I don't get the controversy? Top DIII schools (Emory, UC-Santa Cruz, for example) actually are better than some DI schools. Granted, the DI schools they're better than are completley inconsequential, and the number of those DI schools that the Top DIII schools would be better than isn't that large. But, the fact remains that there are DIII schools out there that can beat some DI schools.
How did this start? No one would propose that Top DIII schools can complete with the Top 10, 20, 30, or 40 DI schools. Did someone on TW posit that a Top DIII school could compete with or beat a merely "decent" DI school, ranked in the Top 50 or Top 100 (which would probably be false). Is that how this started?
The base proposition isn't wrong. Any given year, there is a DIII school that can beat at least one DI school.