D1 runners thoughts on D3 running

But those are all poor DIII times. 1:59 isn't a good time even at the conference level, neither is 4:24. Yes, if you're at a power distance school, your top 15 runners will decimate DIII. But look at D1 overall. I live in Wisconsin. UW-GB? Awful and would get destroyed by anyone. Uw-Milwaukee? Currently ranked 13 in the region with their 4th and 5th runners at or over 26 minutes at conference, where they were 2nd. They would get trounced by the good WIAC schools. Marquette? Best finish at conference ever (4th) with their fifth guy running over 26 minutes. Would get trounced by the good WIAC schools.

Bonepicker70 wrote:

If you're from Midwest and east coast, the small private schools are GAF. Certain geographic regions don't have a lot of D3s. Round here they're legit.

Sorry but what is GAF?

Many have summed it up already. I had a guy on my D3 team run 1:49 in the 800 and we all thought that he was Olympic material. I really had no idea that he would have done nothing in D1. My local paper follows former high school athletes so it is funny to see them print front page articles about people placing a their conference meets with a 15:20 5k or 1:57 800 while the former top local studs are quietly running 14 minutes and 1:48 at their D1 schools, forgotten by the local media.

But he would have. Outside of the top 5-10 schools in the country, 1:49 would be one of the best on the team, that's the point. Is 1:49 all-american at D1? No, but it's very competitive, certainly at a conference level. So to say he would have done nothing is kind of bullshit.

So are you guys saying that if I can't make it at a top 50 D1 school, that I should look at D2 and D3?

If I have 3 schools where I like the college and the coach and in both programs runners progress... if options were:

A. D1 school ranked 50-100 nationally or

B. D2 school ranked in top 20 nationally or

C. D3 school ranked in top 10 nationally

Given those 3 options, if my focus was at least 75% running and 25% education, and I live the dedicated athlete lifestyle: eat healthy, get sleep, don't party, don't smash every girl I see (sorry that's a joke as you'd understand if you saw me), and really give running my all, am I making a mistake by going to school A?

slightly better than mediocre in hs wrote:

So are you guys saying that if I can't make it at a top 50 D1 school, that I should look at D2 and D3?

If I have 3 schools where I like the college and the coach and in both programs runners progress... if options were:

A. D1 school ranked 50-100 nationally or

B. D2 school ranked in top 20 nationally or

C. D3 school ranked in top 10 nationally

Given those 3 options, if my focus was at least 75% running and 25% education, and I live the dedicated athlete lifestyle: eat healthy, get sleep, don't party, don't smash every girl I see (sorry that's a joke as you'd understand if you saw me), and really give running my all, am I making a mistake by going to school A?

I can't speak for any comments above mine but i would say if you're in the top 100 for d1 as a freshman there's an excellent chance you could be in the top 25 by your senior year...i would go d1

No, sorry I mean going to a school that is ranked in the top 50-100 for D1, vs a D2 school that is ranked in top 20 nationally or to a D3 school that is ranked in top 10 nationally. sorry for the confusion.

I didn't say that 1:49 would have done nothing. I said that we thought he was a future Olympian. 1:43 was tops in D1 last year and over 100 guys ran 1:49. That is the point. He was a God at 1:49 but he would have just been good in D1. I honestly assumed that he would have been an AA in D1 but I now know better. Most 20 year old D3 guys still have no idea. Some continue to post silliness about the 23:40 XC D3 runners even after reading about the facts.

there are 23:40 xc D3 runners you dumb tit

slightly better than mediocre in hs wrote:

im at work wrote:

I can't speak for any comments above mine but i would say if you're in the top 100 for d1 as a freshman there's an excellent chance you could be in the top 25 by your senior year...i would go d1

No, sorry I mean going to a school that is ranked in the top 50-100 for D1, vs a D2 school that is ranked in top 20 nationally or to a D3 school that is ranked in top 10 nationally. sorry for the confusion.

Post your times and year in school and maybe we can give you a better idea.

Also, a DI ranked 50-100 is likely going to suck suck suck anyways.

Times wrote:

Post your times and year in school and maybe we can give you a better idea.

Also, a DI ranked 50-100 is likely going to suck suck suck anyways.

Jr now. xc is 16:10 .

Soph outdoor was 4:35 1600M and 9:49 3200M

Thanks

D1 Thoughts wrote:

OLD AND FAT summed it up. D1 runners respect D3 runners if they run fast like the occasional guy that will run around 14 flat for 5k. A D1 runner doesn't necessarily respect the competition of another D1 runner if they are not fast and in a low-level D1 program that doesn't have anyone good. But it was always kind of annoying when D3 runners would rack up all of these All-American awards and are advertised as All-Americans when they would get beat by a ton of D1 people that never were All-American because the difference in competition. Run sub 14:20 5k and you're probably All-American in D3, Run 14:20 in D1 you're not going anywhere special.

Ummm, you are aware there are thousands of D1 runners who only run 15 min for 5k right?

Sliding Scale wrote:

I have always been more curious about athletes who walk on to scholarship level teams...why not go somewhere you can contribute?

I was naive and convinced they'd be able to develop me into a better runner, plus better facilities, overall better athletic program, recognition, etc. At the D3s I visited, I was already faster than the others on the team and they either had to share a high school track or their college track looked like a high school track.

slightly better than mediocre wrote:

Times wrote:

Post your times and year in school and maybe we can give you a better idea.

Also, a DI ranked 50-100 is likely going to suck suck suck anyways.

Jr now. xc is 16:10 .

Soph outdoor was 4:35 1600M and 9:49 3200M

Thanks

Nice! Your times right now are pretty typical of a decent incoming DIII runner, but by no means top-tier. Unless you make some major leaps, mid-tier DI or solid DII or DIII are the most likely options.

For reference, I had a few mid-low tier DI offers at 15:40/9:40/4:26, but opted to go DIII instead. I wasn't even the 5th best incoming freshmen for my class.

Depending on your academics, DIII has some great options, as do some of the low-tier DI's and great DII schools (Mines).

Yes there are 23:40 D3 guys but most of them only run 14:40 while real D1 23:40 guys run 13:40. That was my point that the D3 guys won’t face reality.

Times wrote:

Nice! Your times right now are pretty typical of a decent incoming DIII runner, but by no means top-tier. Unless you make some major leaps, mid-tier DI or solid DII or DIII are the most likely options.

For reference, I had a few mid-low tier DI offers at 15:40/9:40/4:26, but opted to go DIII instead. I wasn't even the 5th best incoming freshmen for my class.

Depending on your academics, DIII has some great options, as do some of the low-tier DI's and great DII schools (Mines).

Thanks Times. By mid to low tier D1, you basically mean D1 schools that are ranked anywhere around 100th or lower? So a school, of course one that would have my major, but like Providence, Bucknell, American, Lipscomb.... not to be specific but think that's about the right level for D1? I'm thinking if I look at schools where their 5th miler runs about a 4:20 and their 7th 5K guy around 1530-1540 that I would have shot of competing if I work really hard and improve. Thanks.

Let me lay it out for you.

DI Runner runs 14:00.

DIII Runner runs 14:00.

Who do I respect more? The DI Runner BY FAR. DI runners work way harder than DIII runners. They had to work much harder in high school to get a scholarship at a respected DI school. They run every day to fulfill their scholarship obligations, whereas DIII runners can fit in their runs and workouts as they see fit (which is much better for recovery). DI runners have to travel every weekend to compete at high level meets and often have undue pressure from parents/spouses/couches to receive a pro contract after college. In contrast DIII runners have minimal pressure to perform and often graduate with liberal arts degrees which go much further in today's workforce. On the other hand DI runners scrape by with engineering/trade degrees and compete in the over-saturated job market.

DIII runners are set up for fast sexy track times whereas DI has to work much harder for the same result.

I never thought once about DIII. I know next to nothing about who is good, who has been good, or who will be good in DIII and to be honest, I'll only act like I care if I think I can get something out of it. That doesn't mean I don't care about DIII runners though. I couldnt name a single one off the top of my head but if you tell me so and so ran 13:30 for 5k, I'm not gonna ignore him because he's DIII. 13:30 is 13:30 regardless of what your division in. However, I've met some DIII "runners" that I think are an embarrassment to our sport. I'm not gonna lie about it. I met a DIII once who has never broken 25 for 5k, runs 3 days a week, and thinks her coach is mean for making her run more than 5 miles. She also didn't know who Matt Centrowitz, Emma Coburn, Shannon Rowbury (yes, the girl I'm talking about is American )was nor could she name a single world class runner. That's bullshit and makes all of DIII look like a bunch of jackasses. Meanwhile guys and gals in D1 are cranking 100/80+ mile weeks without ever getting the opportunity to represent their school. Hell, even guys and girls on my high school team were running 50+ with no ambition of running in college, they just knew that they signed up for cross country and that was what was expected of them.

I have a lot more respect athletically for DII, but then again it depends on the program. In all three divisions there are a number of programs that are straight ass and have no right to toe the starting lines with other teams. Not necessarily because their slow, but because they don't treat the sport seriously. We are a generation of participants. I don't give a damn if your 5k is 20 minutes or 14 but by god if you want to have your name on a roster at any institution it better be something you love and are willing to sacrifice.

But I digress, if you love running, if you work hard, and you think you can achieve your potential at a DIII school, hell yes. Go for it. People may think less of it, but hell, most people dont give a damn about our sport anyway. Do what is best for you.

If you care about where I'm coming from, I ran D1 but was pretty irrelevant on my team. I only scored in relays in Track and never even made our conference XC team. However, I didn't go there to be a hot shot or to have a big name on my chest (heck, it was a mid-major youve probably never heard of anyway), I went there cause I loved the school and the academics and knew I had a roster spot to continue training and shooting for my goals on the track for four years. I also knew I'd have two fantastic coaches who I could learn a lot from to help me with my ambition to become a coach.

midwesta wrote:

But those are all poor DIII times. 1:59 isn't a good time even at the conference level, neither is 4:24. Yes, if you're at a power distance school, your top 15 runners will decimate DIII. But look at D1 overall. I live in Wisconsin. UW-GB? Awful and would get destroyed by anyone. Uw-Milwaukee? Currently ranked 13 in the region with their 4th and 5th runners at or over 26 minutes at conference, where they were 2nd. They would get trounced by the good WIAC schools. Marquette? Best finish at conference ever (4th) with their fifth guy running over 26 minutes. Would get trounced by the good WIAC schools.

That was my point exactly. Those times aren't even good for DIII, but since they were the best at our school (bad DIII team that finished mid-pack in an average DIII conference) and towards the top of our conference, the athletes thought the people running 4:25 women's 4x4 and 1:59 men's 800 were super stars. That's how skewed the perception of a large majority of my team was at this DIII. They had no idea what was actually good or where their abilities fell in the grand scheme of college track and would get offended if you pointed it out to them what was actually good.