Going to School Makes You a STUDENT! Duh!

student (noun): a person who attends a school, college or university

That's how the word "student" is defined by Merriam-Webster.  That definition should be obvious.  Yet somehow it isn't.  Because there are still some college athletes who insist they aren't "students."  They're "employees."  Even though, by the sheer fact that they attend a school, college or university, they are, by definition, "students."

I bring this up because of the ridiculous article I saw in the US edition of the British newspaper The Guardian last week.  A group of BCS football players (who were apparently the only people they talked to for this article) take exception with the NCAA's use of the term "student-athlete."  Because evidently they don't consider themselves "students" even though they go to school and, presumably, attend classes (which, again, is literally the definition of the word!).

Really, the article is so absurd that it made me angry!  I won't say that it didn't make some valid points about the time commitment Division I athletics involves.  But that, frankly, is what makes what college athletes do so impressive.  They do all this while also doing everything required to be successful in the classroom.  That's why they're called student-athletes.  Because they do both.  It should be a source of pride!

Not only does this article fail to acknowledge that, it completely ignores the "student" part of the term.  The Guardian's entire argument is based on the comments of the few athletes they talked to who fit the narrative they were going for.  Never mind the fact that these "employees" are compensated with scholarships or that a vast majority of college athletes, as the NCAA constantly points out in its PSA's, won't become professional athletes.  They're using that scholarship (if they're lucky enough to be on one) to get an education that will prepare them for their chosen career.  So they take the "student" part of "student-athlete" very seriously.

All this article proves is that the players they interviewed couldn't care less about the free (or reduced-rate) education that they're receiving.  They likely view class as nothing more than a daily obligation and only go because they "have to" in order to remain eligible.  They're too selfish to even realize the incredible opportunity that they're given.  All they care about is the fact that they "work" for the school and don't receive any compensation (other than, you know, going to school for free while other non-athlete students will spend years paying off the debt they accrue to attend the same college).

It's important to note here that it's no longer true that student-athletes don't receive any compensation.  Now that the Name & Image Likeness laws have been passed, athletes are free to promote themselves and have individual sponsors.  The only restrictions are that they can't use their institution's name or logo in any of their personal endorsements (which is done, in part, to protect exclusivity).  Otherwise, they can pretty much do whatever they want.  (The NCAA, in fact, has asked Congress to create federal legislation on the topic since all the state laws are different.)

There definitely needs to be some sort of federal regulation regarding NIL deals.  Because they're gonna get out of control!  They've already started to!  We've got high school athletes signing six-figure deals!  And the NIL's further illustrate a point that the Guardian article conveniently ignores.  Similar to the way scholarships are so heavily skewed towards football and basketball players, NIL deals will be, too.  So, again, the people who are complaining the loudest are actually the ones who stand to benefit the most.

The whole crux of their argument seems to be based, not surprisingly, on a lawsuit.  In a nine-page memo written by Jennifer Abruzzo of the National Labor Relations Board in September, she tries to argue that the term "student-athlete" is somehow derogatory and that they should instead be considered college employees. 

As someone who has been employed by a college for the better part of the last 15-plus years, I can tell you that student-athletes are most definitely NOT college employees!  This has been argued time and again, and there's always going to be people who come down on both sides of the issue.  But all the athletes who want to be considered "employees" and not "students" are proving is that they simply don't get it.  They don't understand what it actually means to be an employee.  They just know they don't want to be students.

Again, I'm not trying to minimize what goes into being a student-athlete.  It is incredibly difficult to balance the two.  And, yes, it does sometimes feel like there aren't enough hours in a day between all of the sport commitments and all of the academic commitments.  Which is why the term student-athlete shouldn't be seen as some sort of dig.  It should be seen as a badge of honor!

My point about the 95 percent of college athletes who don't play Division I football or basketball needs to be reiterated again, too.  Many of them are paying for that education while also taking on everything required to play their sport.  And, even with NIL's, some of those student-athletes also have a part-time job so that they can earn some extra money.  So that's another thing on top of their sport and classes.  Something that football and basketball players who are only worried about the draft don't even have to think about.

When people criticize the IOC about decisions they make, it's usually because they're only viewing it from their own perspective while failing to acknowledge the IOC needs to make the decision that's best for 205 different countries.  It's the same thing with the NCAA.  A vast majority of NCAA student-athletes aren't Division I football and basketball players.  And the organization needs to act in the best interest of everybody!

They actually found a way to criticize that, too, in the article.  The new NCAA constitution uses the term "student-athlete" 44 times.  The committee that drafted that constitution included 23 student-athletes from all three divisions, none of whom seemed to have a problem with the term.  If they had an issue with it or thought there was something better, don't you think they would've changed it?  

Instead, the committee concluded that "there was a wide consensus among the thousands of current and former college athletes consulted that the term did more good than harm."  But that explanation, of course, wasn't enough for the group that The Guardian interviewed.  And why would it?  It didn't fit their narrative!

Everyone knows the NCAA isn't perfect.  Far from it.  Everyone knows major changes are coming to college athletics, too.  That was the whole point of drafting a new NCAA Constitution!  We'll likely see Power 5 schools be given a certain degree of autonomy, and student-athletes almost certainly will be given a greater voice.  How that'll look is anybody's guess, but I'm sure there'll be something.

And, frankly, this drummed-up non-controversy over the term "student-athlete" is just stupid!  Because that's exactly what you are if you play a sport in college.  You're an athlete.  No one's denying that.  But you also attend a school, which makes you a student.  Thus, you're a "student-athlete!"  Be proud of that fact!