DD is strongly considering a D3 based on the quality of education at any 1 of the 3 colleges on her short list. She has played travel ball at the 18G level (starting) for 3 years, been to Nationals yearly, MVP of her HS team, blah blah blah, etc. Is she good enough to go to UCLA and actually get on the field vs ride the pine? Questionable. The same could be said for Arizona, Washington, Oklahoma, etc. She is also realistic enough to know that riding the pine for 3-4 years is not a "good thing" for her. She wants to play.
The question is about D3 quality of play. Scholarships are not the question as only academic are available (if any at all). Rather, is D3 "often" equivalent to 16U or 18G or ???? I used the word "often" intentionally. There are always exceptions and Linfield or "xyz D3" school could, on any given day, beat a D1... ok, fine. Got that, understand. But, on average... typically... the norm... as usual... on the whole...how would you compare the level of play at a D3? What would be your "equivalent"?
The question is totally subjective and I understand that. What I am looking for is a feel whether playing D3 at many schools is no more than fancy intermural ball with uniforms or whether there is... again, typically... more to it. Some of you folks must have daughters that have gone to D3's as not EVERY Heybucket DD is at UCLA or Michigan or Arizona. Ok, that majority are but A COUPLE of you might not be D1 parents.
I think my DD would be a larger fish in a smaller pond at a D3, would get a great education and be on the field. However, while I know its fashionable to turn one's nose up at D3's as being something just short of chump change, I can't believe that the level of play is horrid. And, no, I don't have any nearby D3's (dammit) or even D2's so visiting is tough. And, the schools on the short list are a 3 hour plane ride away.
Lucid, rational insights appreciated, as always.