Nobody disputes that the NCAA’s membership is difficult to label. And some people might argue that the new approach actually is a step back from the old I-AAA description, which was convenient shorthand for Division I programs that don’t sponsor football. The new solution (“Division I”) doesn’t really offer an effective way to set those programs apart when the need arises.

It’s also true that Division I Football Bowl Subdivision “does not come tripping off the tongue” (as some sportswriters put it). But few writers explored the corresponding question, which is whether putting an “A” or a “AA” after Division I really described anything. Many journalists were simply comfortable with the old I-A and I-AA descriptions, even if they frequently applied them incorrectly.

Ultimately, it’s odd that this particular change set off such a reaction. After all, sportswriters routinely deal with new bowl game names (the Poulan Weedeater Bowl is a distant memory even though the event lives on) and new names for athletes themselves (nobody insists on referring to Muhammad Ali as Cassius Clay because that’s his “real” name). Ironically, part of the problem in this case may have involved the stability of the original name. Divisions I-A and I-AA had been around for almost 30 years.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the new terminology, two things should be clear.

First, the authority to change the terminology belonged, appropriately, to the Association. Columnists who “informed” readers that the NCAA was behind this change were digging on the shallowest level imaginable. The revelation was akin to discovering that the Internal Revenue Service has something to do with the 1040 Form.

Second, if the members of the media didn’t like the outcome, then they would not have liked the prospective change when the issue was in limbo. Commentary at that point would have been more useful rather than after-the-fact claptrap that was intended only to reinforce NCAA stereotypes.

That sort of monitoring would require more effort from sports journalists, but it could lead to better public understanding of future issues involving intercollegiate athletics.

If the media truly wants to flex its muscle, that would be a better place to start.