D-III identity: How are we different?

The more I become tuned to the D-III identity issue, the more I see things that jump out at me.

This comes from a recent Q&A with a university president, in the NCAA’s Champion magazine:

What attracted you to Division II?
O’Brien:
The critical issue is balance. When I was an undergrad at Auburn, there was less commercialization in athletics. I was in classes with the athletes and in a fraternity with them; I think that’s what Division II is all about now. Student-athletes first and foremost are students, as they were in the 1960s. So even though I was in Division I as a student and as an administrator for many years, I’ve always identified with that aspect of intercollegiate athletics in a higher education institution. It wasn’t a foreign concept to me.

What’s so special about Division II?
O’Brien:
The student-athletes themselves. Interacting with them, you know they are here primarily for an education, but they also are following their passion. They get to compete in intercollegiate volleyball and soccer and basketball and golf, but they also are getting their education.

Pat O’Brien (no, not that one) is the president of West Texas A&M. What he described about Division II may well be special, but it’s hardly unique. This is what Division III is all about. Division II student-athletes are certainly there to get their education, but they’re being compensated for playing sports. They may be following their passion, but with many of them on scholarship, it’s not the same.

This is why it’s hard to define Division III’s identity without referencing other divisions. Here’s at least one of them, a member of Division II’s Presidents Council if I interpret the article’s vague reference correctly, defining Division II the same way we would define Division III.

Division III needs to stand up for its own identity and not let Division II co-opt it.