With the hope of detaching you from your disturbing communication with Kingman let me say this -
Your response has the virtue of many a concession speech ... at least I appreciate the more conciliatory tone you've struck, but I'm less satisfied with your intent of diluting the discussion with weak or non-responsive correlations and self-celebratory distractors.
I really not into the boasting and bragging thing, and while I see you have included some very good tidbits here, I stand by my original statements, the gist of which is that across the board D-II is less competitive than D-I.
... I'm able to gauge what recruitment strategies are taking shape often before they play out years later when players finally matriculate into college.
What exactly is 'less competitive'? How is that to be gauged? Within the division? Within or across various D-II conferences? By head to head competition between D-I and D-II teams?
How on earth do recruitment strategies affect my "on any given Sunday" assertion?
For the convenience of all let me restate the Wikipedia assertion:
"Matches between the three divisions in non-revenue sports are often quite competitive; the difference in the level of competition between the two divisions is often considerably less in these sports than it is in football and men's or women's basketball
Fairly there is only one reasonable interpretation of this contention and it has nothing to do with whether D-II is less competitive per se than D-I, but all to do with the perception
of the distinction among the divisions and the reality
of the distinction among the divisions.
Once again, my original assertion sought to address this and this only ... similarly so the KC article. Anyone close to the game understands the administrative/organizational distinctions among the divisions, but do you understand the philosophical differences as to why/how the NCAA constructed the divisions into (as you grant) not arbitrary categories? And that outcomes can be varied?
Are you willing to acknowledge how these philosophical differences affect budgetary considerations, but not necessarily the calibre of player at a D-II school
I have long recognized the advantages associated with D-I institutions, and my assertion bears these factors in mind. Yet still I see things the way I do ...
It's somewhat of an uninformed view or disingenuous oversight to sweep in one direction with blanket statements, but then ask us to ignore the dust you've left on the floor.
The discussion was never about whether, as you put it, there was "any competitive variance". All of us on the side of reason would be senselessly resistant to this idea were we to fight that fight. That's not, nor ever has been, our contention. We understand (and mentioned) the factors that promote the persistently different environments across the divisions (read Rocoply again please).
We recognize the reality, but we still maintain that D-II schools should not be dealt with as dismissively as you dealt with them (let me remind you of your choice words ... "but that's a facking D-II school"). The pity here is (in spite of your interactions with the coaching fraternity) you remain unable to discern the difference between the general context and the actuality. You profess to understand where D-II players come from but you actually don't.
I have no doubt that members of the coaching fraternity would agree with me.
That said, I recognize that all of them understand how the stars should
be aligned. D-I should beat D-II. However, convention isn't what gets the job done.
We also have to account for bias ... unless you've spoken to D-I coaches who have laboured in D-II environments we have a further issue. Then there's also bias because no coach would concede that his team would lose to the opposition. In any event, I'm not gullible enough to believe that you possessed the insight to ask coaches whether D-II could beat D-I. Further, if you did this would have been glaring in your presentation.
What you're doing is extrapolating your understanding of D-I's operating environment and projecting your bias. But, I suppose some selective extrapolation is permissible under your formula. (see below)
And, out of convenience you seem uninclined to address the ascendancy of D-II players into the pro ranks. Heck, I know D-III players who have received attention at professional tryouts. I know army players that have done the same. Same tryouts at teams where some internationals from our region compete for roster spots. And, I know some army players who may soon be featuring in one or other of these divisions.
You dismiss Jahyouth's experiences playing in WV, but demonstrate your ignorance (or wilful blindness) that WV is now one of the top D-I teams in the country with a coach honoured with national accolades. Again, curious thing that ... team fortunes are not static - just like the game and results they are dynamic - and it is expressly upon this reality upon which I premised my assertion. In a dynamic game of soccer many a D-II team could compete with teams not considered to be mediocre D-I squads.
(Incidentally, how do you account for some big budget D-I teams, with allegedly superior players, having inferior mediocre squads? Do you lay that at the feet of your friends in the coaching fraternity?)
There are some players who have been invited to our very own national camps who ply their trades at D-II institutions - not at all a unique circumstance. Kevin Crooks comes to mind immediately (Clayton State). This year they signed a former US-Under 18 player. Get real! This guy could find no D-I team willing to take him?
Then there's the question of this doozy:
the great thing about this website is that everybody's an authority...at least in their own minds. As I said earlier...this isn't a debate I care that much about to get into no back and forth...often time I'll take up de ole talk to pass time at work or whatever, but now isn't one of those times. I respect everyones experiences...so if a man like Jahyouth come say that Wheeling Jesuit routinely kick West Virginia's ass (WVU being a nobody when it comes to soccer, but that's for another day) I won't...can't dispute that. The danger lies in taking our individual experiences and extrapolating it as fact across the board. The broader the experience the more accurate the gauge...and while I won't make any claims relative to my own experience, I'm pretty comfortable that the objective measures I've used in makng my conclusion would stand up to challenge.
You seem fairly comfortable denigrating or minimizing the experience of others while promoting yours - even though, by your own contention, you allegedly respect our collective experiences.
That's one issue. Even if we assume your comment to be true you're equally as guilty of the accusation you make of others and perhaps moreso because your contentions are reputedly based on the cumulative experience of others rather than your personal first-hand observations.
Believe me when I say that you possess no particular monopoly on access to the NSCAA. Curious thing that, I too "have numerous interactions with NSCAA coaches in the US" and I have concluded otherwise.