How does the level of play compare between the top 16 NCAA programs and the lowest professional level (what used to be called D3)? Is one better than the other? What makes it better?
Is different better? The two are definitely different. The biggest difference I see is that D3 puts the ball on the ground and passes more. You see better defenders in that they usually can play with the ball at their feet, and they rely a bit more on skill in defending than just physical presence. The similarity both leagues have is the truly gifted attacking midfielder and striker is missing. The D3 games are much less physical, a point I attribute to the limited substitution rules, and usually when you get two top teams you get a pretty entertaining game. My biggest frustration is that in my mind, the D1 teams would be far superior if the ncaa let them have any type of reasonable season and eliminated the college sub rule. Look at the resources and the coaching available at the top D1 programs. Look at the quality of athlete these programs bring in year after year. But your question concerns what is, not what could be. My guess is the top NCAA teams and the top D3 teams are pretty similar in talent and level of play. Maybe even D3 might gain an edge as the contraction of MLS and A league has sent some pretty good players into the D3 league. And another edge if they played limited subs (this is if they walked out on the field now with the NCAA having no time to adjust). Looking back on your questions, my answer is the level of play is better in D3, not because of talent, but the limited sub rule. Oh yea, my point of view. We have a D3 team in our town and we are in the heart of ACC country so I get to see a lot of both play.
That D3 team in your town got beaten twice by the CASL PDL team this summer, once in the Open Cup...the CASL team was made up of Kneipper, Pause, Stokes, Craword, Perea, McIntosh, some Greensboro college kids, State players, other players. You could say that the CASL team was an all-star type team, but they showed that they could beat the D3 greensboro dynamo. I'd say that the two are pretty close, but the college kids can definitely hold their own if not top their (usually) older counterparts.
dynamo v. Raleigh I thought about those games a lot when I was making my assesment. The Open game was straight up Dynamos best aginst Raleighs best. I didn't see the game, but was told by players from both sides that Raleigh just kicked ass. The Dynamo were simply quilty of not taking the college kids seriously. That is no excuse, being prepared to play is a part of the quality of the team. The second game I know the Dynamo coach played a lot of subs and even practice players as he was looking to send a message to a few starters and take a look at some guys that hadn't gotten playing time. A point you may have missed as I certainly wasn't clear in that I don't think the Dynamo are one of the best D3. They are a good D3 team, but their record doesn't prove them to be the best. I believe in concluding my statement I compared top D3 to top NCAA. Another point, I believe I did say given a longer season and playing under limited sub rules I felt the NCAA would be superior.
r2s, I agree with your first post. I find that the D3 teams are pretty strong even though they consist of a lot of "minor" college players and part time players. I've also seen a very good PDL team out of Richmond so I don't think the difference is the players. I like the idea of defenders with the ball at their feet. That is exactly what I have seen. More balls on the ground. I wonder if it is the coaching. D3 teams can go through coaches pretty quick. They also don't have to live through a year or more with their lesser players. The 11th player is probably about as good as the 14th. I wonder if the higher level of talent of the 11th player makes for a better D3 game.
I have seen many PDL teams and saw a lot of top college teams this fall (including national champion UCLA). The top PDL teams (Division 4) are better than the top NCAA teams. Why? The PDL teams can assemble the best players from all the colleges, former pros and college stars. Rosters of PDL teams Des Moines Menance, Mid-Michigan Bucks, Chicago Fire Reserves, Sioux Falls Spitfire, Boulder Rapids Reserves, and Memphis Express, are loaded with former college all-stars, or current college standouts. Most of the players selected to the MLS combine played PDL this summer, and most of those college players blended in the league more than they stood out. Some players like NCAA Champion UCLA players Ryan Futagati (0 goals and 0 assists in 5 games) and Tim Pierce, hardly dominated PDL play for Orange County Bluestars. The top NCAA players and teams are very good, but when the top 16 PDL teams are able to assemble the best players from all the teams, and throw in other elite players, the quality in PDL (division 4) is clearly better. Hatch
If anything, the data points in the opposite direction. Tim Pierce scored 6 goals in 9 games for Orange County. For UCLA, he scored 12 goals in 23 games. He scored more easily in the PDL. Chadd Davis scored 6 goals in 13 games for Orange County. He played 19 games for UCLA and didn't score once. Futagaki didn't score in a brief spell of PDL play, but he only managed 3 goals in 23 games for UCLA. Combined, they scored 12 goals in 27 PDL games (0.44 gpg) and 15 goals in 65 UCLA games (0.23 gpg). Perhaps in other regions, the PDL is stronger than college soccer. The west coast may be an exception.
I'll have to speculate because I didn't see them play ... my objection was to your suggestion that Pearce and Futagaki were particularly impressive against NCAA competition. UCLA's real strength this season was their defense. Comparing the two teams on paper, I don't think it's a home run either way. Orange County looks like a UCLA-based team without Gregorio, Lawson, Lopez, and others. They had good additions sometimes (Tsakiris half the time, Yi for two games); other times, they used guys I've never heard of. All in all, I like UCLA's talent better, but Orange County may have had more age and maturity.