This topic comes up all the time. The top D3 school would probably be a respectable d1 team. I don't think they'd win any major conferences, but I would bet they'd be mid-pack in those conferences and up front on some of the mid-level ones, all without scholarships and mostly made up of kids from the state.
I think it's more interesting that most of the kids running in the WIAC are from Wisconsin. In terms of development, it's pretty impressive considering there's less than 6 million people.
Wisconsin has 4 Div 1 programs... UW, UW GB, Marquette, and UW Milwaukee - other than Madison, I don't think any of those other programs would ever win the WIAC.
The WIAC schools are an anomaly in being public D3 schools. It's much cheaper for a borderline D1/D2 scholarship guy to just stay near home at a WIAC school than it is for other D3 options.
This topic comes up all the time. The top D3 school would probably be a respectable d1 team. I don't think they'd win any major conferences, but I would bet they'd be mid-pack in those conferences and up front on some of the mid-level ones, all without scholarships and mostly made up of kids from the state.
I think it's more interesting that most of the kids running in the WIAC are from Wisconsin. In terms of development, it's pretty impressive considering there's less than 6 million people.
Wisconsin has 4 Div 1 programs... UW, UW GB, Marquette, and UW Milwaukee - other than Madison, I don't think any of those other programs would ever win the WIAC.
The WIAC schools are an anomaly in being public D3 schools. It's much cheaper for a borderline D1/D2 scholarship guy to just stay near home at a WIAC school than it is for other D3 options.
Right. And for that reason, it is wild that they're not D2. They are much bigger and can accept pretty much anyone, and in a state like WI where there is zero D2 and a comparably lower amount of D1 schools, they absolutely clean up with inbound talent relative to the average D3 school.
Put another way: They're as big, if not bigger, than most D2 schools. The inbound talent coming in is far more like D1/D2 than it is a D3. The academic standards are far more like D1/2 than D3. They are public, again far more like D1/D2 than D3.
So why are they D3? I can't think of any realistic reason other than they want every one of their teams to be a national title contender.
You have to be blind if you don't recognize the outcome. How do you think UW-L gets like 10 kids who can run a sub-22 200? Is it because Wisconsin just breeds elite sprinters? No, it's because they go D3 at UW-L whereas a lot of them would go low-D1 or D2 in other states.
And I hear you, it's not that simple; there are economic reasons why someone might want to go to a in-state school, and obviously it is also true that UW-L does a great job of developing talent. But come on, to pretend like they're not getting kids, year after year, that are D1/D2 talent is just the ultimate bullsht. And further, they absolutely are competing against schools with less resources -- they have almost 10,000 undergrads! That is four times the size of the both the median and the mean D3 school.
We should remember or be made aware that Wisconsin High School track isn't even three full months most years. That the majority of meets the first five weeks of the season are on tracks under 200 meters, painted on surfaces that cannot accommodate spikes. To frame it a different way, 55m in basketball shoes is more common than 60m in spikes. You then get to outdoor, which is hell until May. The number of schools that can even train in spikes when and while indoors is, at best, around a dozen. On top of all that, we should also remember how rare it is for a sprinter to not also play football and/or basketball or even play baseball during the track season. From a logistics perspective, speed in Wisconsin is an uphill proposition. And the less said about the actual training done in the state, the better.
The product of these systems, through climate, training and season length, are far from what they can be. For how La Crosse develops 10 kids sub 22? They find the best place finishers at the state meet who love track. They won't have the times to go D1, but if their zip codes were in Texas, they would, and that is the Wisconsin D3 advantage. If the "advance scouts" at Oshkosh or Whitewater haven't already identified the potential, they go to La Crosse.
Per runcruit:
In 2024, they recruited sprinters who ran -- just the 200m here -- 21.92, 21.99, and 22.10. In 2023, 21.39.
That's not even counting the parade of 4:12 1600m runners, 48' triple jumpers, 15' vaulters coming through. Those are low D1/D2 kids, full-stop.
Think of it this way: pick any event you want, and then look at it within a state. I'm going to use figurative numbers here, but let's imagine 200m.
In a state where there is more D1 and an actual D2, like PA, it looks something like this. The top 2-3 kids run 21.2 or lower; they go high-D1. The next 10 run 21.2-22.0, they go low-D1 and D2. After that it spreads out considerably.
But if there are less D1 schools proportional to the population, and if there is no D2 (like in Wisconsin!), then the best D3 school is going to get kids that, in almost any other state, would be going D2. In PA, the kid running 21.39 isn't going to Ursinus, he's on partial scholarship to Slippery Rock or IUP. But in Wisconsin, kid after kid after kid ends up at UW-L.
Again, I want to be clear -- none of this means that UW-L doesn't do a great job. They recruit, they develop well, they hire great coaches. That is all true, and not invalidated by what I am saying. It is just supremely disingenuous to sit here and say that the WIAC schools do not have an obvious structural advantage, and that is borderline nonsensical that they're not D2 schools when they walk, talk, and quack like them.
D1 has 350 teams, over half of those are really bad. There is nothing inherent about D1 that guarantees quality. Whenever posters here talk D1 they bring up the top 40 schools as if those are the only ones that exist.
D2 schools have the worst academics followed by D3. D1 is far superior. Average D1 school like Marquette or Illinois are 100 times better than Lacrosse or Wartburg.
La Crosse constantly gets recruits that are fringe D1 guys. They get distance runners that are in the 9:00-9:10 range for 3200m and under 4:20 for the 1600m. They would be a mid-tier big 10 team. They lost to Purdue by 26 points at the Joe Piana invite. They are on the level of a team like Minnesota, Penn state or UCLA. Their first runner Grant Matthai who will likely win cross country would be a contributing 4th or 5th runner on a trophy team. The rest of the top 5 could be power 4 D1 if they really wanted. Not like they'd be running for Oklahoma state but they could be on a solid team. Or they could go into some bum conference like the Summit League or Horizon league and compete at the top of that conference.
Also D3 runners have bumped up to D1 before and shown that they can hang. Alex Phillip just a couple years ago went from D3 cross country champion to 17th at cross nationals for D1.
They would be 11th in the Big Ten this year per the Laactic calculations. They would not beat Minnesota, who would put 5-6 guys between their 1st and 2nd runners. Just because a few D3 studs move up to D1 and compete well doesn’t mean UW LAX would be a top tier Big Ten program.
D2 schools have the worst academics followed by D3. D1 is far superior. Average D1 school like Marquette or Illinois are 100 times better than Lacrosse or Wartburg.
D3 has more academic variability across schools but includes high end schools like U Chicago, Williams, MIT, John’s Hopkins so it’s not correct to blanket assume D3 is worse than D1. Agree D2 would be lowest tier though.
A lot of people on this thread are pointing out individuals here and there that have been solid D1 runners. Of course that’ll happen. The best D3 guys can be All American in D1 XC. It’s the 4th and 5th men that would absolutely kill any D3 team and prevent them from being competitive. D1 is just way deeper.
And further, they absolutely are competing against schools with less resources -- they have almost 10,000 undergrads! That is four times the size of the both the median and the mean D3 school.
Just be honest. It's OK. Having all these huge advantages doesn't just walk a title to their door. But it absolutely, 100% helps.
Number of students doesn't really impact a college's sports teams. This isn't like high school where the coach has to work with and recruit from the student population that happens to go to the school lol. Duke has like 6,500 undergrads yet they're one of the most successful college basketball teams of all time.
Just look at the Lacrosse distance coach and his bio/successes before Wisconsin. Did he miraculously become a better coach? No…has always been a great coach.
The difference is obviously location, location, location. Not a typical d3 scenario.
I see them getting even better with the badgers new roster limits and scholarship cuts.
I pulled up letsrun's favorite d1 school to criticize (one that, although having respectable results, does underperform by a pretty big amount relative to the caliber of athlete they bring in). and then I searched a certain California (also d1) for good measure as I've also seen it criticized a fair amount as well, for pretty similar reasons (underperforming and a certain former coach). Both handily were better than La Crosse in track. And they're ranked both about #60 for xc in knockout. I think they'd beat La Crosse in xc
2025 outdoor school leading times (the d1 vs La Crosse vs the Cali d1):
800: 1:46.99 vs 1:49.11 vs 1:47.60
1500: 3:38.08 vs 3:47.31 vs 3:40.96
5000: 13:53.13 vs 13:56.79 vs 13:37.12
10000: 29:34.58 vs 28:53.93 vs None
3000SC: 9:32.01 vs 8:49.74 vs 9:29.26
hint: both of these are around the 60 ish rank in team knockout. And conferences are ACC and Big 10
And further, they absolutely are competing against schools with less resources -- they have almost 10,000 undergrads! That is four times the size of the both the median and the mean D3 school.
Just be honest. It's OK. Having all these huge advantages doesn't just walk a title to their door. But it absolutely, 100% helps.
Number of students doesn't really impact a college's sports teams. This isn't like high school where the coach has to work with and recruit from the student population that happens to go to the school lol. Duke has like 6,500 undergrads yet they're one of the most successful college basketball teams of all time.
Even if I agree with you -- and I don't, all that says to me is that there is lesser competition for the athletes -- what about the other four reasons I listed about why UW-L is so obviously a D2 school that is masquerading as D3?
There are, what, 300-some D1s that sponsor men's cross? La Crosse would beat a large majority of them.
As multiple people have pointed out on this board, many D1s sponsor men's xc because it's one of the cheapest things they can do to satisfy the NCAA requirement to sponsor X number of sports. Those schools have the minimum number of men and run the minimum number of meets to satisfy NCAA requirements. Their athletic department wants nothing more than that, so that it can keep the focus on (usually) basketball.
People just have a misconception of D1. The Power conferences are a small fraction of it.
Number of students doesn't really impact a college's sports teams. This isn't like high school where the coach has to work with and recruit from the student population that happens to go to the school lol. Duke has like 6,500 undergrads yet they're one of the most successful college basketball teams of all time.
Even if I agree with you -- and I don't, all that says to me is that there is lesser competition for the athletes -- what about the other four reasons I listed about why UW-L is so obviously a D2 school that is masquerading as D3?
I tend to agree the Wisconsin schools have an unfair advantage. A lot of D3 schools have less than 1000 students.