Big fish, small pond (D3) vs. Smaller fish, big pond

I would be more interested in improving my performance than a title that gets very little respect. I dont believe being a front runner most of my career would allow me to find out how good I could be even if I got to run against D1 on occassion. Not enough regular high level/championship competitions to bring out my best when it counted the most.

Not to mention having daily training partners that could help raise the game....

Wise Old Man wrote:

Would you rather run D3 and be one of the all-time D3 greats or would you rather be a strong, but mostly ignored D1 runner?

It sort of depends on who you are as a person, what you want out of college, and what you want out of running. Nobody can really answer that question for someone else.

If you run to race and to be in contention to win, the decision should be pretty straightforward (holding all other things equal).

If you want to run professionally and view college as an opportunity to continue your improvement, then D1 is a better training environment for D3.

You can twist the inputs depending on the individual and reach different results.

Wise Old Man wrote:

If you had the talent level of a guy like Dhruvil Patel (5K pr of 13:51 in college) would you rather run D3 and be one of the all-time D3 greats (5000 record holder, NCAA xc champ, etc) or would you rather be a strong, but mostly ignored D1 runner (top 25-50 D1 runner in a given year)? Let’s say college quality and cost were a wash. Which would be a more satisfying athletic experience?

Go D1 and get a real challenge no matter how bad you get beat down.

13:50 in d3 is like being the smartest person in the developmental handicap class.

jamb innnnn wrote:

Wise Old Man wrote:

If you had the talent level of a guy like Dhruvil Patel (5K pr of 13:51 in college) would you rather run D3 and be one of the all-time D3 greats (5000 record holder, NCAA xc champ, etc) or would you rather be a strong, but mostly ignored D1 runner (top 25-50 D1 runner in a given year)? Let’s say college quality and cost were a wash. Which would be a more satisfying athletic experience?

Go D1 and get a real challenge no matter how bad you get beat down.

13:50 in d3 is like being the smartest person in the developmental handicap class.

That’s funny! I was a strong HS runner, lots of accolades, good enough for D1 and that’s what I did, went to a D1 school. I took a regular beating and quickly quit. The saying is, “no guts, no glory,” but for me at that age it was more, “no glory, no guts.” Embarrassing really. Sad to realize about yourself that you’d rather be a big fish in a small pond, at least as a runner.

He would have been lucky to make it to regionals top 96 because that's what place his time was in D1 last year. He wouldn't have made varsity on a top team.

I would rather play on the high levels.

big skolly wrote:

He would have been lucky to make it to regionals top 96 because that's what place his time was in D1 last year. He wouldn't have made varsity on a top team.

Well, top 20-25 D1 cross country teams certainly have lots of 14-14:30 5K and 29 minute 10K runners on their varsity teams. A guy like Patel would be a credible D1 runner and a valuable, if not star, member of a lot of solid D1 distance teams. That’s the point, is it more satisfying to be a solid D1 guy or a D3 superstar? Most seem to think they’d prefer to be a mid pack D1.

My brother and I were both state champs in high school. He went to a D3 school on an academic scholarship, I went to a D1 on a partial academic scholarship. He went to D3 nationals a couple times and got a quality education (not always the case at D3). I ran faster times, got to run at big D1 meets and got a quality education (albeit with larger class sizes). Either way works. I enjoy my life and he enjoys his life.

I’d go with whichever is less expensive so long as both have a good education.

joed|rt wrote:

My brother and I were both state champs in high school. He went to a D3 school on an academic scholarship, I went to a D1 on a partial academic scholarship. He went to D3 nationals a couple times and got a quality education (not always the case at D3). I ran faster times, got to run at big D1 meets and got a quality education (albeit with larger class sizes). Either way works. I enjoy my life and he enjoys his life.

Also not always the case at D1

Lots? No they don't. You may find a random 7th man on a team but that is not lots. No 5th man is slow or team wouldn't be there. Furman was dead last in 31st. In track they had 5 guys at 14:09 or faster and 7 guys at 3:51 or faster.

big skolly wrote:

Lots? No they don't. You may find a random 7th man on a team but that is not lots. No 5th man is slow or team wouldn't be there. Furman was dead last in 31st. In track they had 5 guys at 14:09 or faster and 7 guys at 3:51 or faster.

I think your overestimating the talent. I just looked up Harvard’s 4th man at nationals and his pr is 14:29. Neither their 4th or 5th have broken 14. Harvard is a top 15 team. I think a lot of decent teams (10-20) don’t have 5 runners under 14, far from it.

Harvard hasn't run track in almost 2 years dummy.

This is a typical 25th team.

https://www.tfrrs.org/top_performances/MI_college_m_Michigan.html?list_hnd=3200&season_hnd=530

The laughable fact is that Patel ran 13:51 once and 13:58 as 2nd best time. That doesn't get him to a regional meet which includes top 96 guys in the 5k!

big skolly wrote:

The laughable fact is that Patel ran 13:51 once and 13:58 as 2nd best time. That doesn't get him to a regional meet which includes top 96 guys in the 5k!

Ok, got it. He’s was not going to D1 nationals in track. The Michigan times you just linked to do indicate he would be a top 5 member of their xc team. No?

RichardRider wrote:

Not to mention having daily training partners that could help raise the game....

Nothing good comes from trying to keep up with superior runners. Running too hard in interval workouts and on easy days, will result in burning out.

Probably. I objected to the comment about lots of 14-14:30 guys on top teams. Top 10 teams have 5 guys sub 14. Most of the the 31 teams have 3 or 4 under 14 and 5-6-7 runners close to 14 minutes. I say Patel wouldn't make top 7 on a handful of teams, would be 6-7 on another 10, and would be 4-5 on a handful.