How much you only reference D1 and D3 commits and not D2? What is the constant stigma with D2?
D1 commits are not a factor in how well a team will do.
Ehh I have to say talent plays a major roll in how a team does. If you have a good number of D1 and top D3 commits on a team it means there is talent. I dont care how good coaching is if you dont have talent you dont win games. I know there have been a few teams with a tremendous amount of talent but have been unsuccessful. Thats a poor mix of selfish players, parents who dont have a clue and push an all me type of game, and a coach who cant coach.
As per the reference to D1 and D3. D1 and D3 are historically the better programs. D2 does not have many strong teams and also not a long history in the game. The upper tier D3 teams can beat many of the lower tier D1 teams and give some of the upper tier teams a battle
It's just "Per. . . ", not "As per . . . " . . . you're not citing or referencing a document, policy, or some other formal thing! smh
Grammar police. Lol.
I love these D3 Daddy's who's sons didn't a sniff from a D1 school. This guy above says: "The upper tier D3 teams can beat many of the lower tier D1 teams and give some of the upper tier teams a battle" So if we go by your statement, Syracuse that's ranked around 9 can be "kept up with" by St Lawrence, that is ranked top 5 in D3. Really? You have no idea what you're talking about, and have no idea of the level of athleticism those D1 kids have. St. Lawrence would have ZERO chance against Dartmouth, let alone Syracuse. It's ok to play D3, stop with the silly comparisons.
