'Fess Up-who is still Competing in College...D1 vs D3

Athletic Recruits
161

<p>**"One more difference I noticed (at least with DS sport/schools) When he narrowed down to the final 4 schools</p>

<p>Both D3 schools had coaches who had been there 20 years or more
Both D1 schools had coaches who had been there 3 years or less"
**
Idahomom,</p>

<p>Very interesting observation. Come to think of it, we had a very similiar experience. Many D1 head coaches were fairly new, and the D3 baseball coaches had been there a while.</p>

<p>BigAnthony,</p>

<p>I will respectfully disagree with you. The reason D3 athletes overall are not as good ad D1 athletes overall is because they are not as good athletes overall. In baseball, there is no comparision. D1 teams have more athletes and deeper talent…and that is just the way it is. </p>

<p>In terms of academics that is a case by case basis IMHO. There are some D1s that put a tremendous emphasis on academics first (Ivys, Stanford) but they are the exception in my experience and honest opinion. Typically those schools are not athletic powerhouses with the exception of Stanford.</p>

162

<p>I vote for post #143 by 3Xboys as a fitting summary: it’s all about fit. Generalizations are just that. You have to look at the specific school, team and coach to assess the time commitment and flexibility.</p>

<p>For example, D’s Div. 1 coach does not control their course schedule, though another Div. 1 we visited seemed to do that much more, which we didn’t like. D’s coach may make a request, eg. please try to fit all your classes into the 8AM to 2PM time slots so we can start practice at 3:15 or 3:30; try to avoid courses that meet on Friday so you don’t miss class when we travel, etc. But D and several teammates are taking a class this quarter that ends later. The coach was accommodating, and there was no backlash. </p>

<p>Do your homework, that’s all.</p>

<p>Biganthony, there are a lot of academically mediocre Div. 3 schools, so please don’t paint them as these intellectual powerhouses. Some are tops, the vast majority are not. Same with Div. 1. Secondly, the recruiting standards for Div. 3 are significantly lower than for Div. 1 from an athletic standpoint. Look at a timed sport to see the difference. With some exceptions for CCer’s kids, Div. 3 athletes simply aren’t of the same caliber and please don’t say it’s because they’re better students. Sometimes they are just less talented. D’s high school teammates are competing at colleges like Susquehanna, Moravian and De Sales. Do you really think it’s because they’re great students so their athletics suffered, or because their coach had trouble recruiting smart enough athletes to make it through admissions? Please!</p>

163

<p>pache8, i think you are missing the point of the argument. Obviously stanford and cal are going to be much better than any school, d1 or d3. However, the best d3 schools are often just as good as the lower tier d1 schools. Just because a team is division 1, doesn’t mean it is good. It also does not mean that it is better than a division 3 program.</p>

164

<p>Funrun, if we accept your premise that some Div. 3 programs are better in terms of competitive level than some Div. 1 programs, shouldn’t we ask why that is so? I doubt it just happened mysteriously with no explanation. It seems to me that it would be likely, then, that the better Div. 3 team is practicing harder and longer than the Div. 1 team. Better recruiting might enter in, but any talent advantage the Div. 3 might have would vanish pretty darn quickly without plenty of discipline and practice. So in that case, I’d contend that the supposed benefits of choosing Div. 3 over Div. 1 would be negated.</p>

165

<p>It is all about the money. The VAST majority of high school athletes don’t play D1 or D3. They are not good enough to play D1 and they can not afford to pay tuition at D3. Most high school athletes don’t have 4.0 GPAs and 32 ACT scores to earn the academic scholarships. Even partial financial aid leaves most D3 schools out of reach for most high school athletes. D1 is for elite athletes only. D3 can have elite athletes but only if they are excellent students and/or come from upper middle class and above families. Many scholarship D1 athletes could not go to D3 if they wanted to. They couldn’t pay the freight.</p>

166

<p>

</p>

<p>Although there are definitely D1 caliber athletes who do attend D3 schools, this does not necessarily mean that D3 schools are as competitive as D1 schools. It’s not as though these players will develop in the same way through their years at the school. Many D1 caliber athletes at D3 schools will start or play significantly in their first year, while the same athlete might not play at all at a D1 school in the first year. There’s a reason for this: the level of play at D1 is much higher and thus the recruit will need more years to develop to reach a certain level. </p>

<p>Playing time is one reason why many talented athletes choose D3 over D1–they are likely to play moreat the D3 level and start their first year. </p>

<p>Anecdotally, my S is at a D1 school and redshirted his first year. A teammate from his club team went D3 and started each game and was voted 2nd team All Conference his first year. The difference is not necessarily that his teammate was a better player but that the speed of play, athleticism, etc. was much higher at the D1 level.</p>

167

<p>Nazmom and others on here are arguing that d3 offers/makes more well rounded kids. That’s totally untrue.</p>

<p>At top and highly competitive d1 schools athletes double major, have time be involved in sororities, do extra curicular acts, and, as half the girls on my daughters team, have jobs off campus.</p>

<p>The extra athletic time needed for top performers at d1 is not the whole day! Human potential and being involved in things that make one well rounded is about performance and intellectual curiosity, not time.</p>

168

<p>It’s hard to anticipate what should be the most important considerations when selecting a program before the student actually starts college. Certain things are obvious, but others not so much. For example, D wanted to avoid programs that exert social control over their athletes, specifically ones that force kids to room with teammates/live in a dorm with other athletes from Day 1. D wanted a normal freshman dorm experience and the opportunity to meet a variety of kids through the residential living experience. As it turned out, she did meet a lot of people that way and did really enjoy that experience. But while she wouldn’t have changed it, I think that now if she had to make her choice all over again, she’d attach a lower priority to that factor. The truth is, she spent the majority of her time with teammates this year and next year will live with teammates anyway (her choice, though). So while she’d still prefer that freshman dorm arrangement, I doubt she’d completely eliminate a school for that reason, like she did a year ago.</p>

<p>As for redshirting, that’s another aspect we didn’t have a clear appreciation of a year ago. Similarly, D crossed off schools where the coach told her there was a high likelihood she’d be redshirted her first year. She wanted to compete in at least lower level meets right away and also she didn’t want to feel obligated to do grad school in the same UG school in order to use up any remaining eligibility. As it turned out, she was injured twice and thus wasn’t performing at a high enough level to compete in x-c and indoor track her first year, and so was redshirted for those seasons. Funny thing is, after the original disappointment passed, I think she didn’t really mind too much. It has given her time to adjust to the much greater physical demands compared to high school, and furthermore she is so very happy at this school that the thought of staying on an extra year sounds heavenly. In addition, she sees there’d be no pressure to stay on if she didn’t want to. She could simply forfeit the seasons or else transfer her eligibility if she ultimately wanted to do that.</p>

<p>I guess my point continues to be that there are two sides to every coin, just as skrlvr points out above.</p>

169

<p>I mostly agree with your post,skrlvr. D3 athletes are not necessarily less skilled or talented than d1 athletes. Their motivation is different. My cousin, a d1 tennis player, sent me the following link.
[Division</a> 1 vs. Division 3 Tennis Article - Talk Tennis](<a href=“http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=333553]Division”>http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=333553)</p>

170

<p>I agree, it’s really about what you want and your own personal goals and motivations.</p>

<p>I would also like to add some perspective as a college prof at a D1 school. I don’t teach at a state flagship, and it’s the type of place that almost never gets mentioned here on CC. We’re a good mid-sized state research university.</p>

<p>I have had a number of student athletes come through my classes. Some were among the best students I have had, and some were pretty terrible as students. It did not necessarily correlate with their athletic ability, as the last soccer athlete I had probably had close to a 4.0 and was a 4 year starter and one of the first athletes I taught was a basketball player with a 4.0 who saw almost no playing time.</p>

<p>I did have a soccer athlete in one of my classes graduate last year. He is now in medical school. He double majored in biology and a foreign language. He studied abroad. He shadowed a physician, he participated in research. All the sorts of things that most pre-meds get to do.</p>

<p>If I think back among the soccer players that I have known, in the past ten years, i do know that at least 3 went to medical or dental school. The dental school admit played professionally in the UK at a lower level before returning to here for dental school. There was also a kid who was a math major and there was another who was in the honors program. All of those kids played significant minutes. It’s not like these players were all Mass Comm majors.</p>

<p>So it’s not necessarily the case that D1 players are more athlete-student than student-athlete, or that only at the Ivies or Stanford or ND do you get that nice mix of high student achievement and D1 athletics. There are certainly higher athletic expectations in terms of commitment and performance for D1 athletes in general.</p>

<p>But a good student and a good athlete will make the most of their opportunities whereever they go.</p>

<p>When I called my son the other day, he talked about how everyone was doing school work on the bus on the ride down to an away game for spring season. Lots of kids on his team are STEM majors. And a whole bunch of juniors have returned recently from studying abroad.</p>

<p>As been said by GFG and others, you really need to see what the team and school culture is. I think you can get a good idea of that on OVs or spending overnights, etc. Broad generalizations about D1 and D3 won’t necessarily apply to the specific school you might be interested in.</p>

<p>The best thing to do is ask questions of the coach. Ask about team GPA, study abroad, research and internship participation among athletes. Ask if you think you’ll start as a first year, etc.</p>

171

<p>Skeets, I agree that most HS athletes don’t compete DI or III or even II for that matter, but I disagree with your point that DI is for elite athletes only. My D swam for a DI, she was not by any stretch of the imagination “elite” (except in grandmas eyes). She had a 3.9, but only a 24 ACT. She got half academic scholarship. The coach offered the other half and that’s where she went her first year. It was a small DI school that had a good Basketball program, but offered money to other sports as well. Other than swimming I don’t know the caliber of the other sports, but hey it was a good school and I couldn’t argue with the money. Kids are kids and she decided to go change schools. She is now in a DII program where she got money and is happy. Even without the $$ she could have paid the freight. A very cheap City U. It’s all where you look and how you look. My S is now headed to a DII school where there is only money for Basketball :frowning: He got offers from some DI and II programs, but likes this school and he’ll compete nonetheless because he wants to participate and be on a team. Plus the academic award was real good.</p>

172

<p>^^^^Helpful posts</p>

<p>My H is a prof at a less-mentioned(we call it under-rated LAC) and I think he would agree with you. One of his best students ever was a recruited football player. Several of the banes of his existence have been recruited football and LAX players. </p>

<p>Part of why my S chose Midd was he wanted to go abroad for a semester and play his sport. He liked the kids on the team.Several kids were bio majors, and the coach was an easy-going, positive person. He felt it was a good match for his personality and expectations. He was slow to get involved-didn’t do the “captain’s” practices pre-season-but once he did, he was happy and liked the structure. He struggled a bit academically-he worked a bit for his As in HS, but at Midd he’s in the lower half, I think-but now he’s figured out what he needs to do for academic success in a new environment.</p>

<p>It’s important to be direct and as specific as possible about expectations. Then there won’t be terrible disappointments. And look at the roster, and some of the newspaper articles covering the games-that’s an independent way of confirming who is playing. If no freshman is ever mentioned, or if 3 upperclassmen play your position, you can bet there won’t be much early playing time.</p>

173

<p>Although there are definitely D1 caliber athletes who do attend D3 schools, this does not necessarily mean that D3 schools are as competitive as D1 schools. </p>

<hr>

<p>depends. with volleyball there are d3’s in calif that would kill some d-1’s in other states. There’s some junior colleges and NAIA’s in calif that would kill D-1’s in other states.</p>

174

<p>^^ and i know a junior team that smoked UCD, UCSD, UCSB, Arizona State, and a few junior colleges in a national event. So what!</p>

<p>competitive sports is about being the best, not having a good work out with other 2nd tier athletes. the best D3 teams/athletes can’t touch the best D1, in any sport.</p>

<p>this idea that d3 are as good, or on par, as d1 is getting old</p>

175

<p>Then why do you keep stirring the pot? Really, you are missing the point-not “as good” but “best suited” for which child…Some are better off going one way, some the other. We(including you, of course, and you have a lot of wisdom to share on the issue) are hoping to help those who haven’t been thru it.</p>

176

<p>

</p>

<p>Wow. Just wow. I won’t deny that the best D1 teams are significantly more competitive and generally better than the top D3 teams, but there is no need to keep reiterating it using insulting language. Calling all D3 athletes “Second-tier athletes” does a great disservice to all of the dedicated athletes who try their hardest to compete, and you don’t need to be so dismissive.</p>

<p>We get it. D1, because of the nature od D1, will always have more competitive and generally more skilled teams. No one is fighting that. There will be some D1 caliber athletes competiting in D3, but in general, you cannot argue that fact. No one is trying to. So why do you keep reiterating your (somewhat inflammatory) beliefs?</p>

177

<p>Actually a bunch of people in this discussion are claiming that d3 athletes are athletically as good or better than d1 athletes. And even more “insulting” that d3 athletes are more academic, and one reason given is that they have less sport time. Both of these ideas are wrong. And recruits and their families should know that.</p>

<p>You’ll find more “academic” d1 athletes at schools like harvard and cal and ucla and brown etc etc than you’ll find in the d3 programs. And you’ll find better athletes</p>

178

<p>^ It’s true that some posters are promoting a lovely myth that Div. 3 athletes are just as skilled as Div. 1 athletes, but are “smarter” since they are choosing to prioritize their studies over their sport by selecting the alllegedly “more academic” Div. 3 schools. (Wow, and that’s not insulting to kids like Pacheight’s D with a 2300 SAT score who’s studying at a top school?) That is every bit as much of an inaccurate generalization as the one that says Div. 1 athletes are often academically underqualilfied students who foolishly sacrifice intellectual pursuits in the vain hope of going pro and making millions (and who inevitably end up injured, on the bench, and with no degree.)</p>

179

<p>I don’t think you can generalize about the quality of the brain or even the athleticism of someone based on the division they play in. </p>

<p>Sometimes you see some bad mismatches, though: this is most obvious in sports like track where you sometimes find a DIII champion who is racing so much faster than anyone else in the field. Clearly, from a strictly sports perspective, this athlete probably belongs in DI but kids can’t always figure this out before senior year of high school: some athletes are late bloomers, some love a DIII school and are willing to play on the team no matter what, for the opportunity to attend, and some athletes don’t do a great job of figuring out where they might fit athletically during recruiting. </p>

<p>The recruiting process isn’t perfect: I think of it as buying lottery tickets. Coaches grab on to as much talent as they can, but they’ll be the first to say you can’t always predict who will break through in college and who has already had their best season back in 11th grade. Because of all this, I’m certain there’s some overlap of talent between the divisions. </p>

<p>And you can’t draw conclusions about someone’s intellect based on the division they play for :)</p>

180

<p>I agree with the 3 of you. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that D1 weren’t as smart-I’d generalize and say more devoted and more willing to spend more time on their sport. But many who go anywhere for sport quit the sport or are forced to leave it after a year or two.</p>

<p>My S couldn’t compete at the D-1 level. Those are kids looking to qualify for the olympics. No question about that.</p>