Division I Coaches: Why do some Division I schools not allow Non-DI schools to compete at their home meets?

How are they supposed to explain to their AD how they lost to a bunch of small D2/3 schools?

We used to run against Ohio State, Akron, etc. all the time until they either a) stopped coming to the meets or b) raised the entry standards for D2 schools to try to keep us out.

While many schools, at all levels, have a handful of athletes that may be able to compete, the overall depth of smaller programs is not there.

Some meets are all comers meets, and I would say meets like Mt. SAC and SF State do a good job at keeping the race open and seeding correctly.

But for many meets, coaches are trying to make the meet shorter. No distance heats, 2-3 heats tops for sprints. Having hosted a mid sized meet as a mid major, and wanting to attract other comparable mid major programs, we closed off entry to many smaller schools. This ensured the meet was smaller, competitive and more manageable.

For example, you can run off the track races for a 3-4 team meet well under 4 hours. If you promise coaches of the teams you want to come an under 4 hour meet, with good competition, you may get your target competitors. Thus to ensure you get good teams, that can be competitive in most events, you have to turn away smaller schools, who while they may have a handful of good competitors, would mostly fill extra slow heats and flights.

I have done larger open meets, where making money is the goal, but sometimes you just want to put on a good meet, where the competition fits your team, and do it all on a Friday night.

This is a completely understandable response and is well thought out, but why does a worse DI school get preferential treatment over a better non-D1 in the medium sized meets? (I also completely understand not allowing a non-D1 into a quad meet. That makes absolute sense.))

Why are there not entry standards and then the best overall teams (regardless of division) are admitted into the meet?

I understand that overall non-DI schools are weaker, but there are non-DI schools that are just as strong or stronger than mid-major DIs and they would improve the level of competition in the meet in several events.

You have been given the correct answer and choose not to accept it. A D1 coach does not want to explain to the AD how their team got bested in any event by a D2 or D3 athlete. "Did you try to get that dude who embarrassed your distance runners?"

Other than that, if you want to be treated like a D1 athlete, or you know someone who does, then D1 should have been the choice, not the D2 or D3 school that was chosen. You are either in the big time or not.

Coach from Ohio wrote:

How are they supposed to explain to their AD how they lost to a bunch of small D2/3 schools?

We used to run against Ohio State, Akron, etc. all the time until they either a) stopped coming to the meets or b) raised the entry standards for D2 schools to try to keep us out.

I think this is how most non-DI coaches/athletes feel and I don't think that it's always the case (although it most likely is in some instances).

This idea is the impetus for this post. I'm trying to find the real reason that this has been occurring more often with DI hosted meets. It's certainly not the responsibility of a DI school to cater to non-DI schools, but if a non-DI is going to improve the level of competition at the meet and make the meet more exciting, it seems like it would be best for the meet director to include them.

Being an NCAA Division 1 school on it's own means nothing. Just because a school is an NCAA Division 1 school, doesn't mean that the school has good athletic programs. A top tier Division 1 school usually has phenomenal athletic programs and many mid-majors have great programs too, but it just depends on the school and the program.

A school's overall classification should have nothing to do with their ability to compete in competitions outside of the postseason (unless it's something like 'Pre-Nationals'). It should all be performance based.

I don't think this is always the case. It's not about being treated like a 'D1 athlete'. That's not a thing. When people say a 'D1 athlete', they really mean Power 5 conference schools and schools that make up the top 30-40 teams in a given sport. My point is many D1 schools are not more competitive than top non-D1 schools, but they still get preferential treatment.

If the reasoning for this truly is the coach's insecurity in their ability to coach and manage their team, then that coach is not truly a D1 level coach. Their insecurities are limiting the progress of our sport as a whole in the United States.

Disagree. D1 athletes didn't go to a D1 school to compete against D2 and D3 athletes.

Do you have some examples of these D1 schools that competed and the D2r D3 schools that have been locked out? I don't believe you unless you have more than one example. I believe that if you provide some examples, we will be able to dissect the roster to prove to you that the D1 school would beat the D3 school when all events and all entrants are considered.

If I were a D1 coach, I would do everything I could to not allow lower divisions to compete in my home meets.

These coaches have to recruit. "Look at our home meet highly recruited athlete. You can come here and be assured to run every year against Little Sisters of the Poor and West South North Dakota State."

You want D1 treatment, go to a D1 school.

runnerjim wrote:

Do you have some examples of these D1 schools that competed and the D2r D3 schools that have been locked out? I don't believe you unless you have more than one example. I believe that if you provide some examples, we will be able to dissect the roster to prove to you that the D1 school would beat the D3 school when all events and all entrants are considered.

Kitten wanting to be a lion.

runnerjim wrote:

Do you have some examples of these D1 schools that competed and the D2r D3 schools that have been locked out? I don't believe you unless you have more than one example. I believe that if you provide some examples, we will be able to dissect the roster to prove to you that the D1 school would beat the D3 school when all events and all entrants are considered.

DI - Florida Gulf Coast, Stetson, North Alabama, New Jersey Institute, UC Riverside, Long Beach St., Tennessee Tech.

DII - Embry Riddle, Academy of Art, Grand Valley St., Angelo State, Chico State.

If you compare those teams (and no offense to any team on here, I have respect for all of these programs and I'm completely impartial to the programs listed), you will see that the DII teams are better. There are plenty of DI programs at this level of competition. I don't have specific examples of certain DI teams being allowed to compete and specific non-DI's being ousted, but it's easy to find examples of meets being 'DI ONLY', which is the exact same thing.

You specified that a DI would beat a DIII, which would be the case most of the time, but my argument was inclusive of all non-DIs (because the meets exclude all non-DIs), not just DIIIs.

The example I remember most clearly was the Akron Blue Gold indoor meet. They would, for example, say that you can’t enter the 5k unless you’ve run 14:30. So several D2/3 athletes wouldn’t run while Akron’s own guys whose PRs are 14:45 would run. It was a rule that they applied to only lower divisions.

I’m not bitter about it, they can choose to run their meet however they like. But it’s just a little funny to do that, run your own guys who haven’t hit the standard, and see them run poorly, just to avoid being beaten by lower division athletes.

Coach from Ohio wrote:

The example I remember most clearly was the Akron Blue Gold indoor meet. They would, for example, say that you can’t enter the 5k unless you’ve run 14:30. So several D2/3 athletes wouldn’t run while Akron’s own guys whose PRs are 14:45 would run. It was a rule that they applied to only lower divisions.

I’m not bitter about it, they can choose to run their meet however they like. But it’s just a little funny to do that, run your own guys who haven’t hit the standard, and see them run poorly, just to avoid being beaten by lower division athletes.

^Prime example. It's frustrating.

Again, it's not a DI school's job to cater to non-DI athletes, but it's weak to dodge competition (if that's what's happening). You're either good or your not. Performance transcends division. You can't protect yourself by dodging competition.

But the main point of this post is to determine whether or not the reasoning behind excluding non-DIs is to dodge competition, or if there's another reason?

"NCAA Division I" is a meaningless label when it comes to performance. Actual performances are what speak.

And for clarification, this not an "NCAA Division I" bashing thread. It's a 'classifications are not as important as performances' thread. I love watching NCAA Division I track and field and I'm very grateful to the schools who are inclusive of non-D1s in their bigger meets.

The NCAA establishes divisions as a way to allow a more equal level of competition. Of course you will have individuals who are better than individuals at another level. Your general concern would destroy any chance of competing for most D3 guys if it was fully implemented. Does the best kicker in D3 get to compete in a Bowl Game? No, he chose D3. D3 teams as a whole are much worse than D1 teams. A good D1 team would beat an all-star team comprised of all of D3. I don't even understand how a D2 or D3 coach would support having a few of their athletes go off in different directions on their own to compete against D1 teams. I think the best D1 women should show up at some crappy D3 meets and demand to compete in the men's race. Or maybe even D1 guys should show up to compete against you just to shut you up.

Again, when you say 'D1', you mean the top teams in D1. You're talking primarily Power 5 schools. The majority of D1 is not as good as you think they are (although those teams that are not in the upper echelon are still very good). Division 1 is made up of a lot of teams. Many Division 1 teams would be beaten by top Division 2 teams (TEAMS, NOT INDIVIDUALS). When we limit access to high quality regular season meets because of classification, we harm our sport.

No one's suggesting Grand Valley State run in a meet comprised of Oregon, Florida and Kentucky. Although there are athletes at GVSU that would run well, that's still foolishness. We're saying that allowing lower level D1s to compete and not letting non-D1s who are better teams compete, simply because of classification, is ridiculous. Your examples keep focusing on D1 vs. D3 and not 'non-D1 teams', which is what I stated in my argument.

The NCAA has some goofy rules about how to include non-D1 athletes in an invitational. Some meet directors just don't want to deal with it so they just don't. (Ask a meet director if you don't believe it.)

No D1 coaches are saying I don't want to let that kid in my meet because they are D2 and might win the event.

I think it has something to do with Baby Nationals?

No it doesn't harm the sport to not allow crappy teams into D1 meets. It harms the D3 and D2 community if the good teams compete in those meets because then they are bypassing a meet in their own division against other teams that want competition. See how that argument can be carried out to the point of just eliminating the divisions? The best women want to compete against men so we should eliminate the gender divisions also. The NCAA basketball tournament should include only the best 64 teams from all divisions and let the other teams be done after conference. If a D3 or D2 runner is fast enough, switch divisions and stop crying.