Can the talk of talk of top d3 schools being better than unranked d1 schools end?

[tennisjon]

I am a former D1 player who now coaches college tennis at a D3 school called Drew University. My top 2 guys for sure could play D1 as they were both 3 star level players. That being said, for the academic level of Drew there aren't many D1 programs that would offer full or even half-scholarships that a 3 star would get.

We played a team this year that had 4 former D1 starters and of the 6 courts they played on, we won 5 of them.

We are a good program that goes to nationals every year, but we aren't even nationally ranked. Compared to D3, the bottom D1 schools are usually weaker academically and athletically and may or may not even offer scholarships. If you aren't at the level of going pro or getting a full ride to a good school, I would go to the best school that fits the academic, social, athletic, geographic, and financial needs. Academics, should take highest priority.

[goldy0084]

Keep in mind- Just because a school is a "lesser known" or smaller mid-major Division I school, you cannot generalize and say the coaching a player will receive is bad. Some of the worst coaches in the country work in some of the top 50 FBS schools and some very talented, hard-working guys are grinding in small schools. UWGB completely revamped their tennis program with aggressive international recruiting and some scrappy Americans. Also some of the schools listed like LaSalle are part-time programs that may practice once a week. Compare apples to apples--a full time D3 team vs a full time small D1. The OVC is also an incredibly weak league, but even a mediocre at best team like Austin Peay would destroy a top 10 D3 team. Additionally, some of the players in the OVC are ridiculously good players. Syrym Abdukhalikov at TTU was #548 ATP and Dean O'Brien played there as well, who transferred to GT and clinched when they beat UGA two years ago.

[Coach Carter]

No doubt, at these weaker D1's they get some great players (even a blind squirrel...). They may "nut up" and give all their scholarship load to 1 or 2 dudes...nothing for anybody else. One of the issues I saw is many times those good players realize the school and coach doesn't invest in what's going on (budgets for travel or supplies, etc). The coach is only going to beg and borrow for so long. The stud get hacked off and their abilities go down along w/ attitude while there and they are looking for quickest opportunity out. It's an ugly losing proposition. You roll up against a D3 with 6-8 solid guys that may not be international studs but may be a couple 3 stars, three 2 stars, and the rest 1 stars that want to bust it and show what they have. You have a slugfest. Bad attitudes vs heart and fight. Even like what I had two 2 stars and six 1 stars can do some big time damage.

[goldy0084]

Again, a bad, bad generalization. Just because the top 1 or 2 are amazing, does not mean the bottom will be weak AND that those guys are getting 100%. Many smaller D1's do have 4.5, so do the math. Some coaches can just flat out-recruit bigger schools on occasion (for a number of reasons). I saw the #5 guy in a "weaker" league get nationally ranked and beat the #5 guy from Wake. They publish an unofficial ranking list of several hundred schools in D1 and some teams well outside the top 100 are quite good and would easily beat a "couple of 2/3 stars rolling up."

[Hodgey20]

I play at the D3 level, by no means are we a top level DIII team, but I would say we are a competitive DIII team. We have played some top tier teams in D3, and I would have to say that any DI team would be heavily favored to beat a DIII team. Its just two different levels. I do love playing DIII tennis and I have had a ton of fun doing so but Im not going to sit here and say that a DIII school could compete at a DI level.

[ClarkC]

Originally Posted by Hodgey20

I play at the D3 level, by no means are we a top level DIII team, but I would say we are a competitive DIII team. We have played some top tier teams in D3, and I would have to say that any DI team would be heavily favored to beat a DIII team. Its just two different levels. I do love playing DIII tennis and I have had a ton of fun doing so but Im not going to sit here and say that a DIII school could compete at a DI level.

Any D-I team would be favored to beat the very best D-III teams? You might want to check out tennisrecruiting.net and see the level of players who go to the D-I programs that are non-scholarship. There are programs out there that have 1-star guys in their top 6. No magic D-I dust rubs off on them and makes them better than the 4-star opponents they would face from a top D-III opponent.

[grouseking]

Unfortunately, there is no simple formula or statement that fits with this discussion. The divisions are not decided simply by how good the athletic programs are. There are so many factors that go into each program that a blanket statement doesn't work. There are DIII programs that can and do beat DI programs. There are some very good DII programs that would compete at a high level in DI. But, we're talking about 100's and 100's of programs. DIII tennis is particularly competitive because of a variety of factors, one being that in general tennis is a minor sport with relatively little scholarship resources. Another factor is the impact of foreign players, and the trickling down of very good American players to DIII.

Within the past ten years, DIII has gotten both stronger at the top and deeper. Where there used to be a handful of top teams, with a handful of top players, there are now many very good teams with some great players and many, many good players.

Because there is such little cross-over between the divisions in terms of play, it's a silly argument to get wrapped up in. I think that it's important for recruits to do their homework and know what they're looking for in the process. Be honest with yourself in what is important in the experience. One division is not better than the other except in being able to offer more of what you are interested in with regards to the experience. Often, it's taken for granted that DI programs are better because they're DI. That isn't necessarily the case. But at the same time, it isn't a knock on DI to acknowledge DIII or DII.

[Hodgey20]

Originally Posted by swanpm20

Kenyon is ranked #2 in d3 tennis. They finished runner up in last year's National Championship, losing a tight match 5-3 to Emory. They got thrashed today by UW-Green Bay, unranked d1 team, 7-0. Not even a competitive singles match in there.

thats why I say that a D1 is favored over any D3.. just two different levels.

[ClarkC]

Originally Posted by Hodgey20

thats why I say that a D1 is favored over any D3.. just two different levels.

And your statement is still ignorant, as discussed previously with no rebuttal from you. Go check out the rosters in the MEAC or similar D-I conferences.

[Hodgey20]

I didnt mean to offend anyone (ClarkC). just giving my opinion.. you play DIII tennis, because it seems like I have pushed the wrong button with you

[ClarkC]

Originally Posted by Hodgey20

I didnt mean to offend anyone (ClarkC). just giving my opinion.. you play DIII tennis, because it seems like I have pushed the wrong button with you

Nope. Don't even have any friends who play D-III tennis. I guess the way to push the wrong button with me is to say ignorant things, and then repeat them without doing your homework on the subject.

[Clemson_tennis]

Elon beat #20 D3 Washington & Lee 7-0

[okdude1992]

the top d3 schools can beat a lot of d1 schools. look at some of the rosters. there are a bunch of 4 and 5 stars in d3. could they beat a top 100 d1 team? most likely not, but some competitive matches would probably happen. then you have the top d2 teams, many who have primarily international players. a few of these teams could surely compete vs top 50 d1.

d1 is obviously the best, tennis wise, but the elite teams and players in any division are very good.

[tennisjon]

Providing examples of D1 programs beating ranked D3 programs does not prove the OP. Most D1 programs will not play D3 programs that have a realistic chance of beating them. The D1 program has too much to lose with very little to gain. I coach D3 and we have played a few teams made up of low-level D1 players that have transferred to D3 schools. Most D1 school (probably 80%) are better than D3 schools, but those bottom 20% can be of a really low level. I know of a D1 school that had only 5 players on the roster until they sent out a campus-wide email and got a player to fill out the squad who had never played tennis before but liked watching it on tv. Beginner tennis player. D1 player. 5.0 rating. Crazy!

[goldy0084]

Clark- There are several teams in the MEAC who would beat the #1 ranked DIII school blindfolded. FAMU just lost to South Florida and South Alabama 4-3 who are both around #50. They beat Tulane, So Miss, and lost to Miami 4-3 last year. They actually should have won against SA, but South Al but a bad player up high to throw away a spot. FAMU didn't not win the conference last year by the way.

There are definitely some HORRIFIC teams in that league, but don't talk about ignorance man..

[Clemson_tennis]

Ok so we have gone from done people saying d3 can compete in d1 to now saying they can beat the very bottom feeders of D1. In my experience d2,d3, NAIA players think their teams are better than they are. I know a guy here at Clemson now who says his Auburn-Montgonery team could be top 10 d1. His reason was that Doumbia played 7 at AUM and 3 at UGA. First of all Doumbia played 1 almost his whole career at AUM. Also this guy claimed that Emory could beat GT. no matter how bad GT is this year they would still walk the dog on Emory.

[rafa3141]

Goldy- which #1 D3 schools have you seen play?

[goldy0084]

Have watched, coached against, or played virtually any of them that are any good.

[ClarkC]

Originally Posted by goldy0084

Clark- There are several teams in the MEAC who would beat the #1 ranked DIII school blindfolded. FAMU just lost to South Florida and South Alabama 4-3 who are both around #50. They beat Tulane, So Miss, and lost to Miami 4-3 last year. They actually should have won against SA, but South Al but a bad player up high to throw away a spot. FAMU didn't not win the conference last year by the way.

There are definitely some HORRIFIC teams in that league, but don't talk about ignorance man..

I am not talking about the top team in any D-I conference. The point is that you have people saying that ANY D-I team would be favored against a D-III team. That implies that the bottom team in all of D-I would be favored against top D-II teams. Take the bottom teams from the weaker D-I conferences and you will almost always be talking about programs with no scholarships. The top teams from those same conferences might have some scholarships and some good players.

[goldy0084]

Clark, you are totally correct, but I don't think that's what the OP implied or what many people were echoing on here. I am hearing two completely different arguments-- The first is obviously hogwash, that ANY d1 would beat a d3. Anyone with half a brain knows this is an absurd statement. I have seen some d1 teams that could not beat a 3.5 senior women's usta league team.

I think that Swanny was more so implying that many of the "smaller/less recognized" Division I schools that are outside of the top 75 don't get much credit, but ARE actually quite good, and would routinely beat a top ranked D3 teams...which to me is not arguable, it's a fact. Obviously, you would have to draw the line somewhere with the unranked teams, but there are a whole handful of them outside of the 75 list that can flat out play.