Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 35 of 35
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Washington
    Quote Originally Posted by 4decadedukie View Post
    prfduke: I truly respect your position on this, and many other, matters. However, I want to be unambiguously clear. I, too, believe "the NCAA rule book is not a proxy for a code of ethics." But that misses my/the essential point. When an individual voluntarily affiliates himself with an organization -- thereby enjoying the benefits of that association -- he is morally bound to adhere to their policies and regulations. If he finds those rules to be unacceptably onerous or unscrupulous, he should not join (or he should immediately resign). To accept the advantages of organizational affiliation, without complying with the responsibilities, is simply disingenuous and unethical (in my opinion). In sum, I am not defending the "NCAA rulebook;" rather, I strongly support the concepts of personal accountability and of one performing his duties if he accepts the benefits.
    Your thesis either proves to much or doesn't cover this situation. Moses hadn't accepted the advantages of organizational affiliation in the NCAA when he agreed to be flown over to the states to play HS basketball. What am I missing? And even if he had, so what? The NCAA operates a monopoly over amateur athletic labor in the U.S. that is itself in many ways unethical. In a situation like this, I think its necessary to evaluate the NCAA's legitimate interest in protecting amateurism against the threat or injury to amateurism posed by the benefits received. It's a strange, strange, morality or ethics indeed that would prevent or hinder foreign youths from participating in U.S. amateur athletics because it is a financial hardship for a youth to make his way to this country.

    In any event, your original post and title seem to me informed by the recent Tyler Adams recruitment. Maybe that's wrong. If not, however, I think its unfair in itself and also unfair because GU hasn't been linked to the provision of benefits in this case.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by 4decadedukie View Post
    When an individual voluntarily affiliates himself with an organization -- thereby enjoying the benefits of that association -- he is morally bound to adhere to their policies and regulations. If he finds those rules to be unacceptably onerous or unscrupulous, he should not join (or he should immediately resign). To accept the advantages of organizational affiliation, without complying with the responsibilities, is simply disingenuous and unethical (in my opinion). In sum, I am not defending the "NCAA rulebook;" rather, I strongly support the concepts of personal accountability and of one performing his duties if he accepts the benefits.
    To chime in with may 2 cents; what about an individual takes an action that is against an entity's rules, but is willing to admit to, and accept of the costs of, that violation? Consider, for example, civil rights leaders who voluntarily broke state laws. They were affiliating themselves with an organization (the state) voluntarily (because they could have left, or not come in the first place) and refusing to comply with that entity's rules and policies. Was that an unethical action?

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO

    Unhappy Looking at College Sports from the Bottom Up

    Am I the only one confused by the tone of this discussion? 4DD believes sincerely in personal responsibility and ethical behavior, and he is a wonderful contributor to this Board. But it is his personal burden to be a fan in the college athletics world, generally outside of Duke, where behavior falls into five categories:

    1. Acceptable
    2. Acceptable in normal business, except for a few messy details about written rules in college sports (i.e., laws of supply and demand don't apply). This, I believe, is the case at hand
    3. Low-rent, in treating oneself and others badly
    4. Low-life, in being low-rent but also breaking the law
    5. Either 3 or 4 combined with misogyny

    Others on the Board are less troubled by #2 in the face of so much # 3, 4, and 5.

    sagegrouse

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by Dukeface88 View Post
    To chime in with may 2 cents; what about an individual takes an action that is against an entity's rules, but is willing to admit to, and accept of the costs of, that violation? Consider, for example, civil rights leaders who voluntarily broke state laws. They were affiliating themselves with an organization (the state) voluntarily (because they could have left, or not come in the first place) and refusing to comply with that entity's rules and policies. Was that an unethical action?

    IMHO, this post merits both a response and a heartfelt "well done." Your point re "civil rights leaders" obviously is entirely correct (although I suspect you are stretching the scenario quite a bit to create a "state affiliation”). With that said, this thread’s situation does not concern civil disobedience, but rather acceptance of a significant monetary benefit (intercontinental air transportation) in contravention of well-understood and documented NCAA policies.

    My point remains that if/when an individual receives the benefits of organizational affiliation (for example, a student-athlete’s scholarship, etc.), he is morally bound also to assume the duties of that “membership” (including compliance with organizational governance and rules). Further, if the responsibilities, the policies, the regulations and so forth of the organization are repugnant, or overly onerous, or unscrupulous, or illicit, or simply unacceptable the individual should not join in the first place or he should immediately resign.

    This really is nothing more than common sense: join a club, pay the dues; affiliate with a team, abide by their rules; attend a university, comply with their policies; become an employee with its attendant benefits, respect the employer’s legitimate requirements; receive an advantage, fulfill the concomitant obligations. This list is endless and – much more important – it is also the way in which the world (essentially every society and nation) operates, reinforced for centuries by law, policy, regulations, statute, and plain old common sense ethics.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Washington
    4dd, I would agree with you that accepting the advantages and responsibility of an organization, under the vast majority of circumstances, is sufficient to fairly subject someone to the rules and discipline of that organization. In the Ayegba situation, I'd even agree that it's not fundamentally unfair to punish him with suspension for his acceptance of benefits before he was associated with the NCAA; The NCAA has to have some control over who is a member and under what circumstances.

    But many of us recognize that the NCAA is a flawed organization with flawed rules and that a violation of its rules, though sanctionable, does not by itself justify ethical or moral judgment.

    Quote Originally Posted by 4decadedukie View Post
    IMHO,Your point re "civil rights leaders" obviously is entirely correct (although I suspect you are stretching the scenario quite a bit to create a "state affiliation”). With that said, this thread’s situation does not concern civil disobedience, but rather acceptance of a significant monetary benefit (intercontinental air transportation) in contravention of well-understood and documented NCAA policies.
    Understanding that the civil rights movement bears no moral equivalence to NCAA amateurism regulations, why is civil obedience different in kind than violating a unjust well-documented NCAA policy? Unless one assumes the legitimacy of the NCAA policies (which is in dispute) as against the illegitimacy of Jim Crow (which is not), the distinction you draw is question-begging. What, besides the differing fundamental injustice of the rules, distinguishes the two?

    You noted that the voluntary affiliation aspect may not apply to a african-american in the south, which I'll grant. So to offer an example where the voluntary affiliation aspect is clear, what about the gay serviceman or servicewoman? If he or she engages in homosexual behavior, would that act be unethical? If you believe that sexual orientation is a fundamental liberty, I suspect you would say that it is not unethical, regardless of the U.S. Military's well-documented policy on homosexuality. And if you say that it isn't unethical, this isn't the same as saying that it is unfair or improper for such a serviceperson to be discharged (although many who believe the former will also likely believe the latter).

    I will concede that "ethics" are variable and framework-specific. Those who construct a given framework may (though need not) render any violation of the rules an ethical violation. (As a lawyer, I am required to both pay my bar dues on time and not reveal any confidential client communications to another party; only the latter is an ethical requirement, thought). And so, within the framework of the NCAA, the Ayegba situation may constitute an ethical violation (though again, he wasn't an NCAA athlete at the time, so unless he lied about it later to the NCAA it is hard to see quite how).

    Regardless, most of us are not inside the NCAA, do not share its ethics, and in fact have some serious issues with how it operates. That's why the mere fact of NCAA rules violation is not sufficient for us to agree that anyone here has acted unethically.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by 4decadedukie View Post
    This really is nothing more than common sense: join a club, pay the dues; affiliate with a team, abide by their rules; attend a university, comply with their policies; become an employee with its attendant benefits, respect the employer’s legitimate requirements; receive an advantage, fulfill the concomitant obligations. This list is endless and – much more important – it is also the way in which the world (essentially every society and nation) operates, reinforced for centuries by law, policy, regulations, statute, and plain old common sense ethics.
    Yes, but this list completely ignores situations where the organization is in the wrong. Yes, follow an employer's legitimate requests, but stand up against their illegitimate ones (in the case of, say, a sexist employer). Abide by the team's proper rules, but not their improper ones (in the case of, say, a racist coach).

    Now, you argue that, if the person in question does not approve of certain rules, they should not participate in that organization. This can be a respectable option in many cases, but not all. And not this one. Should the athlete in question forgo his opportunity to get an American education because he would need to have a friend pay for the trans-atlantic trip? Or should he break a small rule that hurts nobody for a chance at a better life? Niether choice is unethical, but one is a lot dumber than the other. Civil rights leaders could have chosen to follow rules and live elsewhere with no hope for change. Ayegba could have done the same and never gotten a chance at an American education and all the opportunities that go with it.

    If you hold the unfortunate position that he should not be allowed to play in the NCAA because he couldn't afford to pay for the trip himself, then you have to defend some harsh rhetorical territory: the player is unethical simply because he is poor. Had he not been poor, he would have been perfectly able to act ethically and pay his own way. But, because of how these rules have been constructed, the fact that he cannot afford the trip forces him to act "unethically." And we should side with the organization and not the little guy? Rather than that, I think it is reasonable to argue that this case actually has much more in common with the civil rights example raised above: a disadvantaged man reacting against the harmful rule of an arbitrary organization.

    (Edit: not saying the NCAA is unethical, only arbitrary. They're understandably complicated rulebook sometimes causes unfortunate situations. And in those situations, we should not always jump to the NCAA's defense.)
    Last edited by Jderf; 11-14-2010 at 10:04 AM.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    Am I the only one confused by the tone of this discussion? 4DD believes sincerely in personal responsibility and ethical behavior, and he is a wonderful contributor to this Board. But it is his personal burden to be a fan in the college athletics world, generally outside of Duke, where behavior falls into five categories:

    1. Acceptable
    2. Acceptable in normal business, except for a few messy details about written rules in college sports (i.e., laws of supply and demand don't apply). This, I believe, is the case at hand
    3. Low-rent, in treating oneself and others badly
    4. Low-life, in being low-rent but also breaking the law
    5. Either 3 or 4 combined with misogyny

    Others on the Board are less troubled by #2 in the face of so much # 3, 4, and 5.

    sagegrouse

    Sage,

    THANK YOU so much for this wonderful, gracious post.

    I want to ask other DBR participants (who are concerned with these sorts of issues and who have doubted my approach) a question, based on Sage's excellent, valid conclusion: "Others on the Board are less troubled by #2 in the face of so much # 3, 4, and 5."

    Isn't it likely if we -- society in general, obviously including universities, the NCAA, and so forth for college sports -- enforced a "bright red line" that consistently and fairly punished #2 (or possibly #3) violations, we would experience FAR fewer of the truly serious #4 and #5 (also perhaps, the #3) infractions? Isn’t this what we all attempt to do in nurturing and raising a child, engender self-discipline for the “minor” issues, so the really significant problems never occur? Isn’t this additionally what society tries to do in law enforcement? For example, Giuliani cracking down on misdemeanors (such as subway graffiti or public drunkenness) to reduce drastically the frequency meaningful, substantial felonies?

    I believe this PROVEN concept is directly applicable to intercollegiate athletics and to ALL of its participants and constituencies.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Washington
    Quote Originally Posted by 4decadedukie View Post
    Sage,
    I believe this PROVEN concept is directly applicable to intercollegiate athletics and to ALL of its participants and constituencies.
    The Broken Window Theory, to which I believe you refer, has actually come into criticism in the last few years.

    I would argue that we do not have a lack of enforcement of #2 type-violations to blame for the unseemly behavior that surrounds big time college sports. The problem is that the kids are providing extremely valuable services and yet their compensation is capped well below market-value. When such a lucrative but proscribed market exists, a black market will emerge.

    But this is all getting a little bit OT from your OP, which raised the issue of ethical opprobrium for Mr. Ayegba and/or Georgetown. I tried to address this in my previous post. But to try to sum up my argument: I believe that we can accept and even appreciate the NCAA decision in this case without rendering ethical or moral judgment on Ayegba or the school.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by D.C. Devil View Post
    . . . Why is civil (dis)obedience different in kind than violating a unjust well-documented NCAA policy?

    Your post is excellent and thoughtful; I sincerely appreciate your ideas and effort!

    I perceive a fundamental and critical difference because in many (most) civil rights issues, the victim has no (or essentially no) ability to voluntarily associate himself with an organization, whereas every potential student-athlete has the ability simply to decline to participate in intercollegiate sports, if he finds team, university, conference and/or NCAA polices and regulations to be too unjust, onerous, or demanding. To illustrate, the 1960s Birmingham Afro-American teenager realistically had few alternatives to living in a horribly segregated and terribly discriminatory culture. However, a youngster who believes that the NCAA’s rules are unfair (for example, wants to be paid for playing intercollegiate football or basketball, beyond traditional compensation) can merely refuse athletic scholarship/team participant offers. It is my opinion that this presents a SIGNIFICANT difference; voluntary association requires the obligations of compliance, because the individual does not have to affiliate initially and he can always resign. In essence, don’t join if the organization’s policies are not acceptable.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Washington
    Quote Originally Posted by 4decadedukie View Post
    Your post is excellent and thoughtful; I sincerely appreciate your ideas and effort!

    I perceive a fundamental and critical difference because in many (most) civil rights issues, the victim has no (or essentially no) ability to voluntarily associate himself with an organization, whereas every potential student-athlete has the ability simply to decline to participate in intercollegiate sports, if he finds team, university, conference and/or NCAA polices and regulations to be too unjust, onerous, or demanding. To illustrate, the 1960s Birmingham Afro-American teenager realistically had few alternatives to living in a horribly segregated and terribly discriminatory culture. However, a youngster who believes that the NCAA’s rules are unfair (for example, wants to be paid for playing intercollegiate football or basketball, beyond traditional compensation) can merely refuse athletic scholarship/team participant offers. It is my opinion that this presents a SIGNIFICANT difference; voluntary association requires the obligations of compliance, because the individual does not have to affiliate initially and he can always resign. In essence, don’t join if the organization’s policies are not acceptable.
    I agree with your point about 1960s Birmingham, but I don't think that it applies to the example about the gay serviceman or woman.

    But if we could go back to Ayegba for a moment, I fully respect your opinion that his acceptance of the plane ticket means that he needed to be punished. And if you accept that he does need to be punished, the 9 game suspension does seem fair.

    But from an ethics standpoint, doesn't it matter that the kid took the plane trip before he filed an application with the NCAA clearinghouse -- perhaps even before he knew about the strict requirements of amateurism? In THIS case, why is there a need to call the kid's ethics into question? There's no indication that he knowingly broke the rules and he's serving his punishment now. I think this question is separate from any discussion about the NCAA's legitimacy or fairness. Even if we ascribe the wisdom of Solomon to the NCAA bylaws and regulations, I would hope that we could agree that Ayegba's violation here doesn't constitute an ethical lapse.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia

    Jderf . . .

    "Should the athlete in question forgo his opportunity to get an American education because he would need to have a friend pay for the trans-Atlantic trip?"

    I apologize, but I am too rushed (granddaughter's birthday celebration, and I am very late) to respond to your post with the thoroughness and rigor it deserves.

    However, I do not believe that the youngster's American college education was necessarily entirely dependent on NCAA intercollegiate athletics. Potentially, he could have gotten that same education in some other manner(s). Even if it were, individuals can live wonderful lives without an American college education.

    EXPEDIENCY -- noncompliance with policies, regulations and laws for personal gain -- is the crux of our discussion. I know this is a LONG STRETCH (and I absolutely do not intend it to be insulting), but the Soviet official who knowingly did terrible things to obtain major advantages (pay, party status, privileges, an entirely better life for himself and for his family) violated universally accepted moral precepts for personal gain. That's conceptually similar (although I willingly admit it is too great a streatch).

    Sorry, I have to run.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia

    D. C. Devil . . . .

    I owe you three responses:

    a) I do not feel comfortable discussing the issues associated with homosexual and lesbian military personnel (i.e., "Don't ask, don't tell" and so forth) on DBR, due to the Board's structures that constrain "public policy" matters. When I have the time (and that is unfortunately not likely to be early this week), I will reply to your questions and issues by PM.

    b) You said: "I fully respect your opinion that his acceptance of the plane ticket means that he needed to be punished. And if you accept that he does need to be punished, the 9 game suspension does seem fair." I agree that a nine-game suspension seems quite reasonable.

    c1) You also said: "Doesn't it matter that the kid took the plane trip before he filed an application with the NCAA clearinghouse -- perhaps even before he knew about the strict requirements of amateurism? In THIS case, why is there a need to call the kid's ethics into question? There's no indication that he knowingly broke the rules and he's serving his punishment now." I understand your point, and it clearly has merit.

    c2) However, for the purpose of this discussion, let's presume that the kid had no idea of the applicable NCAA regulations, when he accepted the free trip to the US. Under those circumstances, it is my opinion that the fully ethical thing for him to do -- once he became a serious candidate for a Division I student-athletic scholarship -- would have been to ascertain the applicable policies, to explain the situation to the NCAA fully and to request their guidance. By doing this, neither he nor the University could not be accused of any untoward conduct and the NCAA might have rendered a more-lenient judgment.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Quote Originally Posted by 4decadedukie View Post
    c2) However, for the purpose of this discussion, let's presume that the kid had no idea of the applicable NCAA regulations, when he accepted the free trip to the US. Under those circumstances, it is my opinion that the fully ethical thing for him to do -- once he became a serious candidate for a Division I student-athletic scholarship -- would have been to ascertain the applicable policies, to explain the situation to the NCAA fully and to request their guidance. By doing this, neither he nor the University could not be accused of any untoward conduct and the NCAA might have rendered a more-lenient judgment.
    I ask this because I honestly don't know - is that different than what happened here? I haven't seen it made clear in any of the stories on it whether the NCAA had to root this out, or whether it was disclosed to the NCAA.

    By the way, let's all remember that our own Nolan Smith was suspended early last season for violating an NCAA rule (playing in an unsanctioned game over the summer). I'm not sure whether you think that reflects on his (or Coach K's) ethics or not, but it's not like Duke is free from this sort of thing.
    Just be you. You is enough. - K, 4/5/10, 0:13.8 to play, 60-59 Duke.

    You're all jealous hypocrites. - Titus on Laettner

    You see those guys? Animals. They're animals. - SIU Coach Chris Lowery, on Duke

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by pfrduke View Post
    I ask this because I honestly don't know.
    I don't know, either.

    Quote Originally Posted by pfrduke View Post
    By the way, let's all remember that our own Nolan Smith was suspended early last season for violating an NCAA rule (playing in an unsanctioned game over the summer). I'm not sure whether you think that reflects on his (or Coach K's) ethics or not, but it's not like Duke is free from this sort of thing.
    Fine point; I must admit that criticizing Georgetown's ethics is MUCH easier for me than scrutinizing Duke's.

  15. #35

    abstract discussion?

    As an alum of both Duke and G'town, and a former scholarship athlete at Duke, it is my feeling that both Duke and G'town are in the "right" camp and do try to do things by the book.

    Do they fall short at times? Sure. But in the world of the big time business known as college basketball, they certainly are on the high end of the compliance scale. Both athletic departments are in the minority where whatever one thinks about their athletes, by and large they are indeed student athletes, a far cry from the athletic factories that abound (I don't want to pick on the SEC, but that is a great place to start).

    As far as whether the NCAA rule book constitutes a form of ethical guidance, I don't see the rule book as a source of ethics. Indeed, some of the rules don't even make sense, and require a full time person within athletic departments to constantly interpret them. But I think the non-abstract point to be made is that hewing to rules, however, arbitrary they may appear, does count, and that repeated failures to follow the rules, practically speaking, will indeed call the ethics of an institution into question, if only because it reflects a pattern of carelessness or disregard for the athletic organization to which the institution derives a great deal of benefit. We can all agree that the Georgetown's and Duke's of the world don't want compliance problems, even the minor ones that can be plausibly explained.

    By the way, my heart is with Duke, but when I attended graduate school at Georgetown 25 years ago it was hard not to respect John Thompson. Although not the coach Coach K is (there has never been a better coach in Division 1 than Coach K), he was a great coach and had a similar stubborn insistence as Coach K on doing things right. I find Thompson's son a bit more flexible and easy going, but he has much the same attitude. In any event, if one is looking for fault in the NCAA basketball world, Duke and Georgetown would be two of the least likely places to come across truly fertile ground.

Similar Threads

  1. (Alleged) Recruiting violation at UConn
    By hc5duke in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 03-29-2009, 10:45 AM
  2. Self Reported Recruiting Violation
    By wbs2455 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 12-29-2008, 03:11 PM
  3. Fighting a traffic violation - advice?
    By Bostondevil in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-25-2007, 07:00 PM
  4. Violation myths (thanks Feldspar) - NO travel
    By stumps in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-24-2007, 10:18 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •