David Pickle's article exploring standardized regions in Division II (see "Regionalization becomes a national issue" in the June 20 issue of The NCAA News) and the focus of the Division II Chancellors and Presidents Summit on "mission creep" provide an interesting juxtaposition of seemingly unrelated but, in reality, deeply intertwined considerations.

A constant theme among panel members and responders at the summit was a concern to improve the identity/branding of NCAA Division II. Mentioned most often was the institutional benefit that can occur when campus constituents -- such as faculty, coaches and boosters -- recognize and embrace the competitive and academic excellence associated with Division II.

A second, less often-mentioned, result of improved Division II identity/branding is how student-athletes can benefit. Higher-profile identification provides the participant appropriate recognition. It provides a forum to explain the lofty aspirations of student-athletes and to share their competitive accomplishments with prospective employers throughout corporate America. These employers recognize the values of teamwork and competitiveness and how Division II student-athletes intentionally prepare to be professionals in the business and community-service worlds.

The tenets of consistency and clarity are vital to enhancing identity/branding. Fans rely on consistency so they will know how the process works and where relevant information can be found. Clarity demands that information is presented in an uncomplicated manner. The fast-food business, for example, uses this model. When one sees the familiar sign, almost any diner will know where to park or how to use the drive-in opportunity. The menu will be found in a familiar location and always will be presented in the same order and configuration. These giant corporations offer simplicity and convenience.

Now let's compare the consistency and clarity of determining Division II regional standings.

A fan follows the progress of a Division II institution and wants to know how the sports at the school are faring in their goal of reaching NCAA Division II championship play.

First, the fan must determine the region in which each of the institution's sports is assigned. The fan is chagrined to find that each sport may have a different regional configuration. How does one determine which conferences compose the regions in each sport? Unfortunately, there appears to be no consistent or logical reason to how conferences are regionally assigned. The fan is frustrated to learn that while softball and tennis have the same alignment of conferences, the regions have different names.

The fan perseveres and makes a list of each sport and its region. But where is the central location the fan now goes to find the regional standings for each sport during the regular season? Not yet ready to surrender, the fan calls a conference office, which gives direction to the NCAA Web site that will post regional standings during the last weeks of the season. But the fan is told these standings can change drastically, even during the last week of the season. Our fan surrenders!

Indeed, the effort to standardize the regional element of Division II championship competition is a key aspect of divisional identity/branding. Division II identity would benefit because:

• Media and fans could consistently identify significant competitions.

• It would be easier for Division II to identify the best teams from each region for postseason play.

The Association should create a dedicated site where all current Division II standings can be easily accessed, with conferences and independents grouped by region.

Alan Patterson, commissioner
Carolinas-Virginia Athletic Conference