NESCAC

[SoccerMom_5]

I'll chime in with my experience, albeit 25 years ago.  I was an invited walk-on to a A-10 school (i.e. no money offered). After the first day, I realized that in order to be successful at this level, you needed to be 110% committed - eat, breathe, live the game. It was a job. Many players were getting paid (scholarship) to play.  It wasn't for me.  I left after day two, but enjoyed my freshman year at the school (and supporting the team as a fan).

Ultimately, I decided to transfer because I didn't want the big school experience and felt a small liberal arts school was more appropriate for me.  A friend was playing soccer in a competitive D3 program and suggested I consider transferring there.  I visited, really liked the school, got along great with the players and coach, and decided that was where I wanted to be.  I transferred in my sophomore year and played all 20 games as the first or second one off the bench. My Junior year I started, led the team in scoring and earned All-Conference.  In the spring I studied abroad in Australia.  My Senior year was equally successful and I graduated with a job starting the first week in June. Oh year, and I met my wife there too. I'm on record as saying it was absolutely the best decision I ever made to walk away from the D1 program.

That's a great story, thanks for sharing! My alma mater has a number of players who transferred from D1 programs in the last six or so years (I can remember at least five) and have come in and made a difference. From what I've understand, they've all been very happy with that decision.

Sometimes a player might choose to go D1 but for whatever reason D3 ends up working out better. Sometimes it's a question of "Do I stay in this D1 program, not play much, and get a decent education, or transfer to a D3, get to play a lot, and get an upgrade in terms of academics?" Not the case for all, of course, but I think that thought process often applies when transfers to high-level LACs/research universities are concerned.

But... why are you assuming the kid was not playing much?  I know kids who were freaking STARS who decided on D3 schools.  I know two kids who had chances with the u17 National team who decided to play D3. 
I know another kid who is in a D1 program now, but...whe. he was 15, he was called up permanently and put in the residency program, in Bradenton, but who left the residency program in less than a year, because the tutors were so crappy. And... it was not an issue that he "not play much" ... he was a starting midfielder for the USMNT u17 team -- at age 15. (  And his dad, who had played professionally and coached at the academy,  supported that choice to leave... )

I also know a kid who was recruited D1 with a great package and told he was expected to "make an immediate impact" at a D1 school, who chose D3... (this is also a kid who was selected to play an exhibition match with the national team in Bradenton and played 90 minutes in that game... although he was not selected for residency, in the end ) 
And... get this... sat the bench his first year at the D3 school... along with a couple of the other kids he said were really good players... because you can't really judge what "caliber" of kid you have when you put them in that situatuon.

Also -- there are not really that many great D1 programs.  So after you fall out of the top 50 or so... you might as well play in the NESCAC... says a kid I know who did D1 soccer flyouts and then chose to play in the NESCAC.

Everyone doesnt make educational choices that will impact them for the rest of their lives by designation of the soccer team ... and that is equally true for "special" players.  At least for the smart ones.

Kudos to those kids who do play D1...if that is what makes them happy.   

But, how about we acknowledge that some kids who play D3 do so because that is what makes them happy and not because they lacked talent to begin with.

In fact... it has been my observation that it is pretty difficult to properly assess real soccer IQ in the NESCAC, ans maybe some other D3 teams. .  Our kids tell us that a lot of really good players who really understand the game come in and sit, because they keep trying to play the soccer they were expected to play in the academy and that is not what the coach is looking for.   So, they may sit til they figure out that the coach doesn't want that from them. 

Anyway, that is my "thing" for the week I guess...   I see no reason to assume that these kids "couldn't make it" in D1, so they "settled" for a good education instead.  It is kind of rude to the kids and is fairly  cycinal as social commentary.   

[rudy]

I'll chime in with my experience, albeit 25 years ago.  I was an invited walk-on to a A-10 school (i.e. no money offered). After the first day, I realized that in order to be successful at this level, you needed to be 110% committed - eat, breathe, live the game. It was a job. Many players were getting paid (scholarship) to play.  It wasn't for me.  I left after day two, but enjoyed my freshman year at the school (and supporting the team as a fan).

Ultimately, I decided to transfer because I didn't want the big school experience and felt a small liberal arts school was more appropriate for me.  A friend was playing soccer in a competitive D3 program and suggested I consider transferring there.  I visited, really liked the school, got along great with the players and coach, and decided that was where I wanted to be.  I transferred in my sophomore year and played all 20 games as the first or second one off the bench. My Junior year I started, led the team in scoring and earned All-Conference.  In the spring I studied abroad in Australia.  My Senior year was equally successful and I graduated with a job starting the first week in June. Oh year, and I met my wife there too. I'm on record as saying it was absolutely the best decision I ever made to walk away from the D1 program.

That's a great story, thanks for sharing! My alma mater has a number of players who transferred from D1 programs in the last six or so years (I can remember at least five) and have come in and made a difference. From what I've understand, they've all been very happy with that decision.

Sometimes a player might choose to go D1 but for whatever reason D3 ends up working out better. Sometimes it's a question of "Do I stay in this D1 program, not play much, and get a decent education, or transfer to a D3, get to play a lot, and get an upgrade in terms of academics?" Not the case for all, of course, but I think that thought process often applies when transfers to high-level LACs/research universities are concerned.

But... why are you assuming the kid was not playing much?  I know kids who were freaking STARS who decided on D3 schools.  I know two kids who had chances with the u17 National team who decided to play D3. 
I know another kid who is in a D1 program now, but...whe. he was 15, he was called up permanently and put in the residency program, in Bradenton, but who left the residency program in less than a year, because the tutors were so crappy. And... it was not an issue that he "not play much" ... he was a starting midfielder for the USMNT u17 team -- at age 15. (  And his dad, who had played professionally and coached at the academy,  supported that choice to leave... )

I also know a kid who was recruited D1 with a great package and told he was expected to "make an immediate impact" at a D1 school, who chose D3... (this is also a kid who was selected to play an exhibition match with the national team in Bradenton and played 90 minutes in that game... although he was not selected for residency, in the end ) 
And... get this... sat the bench his first year at the D3 school... along with a couple of the other kids he said were really good players... because you can't really judge what "caliber" of kid you have when you put them in that situatuon.

Also -- there are not really that many great D1 programs.  So after you fall out of the top 50 or so... you might as well play in the NESCAC... says a kid I know who did D1 soccer flyouts and then chose to play in the NESCAC.

Everyone doesnt make educational choices that will impact them for the rest of their lives by designation of the soccer team ... and that is equally true for "special" players.  At least for the smart ones.

Kudos to those kids who do play D1...if that is what makes them happy.   

But, how about we acknowledge that some kids who play D3 do so because that is what makes them happy and not because they lacked talent to begin with.

In fact... it has been my observation that it is pretty difficult to properly assess real soccer IQ in the NESCAC, ans maybe some other D3 teams. .  Our kids tell us that a lot of really good players who really understand the game come in and sit, because they keep trying to play the soccer they were expected to play in the academy and that is not what the coach is looking for.   So, they may sit til they figure out that the coach doesn't want that from them. 

Anyway, that is my "thing" for the week I guess...   I see no reason to assume that these kids "couldn't make it" in D1, so they "settled" for a good education instead.  It is kind of rude to the kids and is fairly  cycinal as social commentary.

There definitely are players like this.. probably not as many as those that chose a d3 over a patriot league, A10, etc. I know of a recent Kenyon player that transfered from PC after freshman year..even getting solid minutes as a freshman..who was not able to spend the time necessary on academics at PC.. missing labs, etc. He was a Dallas academy player. 

[SoccerMom_5]

Shapiro has a machine rolling there at Tufts....who, at the moment, are the top D3 soccer program in the country.  How good would an Elite 8 or national semi be with Tufts vs Messiah?  I'm serious, if Tufts played Calvin tomorrow, I'd bet on Tufts.  Maybe Chicago can beat them.  Tufts looks like a D1 team playing D3 schools.

Looking forward to the Tufts-Amherst game this weekend. 

[Mr.Right]

Whoa we got a live one here....NURSE gonna need that whole bottle of valium NOW...

[blooter442]

But... why are you assuming the kid was not playing much? 

Wow, ok!

I never made the assumption that the kid(s) did not play much. In fact, I said, "Sometimes it's a question of "Do I stay in this D1 program, not play much, and get a decent education, or transfer to a D3, get to play a lot, and get an upgrade in terms of academics?" Not the case for all, of course, but I think that thought process often applies when transfers to high-level LACs/research universities are concerned."

I know kids who were freaking STARS who decided on D3 schools.  I know
two kids who had chances with the u17 National team who decided to play D3.

Great for them (not being facetious, I think that is awesome)! I also know guys on the team I support who picked that D3 program over D1 offers. That said, these are examples of anecdotal evidence, and -- I would imagine -- more the exception than the norm.

I know another kid who is in a D1 program now, but...whe. he was 15, he was called up permanently and put in the residency program, in Bradenton, but who left the residency program in less than a year, because the tutors were so crappy. And... it was not an issue that he "not play much" ... he was a starting midfielder for the USMNT u17 team -- at age 15. (  And his dad, who had played professionally and coached at the academy,  supported that choice to leave... )

I also know a kid who was recruited D1 with a great package and told he was expected to "make an immediate impact" at a D1 school, who chose D3... (this is also a kid who was selected to play an exhibition match with the national team in Bradenton and played 90 minutes in that game... although he was not selected for residency, in the end ) 
And... get this... sat the bench his first year at the D3 school... along with a couple of the other kids he said were really good players... because you can't really judge what "caliber" of kid you have when you put them in that situatuon.

I have seen these situations, too. I know of one D1 transfer who came in to the D3 program I followed and hardly played.

It sounds like you know a lot of high-quality players. That said, I'd say -- much like my observation in an earlier paragraph -- these are examples of anecdotal evidence, which I'd understand you raising if I had indeed said that "any player who leaves a D1 program and transfers to a D3 does so because they weren't good enough." However, I never said that -- I simply outlined the thought process that some of them likely undertook. A generalization, of course, but most observations on these forums are generalized, as no two situations are identical.

I would agree with PaulNewman's observation about some good players choosing to go D3 over D1 but very, very few superstars choosing D3 over D1. Sure, it might happen occasionally, but I would imagine that it's the exception rather than the norm.

Also -- there are not really that many great D1 programs.  So after you fall out of the top 50 or so... you might as well play in the NESCAC... says a kid I know who did D1 soccer flyouts and then chose to play in the NESCAC.

I would agree with this, although there are also great schools with excellent D3 soccer programs in places other than the NESCAC -- UAA, Centennial Conference, MIT, Kenyon, etc.

Everyone doesnt make educational choices that will impact them for the rest of their lives by designation of the soccer team ... and that is equally true for "special" players.  At least for the smart ones.

Kudos to those kids who do play D1...if that is what makes them happy.   

But, how about we acknowledge that some kids who play D3 do so because that is what makes them happy and not because they lacked talent to begin with.

I also agree with this. Having gone to a university that emphasizes academics yet also has a high-caliber D3 soccer program, I can say that I know of multiple kids who turned down D1 programs to go to a (in their minds) superior school that happened to be D3. Even so, I would say that saying "some kids choose to play D3 over D1" is as much of a generalization as "some kids aren't good enough for D1 and choose to transfer to a D3 program." Both may be true in certain circumstances, but not in every circumstance.

In fact... it has been my observation that it is pretty difficult to properly assess real soccer IQ in the NESCAC, ans maybe some other D3 teams. .  Our kids tell us that a lot of really good players who really understand the game come in and sit, because they keep trying to play the soccer they were expected to play in the academy and that is not what the coach is looking for.   So, they may sit til they figure out that the coach doesn't want that from them. 

I've also seen this happen -- kids come in as freshmen and play a lot, but not so much the next year or the year after. Sometimes you simply have better recruiting classes than others, or -- perhaps a better way to say this would be -- the kid (or kids) coming in during a given year fit better into the plan/system/etc. than others did.

Anyway, that is my "thing" for the week I guess...   I see no reason to assume that these kids "couldn't make it" in D1, so they "settled" for a good education instead.  It is kind of rude to the kids and is fairly  cycinal as social commentary.

I made no assumption that these kids "couldn't make it." Sure, I made a generalization about the thought process of some kids choosing to leave a D1 program to go to a D3, but I thought I'd made it pretty clear that it was a generalization and not an assumption. In fact, the only assumption being made is you assuming that I assumed (that does read kind of funny, I must say) all kids who transferred to or chose D3 programs weren't good enough to play D1, which I absolutely did not.

Rather, what I said was that -- for those who weren't playing much or, for whatever reason, wasn't a good fit -- some may choose to go to a D3 that is superior academically. And unless you are in the less-than-one-percent of players going pro, then I'd be more concerned with where I went to school than the caliber of my soccer team. Thus, I think it would behoove them to get a good education, rather than be "settling" for such a thing.

If you interpreted it to be rude and cynical social commentary, then ultimately that is your interpretation. I am not going to tell you your interpretation was incorrect. That said, it certainly was not the way it was intended, and hopefully you understand where I'm coming from now.

[PaulNewman]

Let's cut to the chase.  For those you defending the "D3s were really good to very good D1 talents" idea, please tell us this....what % of D3 players even in the top 3rd of D3 programs do you truly believe would have been legit starters or stars for D1 schools on a similar level (or higher) than their D3s?

I can tell you this....IF MY kid had been on the U17NT and would have been a 3-4 year starter at a very good D1 -- Duke, UVA, Harvard, Bucknell, etc, etc....he would of gone to one of those.  Period.  And I'd like to hear how you answer the D1 basketball comparison?  What accounts for the difference?

[Falconer]

And I'd like to hear how you answer the D1 basketball comparison?  What accounts for the difference?

That's simple, IMO. It comes down to numbers, two numbers.

First, D1 men's basketball coaches can hand out 13 scholarships, and all of them must be full scholarships (by rule). Only five men can play at any one time. On most teams, no more than 10 men get much PT, with the lion's share probably going to just 7 or 8. With only rare exceptions, every single man who takes the floor has a full ride. The talent is deep among most tournament teams.

D1 soccer coaches must divide 9.9 scholarships among 20-25 men. If (say) five get full rides at any one time, that's not much $ to hand out to HS players with enough talent to play in D1, but not at the highest level.

Conclusion: Men who ride the bench in basketball still get full rides. Quite a few starters in soccer get very little in scholarship $ by comparison. This is a huge factor in understanding why we can't compare these two sports on anything close to an even basis. Virtually no D3 basketball team stands a chance against a bottom-rung D1 team. I am aware of just one D3 basketball player who had a truly successful NBA career: Jack Sikma of Illinois Wesleyan and the Supersonics. (Perhaps I'm missing some others; please chime in if so. Also, I am just assuming that IWU was a D3 school at the time; they are now.)

Second number: Soccer players in America basically don't get the big bucks that are available in the other major league sports. Shortstops who hit just .235 can make many millions annually, and the MLB minimum salary (I did say minimum) is now above half a million. (Incidentally, one Messiah alum is a ML player, Chris Heisey.) In basketball the money is through the roof.

Conclusion: When compared with basketball, the return on investment for professional American soccer players is almost dismal.

Overall conclusion: If you are a really good HS soccer player, all-state, but you aren't (say) Ned Grabevoy and you aren't offered a full ride to play for Jerry Yeagley and you're pretty sure you'll never play MLS, why not visit those four D3 schools that are trying to recruit you? They might actually offer you more $ for academics than the mid-or-low level D1 school (where you might start for a couple of years) offers you for soccer. And, chances are they are better academically than the D1 schools, or at least you're likely to get a lot more personal time with the faculty members in your field. This can be a no-brainer, depending on the D3 program and school. On the other hand, if you're a very good HS basketball player, maybe even all-state, you probably aren't going to get offered by Kentucky, but you stand an excellent chance of getting an entirely free education at a D1 school. Lots of D1s have good academics with coaches who care about that (I will hold my tongue about Kentucky), so what's to gain by playing in D3 where you'll never be on TV?

Q.E.D.

[Falconer]

Not many years ago, the best HS soccer player in PA (indisputably) decided not to go D1. He didn't go D3, either. Instead, he went straight to Germany and now is the star player for Borussia Dortmund. I mean Christian Pulisic, of course. The truly exceptional player does have options above D1. That would still be true in basketball, if the NBA did the right thing (IMO) and got rid of the rule about not drafting players right out of HS--or if the NCAA did the right thing (IMO) and didn't allow D1 students to play a sport until after they've completed 24 hours of college credit with a certain GPA. That would sure as heck fix this ridiculous situation, in which so-called "student-athletes" play a full season but stop attending classes after Christmas break (if not earlier). D3 needs no such rule, as everyone here knows, but D1 absolutely does.

[PaulNewman]

Falconer, when you go after UK I hope you'll be fair and after Duke just as hard on the one and done deal, and after UNC as well for other reasons.

Pulisic? How is he in this debate? I guess if he didn't go pro he was headed to Messiah, Dickinson or Camden.

And I suppose the actual D1 players are really the actual D3 level players. Great players don't play D1 just because of scholarship money. They play because they want the highest level of competition available to them. Let's not focus on just the exceptions.

Rudy, my memory is that the Kenyon kid didn't play much at all at PC. Also, definitely a nice player...could use him this year...but I don't believe even made all conference in D3.

Choosing Williams over a Patriot League school is one thing. Even with no scholarships you'll rarely find a truly legit D1 impact player who is going to choose Williams over Harvard or high end places like Duke, UVA, etc. And that's Williams, the cream of the crop in D3 land.

I will admit D3 is broader than I like to think. There are kids still playing at places like RIC and UMass Dartmouth who by age should have been done 4-5 years ago. What exactly are they doing? Transferring around multiple D3s just to play soccer makes no sense to me.

[Falconer]

Pulisic? How is he in this debate? I guess if he didn't go pro he was headed to Messiah, Dickinson or Camden.

And I suppose the actual D1 players are really the actual D3 level players. Great players don't play D1 just because of scholarship money. They play because they want the highest level of competition available to them. Let's not focus on just the exceptions.

A very fair question, PN. I wrote that pretty late at night and didn't connect the dots. Let me do that now.

I brought Pulisic into this b/c he is indeed a truly exceptional case. Others probably know more than I do about such things, but isn't he the first man, or else one of only a very tiny handful of men, to go straight from an American HS to Europe, and then to play almost right away at the highest level in the world? On the other hand, every single year we see at least half a dozen HS basketball players do the "one and done" and end up as first round picks in the NBA draft. Many of them stick around several years and play on championship teams. If the NBA did the right thing--I'm surprised there hasn't been a class action suit about this yet--they would turn the clock back and draft HS players straight out of HS, like MLB does. That was the case of course for some great players of an earlier generation, guys like Kobe Bryant and Moses Malone. That would dampen the charade of one-and-done, which could be mostly eliminated if the NCAA did what I recommend and required 24 hours of college credit before playing in D1. (I'm old enough to remember when UCLA had a freshman team that beat their own varsity, the defending national champions. But those games weren't on TV and the players had to be making academic progress or they wouldn't be around to be seen on TV the next year.)

So, Pulisic is the poster child for my argument. He's one of a kind. The basketball millionaires at 19 are--well not exactly a dime a dozen, given what they get when they sign contracts, but far more common than the Pulisics. It speaks to economics and to the mindset of HS athletes in the two sports we're comparing.

So, in this regard Pulisic is far more exceptional than any of the basketball players.

[Falconer]

Falconer, when you go after UK I hope you'll be fair and after Duke just as hard on the one and done deal, and after UNC as well for other reasons.

Again a totally fair point, PN. I picked Kentucky for obvious reasons, since I was talking about one-and-done and they have probably taken more advantage of that lousy possibility than any other program, though there are several others in that same boat. It's at the point, it seems to me, where Calipari can just walk into a kid's living room and the kid knows he'll be a multi-millionaire 18 months later so who cares about being a student at an actual university (which Kentucky certainly is, but you almost never hear about their faculty on TV).

IMO, UNC should get the death penalty in men's basketball. I said that recently in conversation with a couple of friends who are very close to the KU (not UK) program, one of whom knows Roy Williams very well. I think that the two top D1 sports (I need not identify them) are rife with corruption and have been since long before D1 existed. I doubt we'll ever know all the stuff that went down under Knute Rockne and others in his time, but I also doubt they were any worse than the sleazeballs who sit in some of the most highly paid coaching jobs in the nation. I see just this morning where Rick Pitino is finally on his way out at Louisville. How he survived this long there amidst scandals about prostitutes and $ and ... you fill in the blanks ... is totally beyond me. If you combine the maxim, follow the money, with Lord Acton's maxim about absolute power, you get the flagship D1 sports. Someone needs to show genuine leadership and fix that, as far as it can be fixed with fallible human beings running it.

I'm not much of a Duke fan, either, to tell the truth. I'm inclined to believe that their coach is a lot cleaner (in terms of not overlooking corruption) than some others, but he has to be one of the most foul-mouthed people in the business. His schtick is to cross himself and cuss out his players or the officials or anyone else in the vicinity, basically in a single action, which isn't the greatest way to be a role model for his players (IMO). His original mentor Bob Knight was awfully good at that, too, but Knight doesn't believe in God so his actions were simpler. For sure, however, Knight's players always went to class or they caught a lot of pine. I know literally dozens of people who taught at IU in those years, and there were NEVER rumors about academic abuse in his program. But, if I'd had a son good enough to play D1 basketball at that level, I would not have wanted him to play for Pitino, Calipari, Coach K, or Knight. Give me John Wooden instead.

[PaulNewman]

Falconer, John Wooden?  LOL.  I'll take John Wooden too.  You can bet, though, that he wouldn't be turning away the top 10 recruits in the country every year just because they were slated to be one and done. Look, I know there will be no love here for Calipari, but he done a few good things.  I think he does pretty much take care of his kids and they've done a ton of charity work raising millions and millions for good causes.

There are other kids who went straight to Europe and skipped college here, but yes, it's rare.  Still missing the point of that.

My point on D3 was this.  If a kid can seriously play at a D1 school just as good academically (or better) (or comparable or better on whatever criteria are considered most important), 9 times out of 10 the kid is going to pick the D1. 

BTW, I also recall when Alcindor was at UCLA and couldn't play "varsity" until soph year.  Same for Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Bill Russell, Elgin Baylor, Dan Issel (to sneak a UK name in there), etc, etc.  I can't disagree with you about the farcical nature of doing a semester and basically leaving, although I do think it's a little more complicated than that.  Almost all D1 bball players except for a handful are not ready to jump straight from HS to the NBA. There are more tragic stories about that than there are Kobes, and Malones and Garnetts.  And if you look at how much even the one and dones love their schools and are so loyal to them one could argue that they do in fact get something about of being on a college campus for a couple of semesters.

[Falconer]

There are other kids who went straight to Europe and skipped college here, but yes, it's rare.  Still missing the point of that.

My point on D3 was this.  If a kid can seriously play at a D1 school just as good academically (or better) (or comparable or better on whatever criteria are considered most important), 9 times out of 10 the kid is going to pick the D1. 

We entirely agree on the 9 times out of 10, and it might be even higher than that. Entirely agree.

I'll try once more to explain the point related to Pulisic, then I'll give it a rest. If you understood me and disagreed, I wouldn't restate the substance of our disagreement and try the patience of everyone else.

Let me put it this way. At one point I taught HS science in a major city, famous for basketball talent and for the universities in or near that city that boasted of high level teams. Even though it wasn't a public HS, quite a few boys dreamed about the NBA even though they really had no real chance of getting there. I don't mean that they dreamed about the NBA in the same way that I liked to pretend I was a MLB player when I was young. I also liked to pretend that I would be the conductor of a great orchestra, even though I quit piano after two years and never really learned to play any instrument well. I always knew that baseball and music weren't going to happen, and I focused on academics all along even though I lettered in two sports in HS and college (at a place now in D1, but D1 didn't exist when I entered college). Some of my students in that city had pretty good smarts, but they didn't do anything about that b/c they had illusive dreams about the NBA. Ironically, that school was just as good at soccer as at basketball, and one of the boys got an excellent scholarship to play soccer in college, whereas I don't recall anyone getting a basketball scholarship in my years there. But, he completed a real degree and has done good things with it ever since. He never had illusions about making lots of money in soccer.

IMO, the relative scarcity of Pulisics compared with basketball phenoms in America today is not simply symbolic. The Final Four apparently brings in a billion dollars--just heard that number on the news this week. A billion dollars. Even in our day that's not chump change. Even though more Americans now participate in soccer than ever before, soccer still plays fifth or sixth fiddle, way behind football, basketball, baseball, and hockey. My goodness, FBS schools can give 85 full rides and most of the kids play only a few minutes (if that) in any given game. Soccer also has 11 men on the field at one time, but a D1 school can give at most 9.9 scholarships. And as I already said, basketball has 13 full scholarships (which must not be divided among more than 13 players) for a 5-man starting team. So, it stands to reason that a kid disciplined enough to learn how to play soccer at a high level is more likely to weigh options other than D1. If he's a Pulisic or even a Grabevoy, then of course it's a lock either to go to school for free at a major D1 or get paid real money to play in Europe. We agree on that. But, I think it's easy to understand why it's vastly easier for some D3 soccer programs to hold their own with all but the elite programs in D1, than for the same thing to happen in basketball. It's apples and oranges.

I hope this is clearer, whether or not you agree with my point. If I'm still not clear enough, my bad and I'll move on.

[Falconer]

When I say that some D3 teams can hold their own against non-elite D1 teams, there is evidence for this. There must be numerous examples from around the country of preseason games where this happens, though it's probably not common during the regular season since D1 teams have only disincentives to play D3s in a real game.

The examples I know of first hand involve only Falcon teams, but that speaks only to my lack of knowledge of other D3 programs not the actual facts of the matter. PaulNewman offered Bucknell as an example of a D1 school that would draw HS players who otherwise might choose D3. Here's highlights of Messiah vs Bucknell a few years ago: https://www.hudl.com/video/2/45449/5721a40f4df6124b70cf1366 (the date is when the video was posted, not when the game was played). The eye test should tell you that Messiah teams could play successfully at some level in D1.

Messiah typically plays scrimmages vs Ivy League teams (Princeton, Columbia, Penn), local D2 teams, and sometimes even Penn State (main campus, not PSU-HBG) and usually do pretty well. Here is Messiah vs D2 Shippensburg: https://www.hudl.com/video/2/45449/5721a67d0428ae20e4858ea5. A typical result is a scoreless tie or a one-goal difference either way.

No doubt some other top D3 teams do likewise with similar results. Others can probably add pertinent examples from elsewhere. I (for one) would enjoy hearing about those. I think Lycoming has also played Bucknell--they are geographically close and perhaps not too far apart in talent, either.

[paclassic89]

The Pulisic example isn't really a great one.  He spent time from a young age in Europe training in youth academies.  He trained on Barca's if I recall correctly.  He never played high school soccer at Hershey and only spent a short amount of time in the US playing for PA classics (4 years).  He followed a very similar path to  other European wunderkinds in terms of being absorbed into an academy system at a young age.  It's not like he played club soccer/high school soccer in PA and then just decided to head over to Europe.