scholarship DI team, they can boast that they compete against scholarship schools while also using the absence of scholarships as a way to temper expectations. But, they could most assuredly be a highly competitive DIII program at any rate.
I personally wish the scholarship programs were never allowed to be grandfathered. To revoke that status now seems unfair to those programs, but there is simply no way to ensure that a school's Division III teams are not receiving some sort of direct or tangential benefits from carrying a scholarship Division I sport. While I'm aware scholarship athletes are not allowed to compete on the Division III teams as a second sport, it's hard to rule out the success and exposure of Hopkins lacrosse or Union ice hockey, for example, not benefitting their DIII programs (along with the quality of support resources available to the entire department that likely at least partially exist because of the presence of those programs). Again, it would certainly seem unfair to take away the grandfathering now (as was also discussed and ultimately defeated years ago), but I would love to learn more about the rationale for allowing it when the decision was first made.