is D2 a better environment than D1 for track and field and cross country?

Hahaha. I upvoted this! I guess hyperbole doesn't play well on here.

D2 should be explored. Former DI Texas Tech and Olympic Discus Thrower Jason Young said, "We use athletes in America, we do not develop them." Clearly it is time to develop them!

Of course I would rather keep schools at the D1 level when possible. But if you eliminate D1 or make a super conference or two don't you effectively make a Division 1 for Athletics? That is worth being explored.

Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Roy Galvin (Motorola founder), Michael Dell. All billionaires. All drops outs and a flunk-out (Ellison). Guess an extra 50 billion doesn't matter to you.

Anecdotal. Do you know how to look things up? You will find that average salaries of D2 grads are significantly lower than those of D1 grads. The data includes hundreds of thousands of grads. This isn't controversial.

Your handle definitely qualifies you as an expert in the field.

If it’s so easy. Please enlighten me. I cannot be bothered.

These numbers are vague and misleading.

For most NAIA and the vast majority of D2 schools are regionally known liberal arts institutions. Many of there most popular majors are in fields like education which does not come with six figure salaries. Even if they are in majors like business the bulk of their graduates are within an hour or two of the school and usually are looking to stay near home.

They also do not take into account the debt incurred at many of these non-athletic scholarship D3 institutions that cost 50k+. D3 is the largest division. The top third of the division are great schools. The rest are on par or less than D2 and NAIA.

Lastly, college rankings are total BS. The most well known academic schools and large state schools are all gaming the system. Clemson got in trouble about a decade ago for manipulating their numbers to rank higher on the U.S News and report list.

Higher education is a business that has done a wonderful job of selling the idea of if you dont go here then your life will suck. They obviously sold you on that. Go to a school where you get the things you want. If the ranking matters to you then it should be a factor but the truth is that a degree from any accredited school gives you a leg up. What you do with it comes down to you. Ranking are just a perception. They are not reality.

According to college simply, starting salary for Adam's State grads is $27K. Starting salary for Iowa State grads is $52K. That is 50% higher. Average ACT at Adams is 21 while it is 25 at Iowa State. These are 2 typical D2 and D1 schools with excellent distance programs.

But does that take debt into account. Higher education, especially schools chasing the high ranking, dont tell you that sure you will make 50k on average but you will be in debt 100k. I know that does not apply everywhere but it is very prevelent. Most D2 and NAIA schools most popular majors are not high paying professions, like teaching, or psychology (counseling or social work). They are not producing doctors, lawyers and investment bankers but that is not the mission for those schools. For example any liberal arts school located in the south and especially appalachia are providing opportunities for economically depressed populations where 40k is like hitting the lottery and their quality of life will sky rocket compared to where they came from.

about your clemson argument, the deal is that if enough HS applicants or graduate/professional schools or employers or students, take it seriously, then it matters. i know this "rank doesn't matter" argument is being pushed now. just like WSJ is pushing its own new rank, which leans conservative in values. just like some want to push "you don't need a degree for that." such efforts only work if the consensus shifts. otherwise, you have an argument. but reality persists.

i mean, i help with some of the hiring on employees and consultants. you bet i notice where they went and what they accomplished there. weaker school, better accomplish a lot. and even then where do i stack you relative to harvard boy. and like it or not, the student bodies at some schools are just better. nope, don't buy it.

and on clemson or tulane specifically, i could argue it proves my point. some second rate school tried to fake their way in and got caught. the rankings matter enough they tried. and if the implication is the others are faking it, sorry, no, buzz. try applying to one of the best if you don't have the numbers. my experience the applications process came out right about what the numbers predicted. and if it didn't, the school was usually very expensive and low yield. and even that anomaly would be showing up in their acceptance rates.

nah, WSJ can try its own list and most of us giggle. very few items except maybe babson provoke much. most of it is how can you possibly think x is better than y. which suggests you are fighting the general reputational impression, not forging new consensus.

on "ROI" and "getting what you want," that's personal. kid who is the first in his family to college and just wants "a degree" -- D2 is fine. kid who wants to run at the highest level ge can get, and class is a side item -- D2 is fine. kid who wants to teach -- D2 is fine.

different cluster of goals and low end D1 or D3 makes more sense. you're getting my response less D2 is bad or for no one as let's not pretend it's for everyone. or specifically for the ambitious academics oriented kids. or kids who really belong D3 on times. etc.

percent med school is tricky because typically that's judged by who does the MCAT or applies. they can grade harshly and wash out a lot of kids before that point, then claim a high percentage of success applying to med school. but that's of the kids left after the carnage, leaving out everyone who changed majors or transferred colleges and vowed never set foot in the science buildings again. particularly if you're at an expensive private, that's cold-blooded.

if you get a free ride, and the school is ok academically, go for it.

do not go in debt.

if you do super well, turn pro.

and take like 2 hours a day in studies for the degree and balance.

do it.

f D1, unless there is a perfect spot.

If you suck or can't put on your big boy pants and compete again the best then yes D2 is a better environment.

You're probably one of those guys who runs a 30 minute 10k and pleasures himself thinking about the time he almost medaled in a D1 race.

If the argument is about environment...Wartburg, La Crosse, North Central, Lynchburg, Pomona, St. Olaf, Wash U, Geneseo...are "all in" running programs. I think D3 haters would be surprised at how legit these programs operate.

Wrong, Wrong and Wrong.

Indeed, North Central and La Crosse are definitely legit. Give most D1s a run (no pun intended) for their money.

If you live in Wisconsin or Minnesota, your best bet is D3 WIAC. Unlike their respective flagship schools, the WIAC coaches actually develop runners.