Those rankings probably explain what I was seeing. The D1 game was between 2 teams ranked in the high 200's. The D3 game was top 5. So, RJM, I have little doubt that in some cases D3 teams most certainly are better than some D1 teams.
2019Dad posted:Goosegg posted:"but he really wants to play too. Do you think a JC with a great opportunity for playing time is a better choice than D1/D3 where it is questionable?"
Lots of stuff to unpack here. First, ignore whatever a JUCO or D3 coach tells you about playing time. Instead, use your eyes; how many showed up to tryout? How many of those were recruited? How did the coach distribute playing time? Did the coach have access in sending kids to summer leagues?
Second, as you noticed, there is a huge difference in the qualities of teams within divisions. I bet some power JUCOS could beat teams from the Ivy or Patriot league on a regular basis (some power D1 programs "park" players at the local JUCOS for a year or two to get them playing time and experience - those kids are really good). On the other hand, so,e JUCOS don't have enough decent players - so it's a case by case basis.
Third, at whatever school he attends, the coach will play the best combination of kids to give his team a winning chance. Go to some games at the schools under consideration; HONESTLY calculate where your kid fits into the talent on the field. (If you're not honest, your kid will be in for a crappy surprise.)
Fourth, does he have legit pro aspirations? While you may not see the difference in D3 v D1, pro ball does; for hitters, it's usually seen as D1 offers more consistent higher velo pitchers for batters to see. So, a D3 hitter with pro aspirations needs to go to a program which will place him in the top summer (Northwoods, Cape) leagues.
Fifth, where (if at all) do finances enter the picture. D3s are all over the map in costs (from free at MMA and Coast Guard to 65k at Amherst).
Sixth, if you were to map out a 40 year strategy and career path for your son, which choice moves him appreciably closer to the goal (recognizing that you're probably going to be wrong, but it's the best you can do at this point)?
Seventh, where is the family on which college absent baseball - e.g., geography, size, course offerings, etc?
The bolded statement may well be true -- there are some talent-laden JUCOs -- but I don't know why the Ivy league gets put up as an example of the dregs of D1. Here are the NCAA's current RPI rankings for the 299 schools in D1 -- no Ivy team is in the bottom 65 teams, and 3 are in the top 106: www.ncaa.com/rankings/baseball/d1/rpi
Put another way, the entire league is between the ~25th and ~75th percentiles in terms of D1 baseball. The Ivy League is on balance a collection of average D1 programs -- in fact, the Ivy conference RPI is currently 16th out of 31 D1 conferences (can't get more average than that): http://warrennolan.com/baseball/2017/conferencerpi
The JUCO beating D1 example would certainly apply to the Southwestern League: 8 of the 10 teams are currently ranked between 273 and 295.
I compared an ACC bottom feeder to an Ivy League team because they typically play each other twice a season. Is there any argument the ACC is a far superior league to the Ivy League? While watching you can see the talent and depth of talent difference. I even remember a Harvard dad comment unless their pitcher is having a stud day they don't have the depth of talent to compete with BC.
Another conversation had at a BC - Harvard game was about a particular BC pitcher. In ACC games he picks at the corners of the strike zone and walks a lot of hitters. When he pitches against Harvard he attacks the strike zone and looks like the stud he was expected to be. Why do you think that is?
Hmm . . . well, I quite clearly wasn't responding to your post, RJM. The ACC is a Power 5 conference. My point was that the Ivy League nowadays is a middle-of-the-pack D1 conference -- and I think its 16th rank in conference RPI (out of 31 D1 conferences) proves that point.
And FWIW Dartmouth handled BC fairly easily last week, winning 8-3.
A coaching acquaintance of mine pitched in D1 and then finished up pitching in D3 after having Tommy John and transferring. He is a pretty good hitter and I asked him if he thought he could have hit D1 and/or D3 pitching. He said there was no way he could have hit D1. D3 he actually got 3 pinch hit at bats and went 1 for 3, and he felt confident he could have hit .250 or so vs D3 if given the opportunity. He said the big difference was that in D3 you would occasionally face a great D1 type pitcher but in general the D3 pitchers were hittable but that in D1 they were all beasts. Just one perspective but he is only 26 years old so a fairly recent perspective
2019Dad posted:Hmm . . . well, I quite clearly wasn't responding to your post, RJM. The ACC is a Power 5 conference. My point was that the Ivy League nowadays is a middle-of-the-pack D1 conference -- and I think its 16th rank in conference RPI (out of 31 D1 conferences) proves that point.
And FWIW Dartmouth handled BC fairly easily last week, winning 8-3.
There you go. That one game proves the Ivy is on a competitive level with the ACC.
RJM posted:2019Dad posted:Hmm . . . well, I quite clearly wasn't responding to your post, RJM. The ACC is a Power 5 conference. My point was that the Ivy League nowadays is a middle-of-the-pack D1 conference -- and I think its 16th rank in conference RPI (out of 31 D1 conferences) proves that point.
And FWIW Dartmouth handled BC fairly easily last week, winning 8-3.
There you go. That one game proves the Ivy is on a competitive level with the ACC.
What are you talking about? I put a link to the Conference RPI standings. The ACC is 4th out of 31 conferences. The Ivy League is 16th out of 31 conferences.
Again, the point of my original post in this thread was that the Ivy League nowadays is a middle-of-the-pack D1 conference. I then reiterated it in the post that you just quoted. Now I'm reiterating it again. Do you disagree with that? Does it bother you in some way?
The relevance of Dartmouth beating BC is the same as BC beating Harvard -- close to zero.