I played D3 tennis. The top players in D3 could compete against the 4, 5, or 6 players of a lot of top 50 D-1 schools. I graduated in 2001, so maybe things have changed, but I was probably a 5.5 player my senior year and I could compete with just about any number 2 player in D3. I played Wash U's number 2 twice, had to stop once after he narrowly took the first set in a tie-breaker that I had a set point in, and lost to him in straight sets. But he beat Emory's number 2 easier than he beat me, and I think Emory was a top 3 school at the time.
I was no superstar and I probably won a lot of matches simply because I posed a weird match up for most people. Not sure how good you are but University of Rochester probably had some strong 4.5's to weak 5.0 at the bottom of their lineup. I played their number 2 one year and won by the very strange score of 4-6, 6-1, 6-1.
D3 is for people who don't care to go pro and want a good education. Many of the better teams are among the most highly regarded learning institutions in the country. Eric Butorac is the only D3 player I can think of who's competed successfully in the pros and that's in doubles. And he happens to have a good lefty serve. Otherwise, watching him play, besides his serve he always looks like the weakest player on the court IMO. So talent varies. It's conceivable that an awesome D1 level player will go to D3 because he wants the scholarship (D3 officially doesn't give out athletic scholarships but they have ways around that... wink wink), doesn't want his life to revolve around tennis, and wants to get into a good grad school. Because of this, you often see a huge gap between the number 1 and the rest of the team, even the number 2 guy. Some of the number 6's are arguably weak 4.5's, maybe even 4.0's.
If you're not going pro, why not D3? Or why not go someplace where they're very strong in the field you're interested in and are willing to give you the most economic help.
