The D3 soccer vs D1 soccer debate

[Kuiper]

I have been wondering about a more specific variant on this question - what is the difference between a D3 and D1 Goalkeeper?  Here are some possible differences:

Height  It's certainly true on the bottom end of the height chart, since you rarely see a D1 GK listed as below 6'0" unless you are looking at the very high jersey numbers reserved for purely training players, while there are some D3s where all the GKs are sub-6'.  As we've seen in the NCAA tournament, though, there are plenty of starting goalkeepers between 6'2" and 6'5" who are playing D3 soccer.  They can't all be in D3 because they fell in love with their small liberal arts college campus and academic lifestyle or simply were overlooked by D1 coaches. It's also not true that a 6'0" GK has no chance to start in D1 and has no problem starting in D3.  There are definitely some 6'0" starting D1 GKs and, conversely, there are plenty of D3 schools that almost never start a GK there who is that small.  From what I have seen over the years, regardless of division, there are some coaches who always want their GKs really tall and others who put height a little farther down the scale of important things to look for in a goalkeeper.  Still, on average across D3, the minimum height is lower than at D1.

Athleticism  This is often cited as a key distinguishing characteristic for field players and is also probably true for goalkeepers. A D1 GK is more likely to be able to make an acrobatic save than the average D3 keeper.  Nevertheless, like height, this too may be overstated for a keeper.  Some coaches at all divisions want their keepers to be really smart, steady, great in positioning, who catch everything in their bubble, and view the top corner saves as gravy if they can get them, while others basically only recruit guys who are uber athletic even if they make lots of mistakes in positioning that require the athletic saves because they figure that they can teach them the rest (they can't) or they will pick it up with age and maturity (maybe, but only if they are willing to let them make lost of mistakes that cost them games along the way).

So, if both of these things favor one type of GK over another, but not so much that you would say that they are disqualifying, what are some non-negotiables for a D1 GK that coaches can't find as easily at D3?  I think there are two of them:

Command of the box  I think this may be one of the biggest differences and why some of the uber tall GKs in D3 are not in D1.  So many goals are scored off corners and set plays and margins are so razor thin, that this is really important in modern college GK.  It's important for both D3 and D1, but it's harder to do at D1 because the strikers/center backs are bigger, stronger, faster and the delivery on the kicks is better.  A GK not only has to either have height or athleticism to get to crosses, but they have to have some physical strength to them and the confidence and decisionmaking ability to know when to do it and the ability to do it with quickness.  You probably need to be 6'+ with a good vertical leap given that the strikers/center backs coming in for corners are 6'4", but height and insane hops won't do you much good if you don't have the proper mentality to go get the ball, the intelligence and timing to know when to go and what path to take, and the hands/focus to catch it in traffic.  It's an attack mindset.  Some D3 GKs have it, but they tend to be smaller guys who would have difficulties against the taller and more physical D1 players.  If they are really tall and also great at going after crosses, then they probably could have gone D1.

Ability to organize/start an attack  This is a bit more team-specific (since some coaches want their GKs to do more than others), but I think GKs who can really organize and distribute to the right player quickly and undress the opposition in doing so are pretty rare in D3.  A lot of D3 GKs say very little or when they do speak it's general catch-phrases or words of encouragement/criticism, rather than being helpful, specific, and timely.  Even fewer have that innate knowledge about how to start the attack and where to deliver the ball to do so.  There are some who get good at it by the end of their career, but it's so rare for a 16 year-old junior in HS (when keeper recruitment ramps up) to demonstrate that skill at that point that they get snapped up by D1s who are looking for this if they have some of the other traits necessary for a keeper.

The other wildcard in the D1/D3 question for keepers is playing time. I think there are more D1 caliber GKs who go to D3 than D1 caliber field players because it's simply so hard to find any playing time at all as a keeper at D1.  That means that I think the gap between D1 and D3 keepers (especially D1 GK backups in the lower half of D1 schools to D3 starters in the upper half of D3 schools) is smaller than it might be for field players. Lots of D3 players and their parents think that's true of field players too, but I really think it's less common there and that gap grows wider for field players over the years whereas it narrows for GKs who play at D3 versus sitting at D1.

[Kuiper]

People are always asking about D3 players who transferred to D1 and how they did, but it's usually part of other threads about something else.  So, I may have missed something like this, but I thought it would be helpful to go back and compare the performance of someone who transferred from a high academic D3 (NESCAC) to a high academic DI (Ivy).  That seems to be the most relevant comparison - high D3 soccer to low-ish D1 soccer - and the one where there's the most cross-over in the talent pool because the pool of players who could academically qualify at either is both similar and relatively small.

Jules Oberg (defender):

Williams College
2018 - 18 games played/10 games started
2019 - 17 games played/17 games started (2d team all-NESCAC; 3rd team all Region)

Yale
2021 - 16 games played/12 games started
2022 - 15 games played/15 games started (2d team All-Ivy)

It's a pretty similar story at both places and it looked like the transition was reasonably seamless.  Other than possibly helping push Williams over the top to the DIII nat'l championship this year if he had stayed (and perhaps being named a D3 All American), I doubt he had many on field regrets about moving. It certainly wasn't a decline in playing time.

I think at the time he left he suggested he had pro ambitions (his Swedish citizenship would help in Europe, although make things marginally tougher in the US, particularly in MLS with limited int'l slots).  It seems like that might not be in cards for him anymore, although someone from Williams may know better.

I'm sure many at NESCAC schools wouldn't be surprised that the level wasn't that different between them and the Ivy league schools (and I think being a defender makes the transition easier than some other positions), but it's still nice to see a real, current day, comparison.

[soccerpapa]

The D3 vs D1 divide is not as great as some would like you to believe.  D1 is the "holy grail" simply because of basketball, football and ESPN.   As previously mentioned, in the past (before MLS Next, etc) there was a greater divide - not so anymore.   Now the top 25 D3 programs could compete with a significant number of D1 programs.   

Ultimately is comes down to time commitment and the balance of sport/studies for many players when choosing between D1 and D3.  Not that they aren't "good enough" for D1.  On every recruiting visit for my son (D1) when he was asked about intended major (pre-med/dentistry) they basically told him in so many words that it wouldn't be possible.  He didn't want to sacrifice his career for 4 more years of soccer.  He is now playing D3 soccer, balancing coursework/soccer while preparing for a future career of his choosing outside of soccer (just like the other 99% of college soccer athletes). 

With that being said he plays over the Summer with many D1/D3 athletes from top programs.  anyone in the stands would be hard pressed to pick out the D3 from the D1 players...

[ECSUalum]

https://gowarriorathletics.com/news/2022/12/21/mens-soccer-former-all-america-agyemang-is-12th-pick-of-mls-draft.aspx?fbclid=IwAR1m2OW16BJu6mF-tjkwf8cFE7ykAxhenLyUrEgkGcsWlNDBxDvdffUVGLs

[BigSoccerFan]

As far as style, which D3 schools have a more possession style of soccer and how does that compare to D1.  May sound like an odd question as college at all levels is physical and sometimes more route 1.

[Kuiper]

As far as style, which D3 schools have a more possession style of soccer and how does that compare to D1.  May sound like an odd question as college at all levels is physical and sometimes more route 1.

In D3, there are definitely schools that play possession-based soccer, starting with the 2022 national champion Chicago.  Others include last year's champion Connecticut College, Hamilton, Kenyon, Messiah, and Mary Washington. Plenty of other schools play it some of the time (usually against weaker teams) even if they aren't quite at the same level as the national contenders, including schools like Pomona-Pitzer, Willamette, and Pacific Lutheran out West.

There are also D1 schools that historically play possession-based soccer, including UCLA and Akron, just to name a couple of teams.  Even so-called kick and run teams can play good possession for stretches and most players have the skill to do it really well when they want to (Syracuse this year is an example). If you're looking for a team that will move in that direction, you might check out Bucknell now that former Messiah coach Dave Brandt is running the team.

[Another Mom]

Washington and Lee also plays possession based soccer.

[Ron Boerger]

+k for everyone in this interesting thread.   

[Gregory Sager]

Washington and Lee also plays possession based soccer.

... as does North Park.

[SimpleCoach]

W&L
Messiah
Cortland
John Carroll
Ohio Northern
Mary Washington
Connecticut
Chicago
St. Olaf
Gustavus Adolphus
Luther
Redlands
Trinity (TX)
Montclair

Off the top of my head, to one degree or another, I would call these teams possession based.

SC.

[soccerpapa]

Here is the final Poll of 2022.  Some teams listed above are obviously on this list as possession based.  What would you describe others as?

Possession, kick and run, mixture, other



December 6, 2022
D3soccer.com Men's Top 25, Final

Through games of Sunday, December 4, 2022
#    School (1st Pl. Votes)    Record    Pts.    Prev.
1    Chicago (21)                   22-0-1    1000    2
2    Stevens                           17-1-5    918    4
3    Messiah                           20-0-2    848    1
4    Kenyon                           19-2-1    825    5
5    Williams                           10-2-11    813    —
6    Amherst                           14-1-6    771    3
7    Mary Washington           13-5-4    747    25
8    Johns Hopkins           15-1-8    710    13
9    Bowdoin                           13-2-5    678    8
10    Gustavus Adolphus         15-2-6    661    10
11    Washington & Lee           16-3-4    555    9
12    Oneonta State           15-3-3    450    19
13    Calvin                           17-3-2    430    6
14    North Central (Ill.)           17-1-4    426    7
15    St. Thomas (Tx.)           16-2-3    402    18
16    St. Olaf                           15-5-2    397    —
17    North Park                   15-3-3    346    15
18    Franklin & Marshall           13-2-5    298    14
19    Ohio Northern           13-4-5    272    —
20    Cortland State           13-6-3    252    —
21    Babson                           15-3-3    203    11
22    Catholic                           13-4-4    193    —
23    Chris. Newport           13-4-2    189    16
24    Montclair State           15-2-4    165    12
25    St. Lawrence                   13-2-6    149    20

[Kuiper]

Here is the final Poll of 2022.  Some teams listed above are obviously on this list as possession based.  What would you describe others as?

Possession, kick and run, mixture, other



December 6, 2022
D3soccer.com Men's Top 25, Final

Through games of Sunday, December 4, 2022
#    School (1st Pl. Votes)    Record    Pts.    Prev.
1    Chicago (21)                   22-0-1    1000    2
2    Stevens                           17-1-5    918    4
3    Messiah                           20-0-2    848    1
4    Kenyon                           19-2-1    825    5
5    Williams                           10-2-11    813    —
6    Amherst                           14-1-6    771    3
7    Mary Washington           13-5-4    747    25
8    Johns Hopkins           15-1-8    710    13
9    Bowdoin                           13-2-5    678    8
10    Gustavus Adolphus         15-2-6    661    10
11    Washington & Lee           16-3-4    555    9
12    Oneonta State           15-3-3    450    19
13    Calvin                           17-3-2    430    6
14    North Central (Ill.)           17-1-4    426    7
15    St. Thomas (Tx.)           16-2-3    402    18
16    St. Olaf                           15-5-2    397    —
17    North Park                   15-3-3    346    15
18    Franklin & Marshall           13-2-5    298    14
19    Ohio Northern           13-4-5    272    —
20    Cortland State           13-6-3    252    —
21    Babson                           15-3-3    203    11
22    Catholic                           13-4-4    193    —
23    Chris. Newport           13-4-2    189    16
24    Montclair State           15-2-4    165    12
25    St. Lawrence                   13-2-6    149    20

Some of the teams on this list (e.g., Amherst and Franklin & Marshall) have a style that isn't quite kick-and-run, but might be better described as kick-and-high press or "anti-possession."  The traditional kick and run involves having players with speed who can run past defenders, while this style involves willingly ceding possession to the opponents deep in their territory and attempting to pressure them into mistakes and chaos that lead to goals.  Doesn't mean they won't have spells of possession in the opponent's half (Amherst, in particular, is actually pretty good in possession when they choose to do that), it's just that they don't value it for possession's sake.  A team like Williams is a bit more of a traditional counter attacking team that sits deep and looks for opportunities to bomb forward.

Most other teams not already identified as pretty strongly possession-based are basically just a healthy mixture.  They will try to possess, but will kick forward if that's what the opponents give them. Their style also depends upon the quality of the pitch, the weather conditions, and the quality of the opponents.

Frankly, that's what the best possession-based soccer teams do too.  If the opponent hangs back, a possession-based team passes around the defense, with occasional passes to a midfielder who runs back toward the defender, all in an attempt to draw the opponent out of its shell or unbalance them and open up space close to goal where they can put the ball through or over the top to a player running into the space left open (often in front of the opponent's defenders or to the side behind the opponent's midfielder who is pressing the ball).  The rigidly possession-based team continues to keep the ball on the ground even after they have drawn the team out, trying for 1-2 one-touch combinations that get by the opponent or constantly re-setting with lateral or back balls because the players have been trained to avoid risking losing possession.  Chicago was more of the flexible possession-based team this year, having players up top who could play a hold-up target role or have the speed to outrun some defenders, whereas Conn College seemed a bit more rigid without the options up top to do much more than keep the ball on the ground.

[Saint of Old]

Here is the final Poll of 2022.  Some teams listed above are obviously on this list as possession based.  What would you describe others as?

Possession, kick and run, mixture, other



December 6, 2022
D3soccer.com Men's Top 25, Final

Through games of Sunday, December 4, 2022
#    School (1st Pl. Votes)    Record    Pts.    Prev.
1    Chicago (21)                   22-0-1    1000    2
2    Stevens                           17-1-5    918    4
3    Messiah                           20-0-2    848    1
4    Kenyon                           19-2-1    825    5
5    Williams                           10-2-11    813    —
6    Amherst                           14-1-6    771    3
7    Mary Washington           13-5-4    747    25
8    Johns Hopkins           15-1-8    710    13
9    Bowdoin                           13-2-5    678    8
10    Gustavus Adolphus         15-2-6    661    10
11    Washington & Lee           16-3-4    555    9
12    Oneonta State           15-3-3    450    19
13    Calvin                           17-3-2    430    6
14    North Central (Ill.)           17-1-4    426    7
15    St. Thomas (Tx.)           16-2-3    402    18
16    St. Olaf                           15-5-2    397    —
17    North Park                   15-3-3    346    15
18    Franklin & Marshall           13-2-5    298    14
19    Ohio Northern           13-4-5    272    —
20    Cortland State           13-6-3    252    —
21    Babson                           15-3-3    203    11
22    Catholic                           13-4-4    193    —
23    Chris. Newport           13-4-2    189    16
24    Montclair State           15-2-4    165    12
25    St. Lawrence                   13-2-6    149    20

Some of the teams on this list (e.g., Amherst and Franklin & Marshall) have a style that isn't quite kick-and-run, but might be better described as kick-and-high press or "anti-possession."  The traditional kick and run involves having players with speed who can run past defenders, while this style involves willingly ceding possession to the opponents deep in their territory and attempting to pressure them into mistakes and chaos that lead to goals.  Doesn't mean they won't have spells of possession in the opponent's half (Amherst, in particular, is actually pretty good in possession when they choose to do that), it's just that they don't value it for possession's sake.  A team like Williams is a bit more of a traditional counter attacking team that sits deep and looks for opportunities to bomb forward.

Most other teams not already identified as pretty strongly possession-based are basically just a healthy mixture.  They will try to possess, but will kick forward if that's what the opponents give them. Their style also depends upon the quality of the pitch, the weather conditions, and the quality of the opponents.

Frankly, that's what the best possession-based soccer teams do too.  If the opponent hangs back, a possession-based team passes around the defense, with occasional passes to a midfielder who runs back toward the defender, all in an attempt to draw the opponent out of its shell or unbalance them and open up space close to goal where they can put the ball through or over the top to a player running into the space left open (often in front of the opponent's defenders or to the side behind the opponent's midfielder who is pressing the ball).  The rigidly possession-based team continues to keep the ball on the ground even after they have drawn the team out, trying for 1-2 one-touch combinations that get by the opponent or constantly re-setting with lateral or back balls because the players have been trained to avoid risking losing possession.  Chicago was more of the flexible possession-based team this year, having players up top who could play a hold-up target role or have the speed to outrun some defenders, whereas Conn College seemed a bit more rigid without the options up top to do much more than keep the ball on the ground.

Great analysis.
I played at a time, (back when we played while the Dinasaur's slept) when Williams was a seriously good attacking team that was very possession based. Same thing for Messiah and most of the quality teams around.
I have heard before that possession is 9/10th of the law. It could also be 9/10 of soccer, but that 1/10 the most important is putting the ball in the net. "Possess and penetrate" used to be the mantra of a team I knew. nothing worse than knocking it around the back line waiting to be picked off by teams who are continually getting better at pressing. The old tune "Dont Mean a Thing if It Aint Got that Swing" applies here. Ball has to be swung from side to side and then walah back to the middle for an opportunity. It is obviously wayyyyy easier said than done, way more. but that is what it takes. On a personal note, I really loved watching Mary Washington team this year, they moved it really well.  That team is going to be good for some time to come.

[EnmoreCat]

That 1/10th is definitely important!  Possession is important, but it's also about effective possession, there are enough professional teams that know how to win with much less than 50pct.  When they get the ball, they use it.  I watched Chelsea's game against Bournemouth and they kept the ball, but also moved it amazingly quickly, but with a forward emphasis and they back themselves to win it back.  It does require an athletic player, I reckon you might be able to carry one maybe, but they need to be doing something pretty special to not derail the team, whether it's passing, scoring or winning the ball.

I would say that Amherst can pass and do like to get behind defences, but will try and get the ball in the box quickly, which does make sense if you want to try and avoid having to contend with too many defenders in the box.  It can also give teams a chance to break, which means working hard to win the ball back.

[Saint of Old]

That 1/10th is definitely important!  Possession is important, but it's also about effective possession, there are enough professional teams that know how to win with much less than 50pct.  When they get the ball, they use it.  I watched Chelsea's game against Bournemouth and they kept the ball, but also moved it amazingly quickly, but with a forward emphasis and they back themselves to win it back.  It does require an athletic player, I reckon you might be able to carry one maybe, but they need to be doing something pretty special to not derail the team, whether it's passing, scoring or winning the ball.

I would say that Amherst can pass and do like to get behind defences, but will try and get the ball in the box quickly, which does make sense if you want to try and avoid having to contend with too many defenders in the box.  It can also give teams a chance to break, which means working hard to win the ball back.

Unfortunatey for Amherst, more people have heard about their style of play than have watched them play. Amherst actually passes the ball quickly and dangerously through the channels and cause a goal threat.
They have quality players who understand that longball does not mean "I kick and you run" it means "You run and I kick".