How does talent compare at top D3 vs Bottom D1?

I saw DeSalvo pitch in an adult league two years ago. My son matched up against him. It was a 1-0 loss for my sons team, which consisted of mainly d2-d3 kids playing against a team of graybeards ( 30-40 year olds).

DeSalvo could still bring it, easily low to mid 90’s, I think he had more than a cup of coffee in the majors? I think he was with the Yankees for a season, then traded?   I think he gives some pitching lessons around the area somewhere.  I know he put on a clinic the game I saw him, there wasn’t any wasted effort on his part. I think he still owns the all time career strike out record for ncaa pitchers.

The “old guys” behind him were flashing some leather to help also.  It was a best of 5  series and the youngsters got swept.  The other two losses were to a former D-1 pitcher in his mid 30’s who threw two complete games in a four day period. He stated later in the local paper that he has all winter to rest.

One way to answer some of these questions for yourself is to see what goes on in the summer leagues.  You see a mixture of D1, D2, D3, JUCO and NAIA talent.  My experience is that kids who are fortunate enough to get the opportunity to play in the summer leagues can prove that they can play.  Many times kids who play with a chip on their shoulder can outplay someone else "deemed" to be more talented. 

Another way to look at the overlap issue:

Baseball is supposed to be a game of small differences that manifest themselves over the long haul.  In MLB, nearly every team wins between 40% and 60% of its games.

Any time a team's winning percentage rises above 65% or falls below 35%, you have a competitive mismatch.

The D3 where BOF's son plays won more than 75% of its games last year.

The bottom of D1 has a dozen teams that won less than 25% of their games.

What would you expect to happen in a series between a D3 team that is above the competitive level of its division and a D1 team that isn't close to being competitive within its division?

I'd expect the D3 team to do pretty well, but I wouldn't expect the series to tell me anything about the relative strengths of the divisions, because neither team represents the population from which it was drawn.

I like the new playoff setup. If a team wants to play for second they're taking their chances with quick elimination. 

I get it.  But wouldn't  a three game series preserve this feature, while being  a fairer "test" of which was the better more deserving wildcard team?