Talent Distribution - D3 to D1

[camskidamski]

With the start of all levels happening within the next week or so (including games last week), it is impossible to argue the impact that D3 players can have on D1 rosters. Please share thoughts on how D3 players are doing with the D1 game, where the biggest adjustments may be, what some overrated factors may be, or any other thoughts. Great seeing so many faces with stories in D1 games and contributing at the biggest level. I know that this senior class ('23) has two extra years of eligibility if they choose to take it and the junior class ('24) has one? Exciting times for D3 programs to send some guys up to big time lacrosse and get the recognition that a lot of these kids have earned over the years!

[Jumbo]

I think it is common knowledge that talent wise, you can find top level players on D1,D2, and D3 teams. The difference is D1 is deeper. If you look at the top 10-15 players on each of the top 10 D3 teams, a majority of those kids could play D1 if they had the money, grades, or desire.

That is why it isn’t surprising to see top level D3 kids transitioning to D1, and making an impact.

Yes, D1 gets the best kids. And yes D1 gets more of the top kids. But not every D1 kid could start on the top D2 and D3 teams

[smoova]

IME, the explosion of youth lacrosse over the past two decades has resulted in far more players in each HS class with "DI talent/skill/speed/size/work ethic/etc" than there are spots at the top 30 DI programs. Many strong recruits get "missed" each year by top 30 DI coaches for a variety of reasons (location, weak coach support/connections, unwilling/unable to play down ("reclass"), late bloomer, etc). Large recruiting classes at those DI programs help mask frequent recruiting "misses."

DI coaches outside the top 30 programs are really competing with the top 30 DIII schools for the "leftover" top recruits. The top 3-5 recruits in each class at the traditionally strong/high academic DIII schools all had multiple offers from DI schools in the bottom 50.

As a result, when those "leftover" kids get an extra year or two of eligibility, they are very capable of being strong contributors at a high DI level.

[NElaxtalent]

I think it is common knowledge that talent wise, you can find top level players on D1,D2, and D3 teams. The difference is D1 is deeper. If you look at the top 10-15 players on each of the top 10 D3 teams, a majority of those kids could play D1 if they had the money, grades, or desire.

That is why it isn’t surprising to see top level D3 kids transitioning to D1, and making an impact.

Yes, D1 gets the best kids. And yes D1 gets more of the top kids. But not every D1 kid could start on the top D2 and D3 teams

Fully agree on all above re: D1/D3. D3 seems to get deeper & deeper each year. Lots of parents / club programs have gotten the message that the D1 experience often does not match the "recruiting brochure".

Think the D2 layer is much thinner than Top 10, more like Top 3-5. I've seen some really sloppy Top 20 D2 lacrosse games.

[Jumbo]

You could be right. I grew up following D1 and some D3. Never heard of D2. when my son started the recruiting process, I learned a little about D2, but never looked too deep. Everyone has a goal. Some kids just want to say they played D1. Some kids want to win a national championship. Others just want get playing time. We have learned that several lower level D1 programs will take just about anyone that can catch and throw.

[camskidamski]

I think it is common knowledge that talent wise, you can find top level players on D1,D2, and D3 teams. The difference is D1 is deeper. If you look at the top 10-15 players on each of the top 10 D3 teams, a majority of those kids could play D1 if they had the money, grades, or desire.

That is why it isn’t surprising to see top level D3 kids transitioning to D1, and making an impact.

Yes, D1 gets the best kids. And yes D1 gets more of the top kids. But not every D1 kid could start on the top D2 and D3 teams

Very well said Jumbo...I am looking forward to more players making the jump in these next couple of years

[Laxxal22]

I've also seen cases between high school or club teammates where Player A (who commits top 35ish D1) is a little better and perhaps more physically developed during the recruiting cycle than Player B (who commits high level D3), but after two years of college Player B is better because he's been getting time and developing since arriving on campus whereas Player A still hasn't broken through and his confidence is reeling.

I wonder with the D3 transfers who've been impact players on some strong D1 teams over the past few seasons, how critical was that D3 development to their success? Would they have reached the same level if they'd joined the D1 programs as freshmen or would they have gotten lost in the depth chart shuffle?

[D2fan]

I think I’ve said this before, but a friend of mine’s son coached college lacrosse for a bit. Spent time at all 3 levels before settling down.

I asked him one day his thoughts on D1 vs. D2 vs. D3

He said it doesn’t matter the division, after spending a decade involved he said the best-supported teams always win.

I learned that the top half of D3 receives better school support than the bottom half of D1 and almost all of D2. That's why they are very competitive.

Better budget, better financial packages, and more staff.

Budget
I was amazed to learn that there are some D3 budgets that double, even triple some of the low-end D1 budgets. Those D1 schools also haven’t been around as long as many of the historic D3 teams, which means they can’t fundraise as well.

Tufts is a great example, they have a large fundraising base that consists of very supportive alumni. Not many teams are able to match their social media and video presence.

Financial Aid Packages
He estimated that only 30-40% of D1 were at the full stackable 12.6 scholarships. Most float between the 8-10 scholarship range. D2 has very few programs at their 10.8 max. Most have between 6-8 scholarships.

Most of the time most D1 and D2 schools are recruiting players through admissions packages just like D3. Seems like a lot of times the D3 admissions process gives out more merit and FAFSA aid compared to their counterparts.

Not everyone at the D1 level gets a scholarship. And most of the time players are only getting a small piece.

Staffing
A lot of the top D3 schools have 2 full-time assistants. Usually, one who has been with the program for a while. The examples he gave were RIT and Salisbury. Berkman and Coon are 2 of the coaches in College. But Wilkins (RIT) and Axel (Salisbury) are 2 of the top assistant coaches in all of lacrosse. They both are very well respected in the coaching ranks.

It is very rare to find a D2 or low-level D1 assistant at the same school for 5 years or more. Most times that 2nd assistant is a part-time job that only pays $15 and $20k a year. It’s usually a revolving door that is just there for young players trying to make a name for themselves.

He said having full-time assistants was one of the most important aspects of a program. Mostly because you can get more eyes on recruits and game plans better. He said having a 2nd full-time essentially adds 30 more recruits to the board. It’s how so many top D3 teams seem to find the diamonds in the rough. Because they have more eyes looking for them.

[smoova]

I think I’ve said this before, but a friend of mine’s son coached college lacrosse for a bit. Spent time at all 3 levels before settling down.

I asked him one day his thoughts on D1 vs. D2 vs. D3

He said it doesn’t matter the division, after spending a decade involved he said the best-supported teams always win.

I learned that the top half of D3 receives better school support than the bottom half of D1 and almost all of D2. That's why they are very competitive.

...

He said having full-time assistants was one of the most important aspects of a program. Mostly because you can get more eyes on recruits and game plans better. He said having a 2nd full-time essentially adds 30 more recruits to the board. It’s how so many top D3 teams seem to find the diamonds in the rough. Because they have more eyes looking for them.

This is fantastic insight. Thank you for sharing!