I promised a response to this a couple of days ago, and I wanted to really reflect on a response before I began. So, here's a rare thread from me: 1/15 https://twitter.com/DrKHettinga/status/1296152260649484288

The term "student-athlete" has been fraught with problems for decades, and is frequently challenged. However, the term typically is only controversial at the D-1 level, and then really only with "revenue" sports. 2/15

And that's fraught with other issues. While students from any sport can go "pro," we typically only hear about them going pro in football -- to the NFL -- or basketball -- to the NBA. Those, plus hockey, are the only sports where they can become "rich" overnight. 3/15

However, hockey, like baseball, let kids go pro right out of high school, so fewer college players head to the pros out of those sports, so the "student-athlete" verbiage gets less attention with those sports. 4/15

The present trend toward compensating athletes in college for their likeness, for example, focuses almost exclusively on football and basketball players at top programs. Few other athletes have any chance of ever reaping much, if any, profit from their likenesses. 5/15

While athletes at D-II programs can receive full scholarships, most receive only partial scholarships. Few D-II athletes ever play at the professional level. D-II programs never pay for themselves (neither do D-I programs, but that's another issue caused by greed). 6/15

But, to the original question of D-III athletes, they receive no scholarships. I have taught at D-III institutions, and fellow colleagues at said institutions, like @BrianSteffen, will attest that it's not pay for play, pay to play, at those schools. 7/15

What I mean by that is that most D-III athletes are playing at that school because they want to keep playing their sport, but weren't recruited for scholarships, so they pay an outrageous private school tuition for the privilege of continuing to play a sport they love. 8/15

COVID has become a death-knell of sorts for college sports, but especially D-III. If there aren't going to be college sports this year, why would you pay $30,000+ in tuition for a private school, when the original impetus for doing so was to play a sport? 9/15

As such, I'm hearing reports from private schools at which friends work that students are transferring out in droves (some small private college student bodies are 50% or more "student-athletes" who chose the school to continue their sport). 10/15

Those students are headed to more affordable state schools, where the tuition is a fraction of what they paid before. It is unlikely they will return to the private school if and when COVID ends and athletics resume normal operations. 11/15

So, back to the original premise proposed by @DrKHettinga: does "student-athlete" apply at D-III. I'd say know, because these students are still major sources of revenue for the school, just not in the same way we think of D-I athletes. 12/15

You might make the argument for the term at D-II schools, but the athletes still serve more as employees than as students. You can find examples everywhere of how colleges fight for whether students are employees or athletes based on which classification is convenient. 13/15

To that end, listen to the newly launched podcast "Why Don't We Know," particularly the first two episodes ( https://whydontweknow.com/ ). It's very revealing about how colleges treat athletes based on how it benefits the school, rather than the athlete. 14/15

So, I said all of that to say this: I think you should just call them athletes, because any modifier to the term is generally created for the college's financial benefit, and not as an accurate descriptor of that the students do for the school. --30--