D1 vs D3. What’s the difference

[Laxxal22]

Yeah I've never really understood the D1 or bust mentality if you're not getting interest from teams that at least contend for their conference title. Imagine doing four years of supervised 6 am lifts to go 2-12, 3-11, or maybe 6-8 in a really good year. I follow the Independent School League (ISL) closely; a league where kids/parents are looking for strong academic colleges. I'm always surprised when I see a talented player make a Holy Cross, Lafayette, Colgate commitment knowing that Tufts, Wesleyan, Middlebury, etc. were probably interested.

[LibertyL]

Jumbo said it best. The gaps are narrowing between top D3 and Mid level D1.

It's because there are more players and more going for academics and more
time off. It's been trending this way for a decade or more.

[Jumbo]

I completely agree with the comments about D1 or bust. Unless you are the top 3 recruit for that team, you are probably only getting a small scholarship. Losing sucks. Losing and then having a 3-4 hr bus ride back to campus sucks even more. Why would you want to go to a school that you will lose more than win, and pay more than a D3. Just to say you played D1?

[WoodStick]

In terms of the gap closing, I could not disagree more. Prior to I believe 1996 there were a number of D3 schools that regularly competed several times a year against DI schools, Washington College, Hobart, W&L, Cortland, and Roanoke all had at least a couple of DI teams on their schedule each year. A couple even played a third or more of their schedule against DI teams and we are talking about the upper echelon teams, SU, UNC, Cornell, Hopkins, UVA, etc.
That was then this is now. The biggest difference is size, speed, and strength! Pick any team in D3 today and put them against one of those teams and they would get absolutely rolled. Athletes at the ACC, Big 10, and to a bit of a lesser extent Ivies enter school bigger and faster and that is before their bodies are turned over to the strength and conditioning (as well as team nutritionist) coaches. Then there are the facilities, do yourself a favor and look at the resources that are available to these kids and compare them to a D3 school, it is night and day.

[ah23]

But, you saw what UPenn did to Cabrini last year. Tufts Beating Dartmouth was a little bit of a misnomer.

I don't think Tufts beating Dartmouth was misleading at all. I actually think the outcomes of those two games fit pretty well with what we might expect given where each of those four teams stand.

• Penn is a top 20 D-I program; Cabrini is a top 20 D-III program, but not one of the elite handful at the top every year. Penn was quicker and faster up and down the roster, their passing was crisper, they had far more guys who could get their own (hard, accurate) shot, etc. Accordingly, that game was a blowout after a close opening quarter.

• On the other hand: Dartmouth is probably somewhere between the middle and bottom of D-I lacrosse, while Tufts is D-III's second-best program overall and one of the top teams every season. Tufts controlled that game - they outshot Dartmouth 2:1, forced 26 turnovers (to 14), and pressured Dartmouth all over the field. Hincks making a ton of really good saves kept the score manageable, but Tufts was just plain better.

In sum...

• Ranked D-I clobbers ranked D-III - predictable

• Elite D-III handles mid/bottom D-I - predictable

[Jumbo]

In terms of the gap closing, I could not disagree more. Prior to I believe 1996 there were a number of D3 schools that regularly competed several times a year against DI schools, Washington College, Hobart, W&L, Cortland, and Roanoke all had at least a couple of DI teams on their schedule each year. A couple even played a third or more of their schedule against DI teams and we are talking about the upper echelon teams, SU, UNC, Cornell, Hopkins, UVA, etc.
That was then this is now. The biggest difference is size, speed, and strength! Pick any team in D3 today and put them against one of those teams and they would get absolutely rolled. Athletes at the ACC, Big 10, and to a bit of a lesser extent Ivies enter school bigger and faster and that is before their bodies are turned over to the strength and conditioning (as well as team nutritionist) coaches. Then there are the facilities, do yourself a favor and look at the resources that are available to these kids and compare them to a D3 school, it is night and day.

The gap is closing. Before this season started, York, CNU, Bucknell all went to Towson scrimmage was 2 or 3 quarters per game. All teams started starters and all teams worked in the bench. CNU played Bucknell and Towson played York. CNU won. All games were back and forth. Towson York was maybe a 3 goal game.

D1 is clearly the elite athlete. More talent, size, and time to get better. But the gap isn’t as big as some think.

[InsiderRoll]

In terms of the gap closing, I could not disagree more. Prior to I believe 1996 there were a number of D3 schools that regularly competed several times a year against DI schools, Washington College, Hobart, W&L, Cortland, and Roanoke all had at least a couple of DI teams on their schedule each year. A couple even played a third or more of their schedule against DI teams and we are talking about the upper echelon teams, SU, UNC, Cornell, Hopkins, UVA, etc.
That was then this is now. The biggest difference is size, speed, and strength! Pick any team in D3 today and put them against one of those teams and they would get absolutely rolled. Athletes at the ACC, Big 10, and to a bit of a lesser extent Ivies enter school bigger and faster and that is before their bodies are turned over to the strength and conditioning (as well as team nutritionist) coaches. Then there are the facilities, do yourself a favor and look at the resources that are available to these kids and compare them to a D3 school, it is night and day.

The gap is closing. Before this season started, York, CNU, Bucknell all went to Towson scrimmage was 2 or 3 quarters per game. All teams started starters and all teams worked in the bench. CNU played Bucknell and Towson played York. CNU won. All games were back and forth. Towson York was maybe a 3 goal game.

D1 is clearly the elite athlete. More talent, size, and time to get better. But the gap isn’t as big as some think.

I agree with everything you said. The other element to scrimmages like that are that York and CNU probably got the best energy and excitement out of their guys. My guess is that was not the case for Bucknell and Towson. I also believe that game planning and preparation matter, while there are some great D3 coaches, particularly head coaches. It is hard to match the level of experience D1 coordinators tend to have over most assistants in terms of gameplay adjustments and game planning. In a real game those details would be worth a few more goals.

[ICGrad]

Apropos of nothing, according to Massey Salisbury would be the 35th best team in the country regardless of division.

https://masseyratings.com/clax/ratings

Edit: Tampa is 75.

[Unknown Participant]

Apropos of nothing, according to Massey Salisbury would be the 35th best team in the country regardless of division.

https://masseyratings.com/clax/ratings

Edit: Tampa is 75.

I looked, and I kind of respect Massey's rankings.

[Jumbo]

Apropos of nothing, according to Massey Salisbury would be the 35th best team in the country regardless of division.

https://masseyratings.com/clax/ratings

Edit: Tampa is 75.

I looked, and I kind of respect Massey's rankings.

When yiunsee the teams on paper. It kinda makes sense.

[droliver]

There’s still a big gap with the elite D1 schools in terms of size and skill, but the best D3 and D2 teams can definitely sometimes outtalent the back half of D1. There are so many kids playing club ball now, that the talent is really distributed widely. Non traditional areas like a Florida, Georgia, and Texas are now churning out large #’s of high and mid level college players. Hell, Montevallo a middling D2 program in Alabama has the 14th pick in the 2021 NLL draft (Thomas Vaesen) on their team

There’s several of the kids my son grew up with that are on the back end of D1 rosters whom were very good HS players but might have trouble starting at my son’s D3 team which hovers in the 50’s to 60’s in D3 power rankings

[fatherof2]

IMO

IF the NCAA put a roster cap on teams. Lets just say 40 players......
now imagine if those players that 'fall into' being 41 - 50+ on the roster trickle down to the middle and lower DI schools. And then some to DII and DII.
Wouldn't the level of play increase for all teams? I would think so.
Notice I did not say EQUALIZE the talent across the teams, just increase in talent further 'down'.

[smoova]

IMO

IF the NCAA put a roster cap on teams. Lets just say 40 players......
now imagine if those players that 'fall into' being 41 - 50+ on the roster trickle down to the middle and lower DI schools. And then some to DII and DII.
Wouldn't the level of play increase for all teams? I would think so.
Notice I did not say EQUALIZE the talent across the teams, just increase in talent further 'down'.

IMO, the level of play would likely increase across the board, but the number of full-pay students at all of the less-selective, private DI schools would fall dramatically. Oversized (~40+) rosters in any divisions often exist to (i) bolster school finances and (ii) permit coaches to cover recruiting missteps. For those reasons, I think there is very little chance that many DI ADs would support any roster cap.

[WhiteCarrera]

This topic is an annual exercise that always falls short of asking the obvious follow up question IMO. Just by having this discussion we should all be able to agree that there is sufficient enough talent in Top 10-15 of D3 lacrosse that I think the better (or next) question is - Would you rather be middle to end of the bench on a D1 program that never makes the NCAA tournament or would you rather START on high level D3 program that often makes deep runs in May? When you throw in the fact that you're probably getting a better degree; more aid money and can do a semester abroad to boot at that D3 program - to me its a no brainer. Go D3 all day every day! Any thoughts?

This argument is the reason there is a much smaller gap between the 2 levels than there is in other sports. Good point.

Woodstick and I may be alone on this island, but I still think the gap is trending bigger.

Two really interesting points here:
1. Yes, the gap is smaller than in most sports, but I'm not sure there's any disagreement on that,
2. Interesting how Ned equates middling D1 benchwarmers with D3 starters in high level, deep-running-playoff programs. When you take Ned's comment as a whole, I agree - D3 should be hugely attractive in the big picture, but this single statement (which I agree with BTW) supports a widening gap.

[WhiteCarrera]

On the other topic -- I'm not sure the NCAA has imposed roster caps on any sports, essentially allowing scholarship limits to address that situation.

[InsiderRoll]

This topic is an annual exercise that always falls short of asking the obvious follow up question IMO. Just by having this discussion we should all be able to agree that there is sufficient enough talent in Top 10-15 of D3 lacrosse that I think the better (or next) question is - Would you rather be middle to end of the bench on a D1 program that never makes the NCAA tournament or would you rather START on high level D3 program that often makes deep runs in May? When you throw in the fact that you're probably getting a better degree; more aid money and can do a semester abroad to boot at that D3 program - to me its a no brainer. Go D3 all day every day! Any thoughts?

This argument is the reason there is a much smaller gap between the 2 levels than there is in other sports. Good point.

Woodstick and I may be alone on this island, but I still think the gap is trending bigger.

Two really interesting points here:
1. Yes, the gap is smaller than in most sports, but I'm not sure there's any disagreement on that,
2. Interesting how Ned equates middling D1 benchwarmers with D3 starters in high level, deep-running-playoff programs. When you take Ned's comment as a whole, I agree - D3 should be hugely attractive in the big picture, but this single statement (which I agree with BTW) supports a widening gap.

2 points here. I think that one of the primary reasons that D3 lacrosse is closer to d1 than other sports can be largely attributed to the affluency of the sport. The majority of the HS lacrosse players are still mostly from some from money and well educated families. There are many parents that look at the high academics offered at many D3s and pass on D1 opportunities. In fact there are many low end D1 programs that would kill for some of the kids that go to NESCAC, Centennial, W&L etc.

Lastly a roster cap will never happen, and would be a terrible stepping stone for the sport. You want there to be more opportunities to play in college, not less. That grows the game at HS and youth levels which will drive growth at the college level.

While we’re at it this version of Olympic lacrosse that is now be endorsed by the HBCs is a dangerous game. If it hs success administrations and ADs will say why do we have 12.6 scholarships and resources for 50 players when I could sponsor the same sport with only 20 players and cuts hundreds of thousands off my books. It’ll bring us closer to title IX compliance and free up more money for revenue sports. Not a good step forward for the sport.

[smoova]

In fact there are many low end D1 programs that would kill for some of the kids that go to NESCAC, Centennial, W&L etc.

In my (very recent and intimate) experience, your statement is correct for DI programs outside of the top ~30.

[Noz]

As a parent of multiple kids who have played D1 & D3 & even had one child start D1 only to transfer to D3 in order to "bring the fun back" to the game, the one thing that really stands out different is the speed/athleticism. Skill level really does not seem that different (catching & throwing & mistakes); however, the speed is WAY different. Also, the confidence to make tighter passes especially on the crease at D1 vs D3.

[Jumbo]

In fact there are many low end D1 programs that would kill for some of the kids that go to NESCAC, Centennial, W&L etc.

In my (very recent and intimate) experience, your statement is correct for DI programs outside of the top ~30.

100%. We will always have HS kids that think D1 or bust. And they will do anything for a D1 offer. They don’t care if it is a bottom half program that would lose to most top 10 D3 programs. I can’t imagine why a kid would pick a low level D1 program that will lose 80% of the games for the next 4 years.

[InsiderRoll]

In fact there are many low end D1 programs that would kill for some of the kids that go to NESCAC, Centennial, W&L etc.

In my (very recent and intimate) experience, your statement is correct for DI programs outside of the top ~30.

100%. We will always have HS kids that think D1 or bust. And they will do anything for a D1 offer. They don’t care if it is a bottom half program that would lose to most top 10 D3 programs. I can’t imagine why a kid would pick a low level D1 program that will lose 80% of the games for the next 4 years.

It’s not even just winning and losing. There are many kids that have a NESCAC or bust mentality as well. There are many families and kids that would go to any NESCAC school before even considering a school like High Point or Jacksonville. Every family is different, but “bumper sticker” families are very prevalent in lacrosse. It’s all about where you can say your kids are going to college at the next Fairfield housewife lunch or mainline party.