Yet another ethical and regulatory violation

[4decadedukie]

Moses Ayegba (Georgetown's freshman center) has been ruled ineligible for team's first nine games by the NCAA, for violating pre-enrollment rules; specifically, non-family members funding his passage from Nigeria to the United States.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5796440

[BD80]

Moses Ayegba (Georgetown's freshman center) has been ruled ineligible for team's first nine games by the NCAA, for violating pre-enrollment rules; specifically, non-family members funding his passage from Nigeria to the United States.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5796440

Sounds more like a regulatory violation than an ethical violation ...

[pfrduke]

Sounds more like a regulatory violation than an ethical violation ...

Yeah, I'm with you here. Not every rules violation (particularly when the rules in question are the NCAA rules, which are, shall we say, less than perfectly logical/transparent) indicates poor ethics.

[Bluedog]

Question: if a family friend buys a prospective basketball player a ticket to a Caribbean cruise, is that an NCAA violation? They can't accept any gifts from anybody?! That seems a bit odd...I mean, if the person who paid for it clearly was trying to get Ayegba to commit to a certain program it makes sense as a violation, but simply paying for a Nigeria-US transportation seems okay to me. I understand that it's a slippery slope to allow free "gifts" to athletes, but regular students get free gifts all the time (from friends, family friends, etc.). I don't know...It's only 9 games though; he'll be back soon enough.

[CameronBornAndBred]

That's pretty slack. If they can prove that whoever paid for it had no ties to Georgetown they shouldn't be penalized. I'm not even sure if they do prove it if they should be penalized.

[4decadedukie]

Sounds more like a regulatory violation than an ethical violation ...

I see (and respect) your point, but I disagree. Specifically: (a) policies and rules exist, (b) those who participate agree to abide by them, therefore (c) failure to do so is BOTH a regulatory and an ethical violation (at least, in my view).

[Sixthman]

I see (and respect) your point, but I disagree. Specifically: (a) policies and rules exist, (b) those who participate agree to abide by them, therefore (c) failure to do so is BOTH a regulatory and an ethical violation (at least, in my view).

So if a basketball player realizes that in a particular game the referee is not calling some kinds of pushing in the low post, even though this kind of contact is clearly against the rules, and therefore takes advantage by pushing to get position to rebound or defend, this is both a violation of the rules, and unethical, because he has agreed to abide by the rules?

[pfrduke]

I see (and respect) your point, but I disagree. Specifically: (a) policies and rules exist, (b) those who participate agree to abide by them, therefore (c) failure to do so is BOTH a regulatory and an ethical violation (at least, in my view).

I'm asking this because I'm trying to gauge the extent to which you abide by the three point test you set forth above: if I drive 56 in a 55, am I being unethical?

Also, illegal and unethical denote different things. Not everything that is unethical is illegal, and not everything that is illegal is unethical. Society's laws and society's moral code are not meant to be coextensive. And the NCAA rule book and society's moral code quite often have nothing in common.

On the point at hand, have you read any more detailed coverage than the article you linked? Let's take this out of the context of the NCAA rule book for a second: kid lives in Nigeria. A Nigerian native (and former NBA player) tries to help other Nigerian kids follow in his footsteps and play basketball in the US. He meets a US high school coach (at a Christian school) whom he respects, and puts him in touch with Ayegba. The coach pays for the kid's plane ticket to come to the US, where he plays high school ball. And the kid turns out to be a good enough player that he get a scholarship to go play for an excellent US university, while getting a world class education. What in the world is wrong with that? Even if they knew ahead of time that funding the plane flight would result in the kid being ineligible for the first 9 games of his college career, I find it hard to believe that the parties involved did not make the correct ethical decision. Put another way, would everyone have been better off if the coach didn't pay for a $1,400 plane ticket and, as a result, the kid was still back in Nigeria?

[gam7]

I'm asking this because I'm trying to gauge the extent to which you abide by the three point test you set forth above: if I drive 56 in a 55, am I being unethical?

Also, illegal and unethical denote different things. Not everything that is unethical is illegal, and not everything that is illegal is unethical. Society's laws and society's moral code are not meant to be coextensive. And the NCAA rule book and society's moral code quite often have nothing in common.

On the point at hand, have you read any more detailed coverage than the article you linked? Let's take this out of the context of the NCAA rule book for a second: kid lives in Nigeria. A Nigerian native (and former NBA player) tries to help other Nigerian kids follow in his footsteps and play basketball in the US. He meets a US high school coach (at a Christian school) whom he respects, and puts him in touch with Ayegba. The coach pays for the kid's plane ticket to come to the US, where he plays high school ball. And the kid turns out to be a good enough player that he get a scholarship to go play for an excellent US university, while getting a world class education. What in the world is wrong with that? Even if they knew ahead of time that funding the plane flight would result in the kid being ineligible for the first 9 games of his college career, I find it hard to believe that the parties involved did not make the correct ethical decision. Put another way, would everyone have been better off if the coach didn't pay for a $1,400 plane ticket and, as a result, the kid was still back in Nigeria?

I agree with you 100% on your reasoning.

Based on this kid's story, as you (and the Washington Post article) describe it, the coach made the right ethical decision, and this would be a perfect example for Jay Bilas's argument that the system is broken. I will say though that the former NBA player who tipped off the coach and the coach himself may not have had entirely altruistic motivations. Some (perhaps many) of the people who arrange for kids to come to the US from foreign countries agree with the kids that if they ever make it to pro basketball, the kids will pay them a huge percentage of their earnings. These relationships are not subject to agent regulations, so there is no statutory limit on how much these facilitators can demand for passage to the US. This article from several years ago is about this precise issue. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...013001305.html

If the former NBA player and the coach have arranged to receive kickbacks from this kid, then one could argue that what they are doing is unethical (even if the kid is getting an opportunity that he otherwise would not have had). Regardless, I don't think the NCAA is the governing body best positioned to root out the unscrupulousness in these relationships. Perhaps the NBA players union would be better positioned to deal with the issue.

[Richard Berg]

I see (and respect) your point, but I disagree. Specifically: (a) policies and rules exist, (b) those who participate agree to abide by them, therefore (c) failure to do so is BOTH a regulatory and an ethical violation (at least, in my view).

Funny, I'd say the opposite. When confronted with a hopelessly corrupt system, it's unethical to go along with the status quo just because it's convenient.

[4decadedukie]

Funny, I'd say the opposite. When confronted with a hopelessly corrupt system, it's unethical to go along with the status quo just because it's convenient.

. . . And I would concur; that would mean -- under the circumstances you describe -- not agreeing to play intercollegiate basketball, or perhaps entirely eschewing student-athleticism. Once, however, an individual voluntarily associates himself with an entity, he is ethically bound to adhere to its policies and regulations. If this becomes too onerous or unscrupulous, he can always renounce his affiliation.

[4decadedukie]

I'm asking this because I'm trying to gauge the extent to which you abide by the three point test you set forth above: if I drive 56 in a 55, am I being unethical?

Yes, in my opinion, when I do so I am VERY SLIGHTLY behaving in both an illegal and unethical manner; the illegality is obvious. The failed ethics is less so, however, I place my personal convenience ahead of society's laws, which can be viewed as unethical.

Further (to test the situation you established), if you or I were to drive at 120 MPH in a 20 MPH School Zone -- one straw-man deserves another -- that is flagrantly illegal and unethical (willing to trade individual expedience for clear public safety). Obviously, both examples violate traffic law, but one clearly has a FAR greater potential to cause societal harm.

Let's consider a third scenario: we are driving that 120 MPH in that School Zone, but we are rushing a man who has just had a heart attack to the local emergency room, and we KNOW he can only be saved by getting him there within x minutes, with that only possible thorough egregious violation of traffic statutes. Is that illegal (I don't know), unethical (perhaps not).

A final complication: is it unethical and/or illegal if, while rushing that ninety year old heart attack victim (who is certain to die within two years) to the ER through that School Zone at 120 MPH, we kill a child who has a full lifetime future? I suspect it is both, but I am not certain. You tell me.

[oldnavy]

Yes, in my opinion, when I do so I am VERY SLIGHTLY behaving in both an illegal and unethical manner; the illegality is obvious. The failed ethics is less so, however, I place my personal convenience ahead of society's laws, which can be viewed as unethical.

Further (to test the situation you established), if you or I were to drive at 120 MPH in a 20 MPH School Zone -- one straw-man deserves another -- that is flagrantly illegal and unethical (willing to trade individual expedience for clear public safety). Obviously, both examples violate traffic law, but one clearly has a FAR greater potential to cause societal harm.

Let's consider a third scenario: we are driving that 120 MPH in that School Zone, but we are rushing a man who has just had a heart attack to the local emergency room, and we KNOW he can only be saved by getting him there within x minutes, with that only possible thorough egregious violation of traffic statutes. Is that illegal (I don't know), unethical (perhaps not).

A final complication: is it unethical and/or illegal if, while rushing that ninety year old heart attack victim (who is certain to die within two years) to the ER through that School Zone at 120 MPH, we kill a child who has a full lifetime future? I suspect it is both, but I am not certain. You tell me.

These are very good questions and are very interesting to debate.

The way I deal with these types of questions is pretty simple in concept but often difficult in practice. I believe that one day I will stand before the Throne and be held accountable for all of my actions. So, I try to make my decisions based on this. When the Creator searches my heart, will I have done what I did for the betterment of His Kingdom or for my own selfish reasons? I can tell you that I do not look forward to being judged because I have failed miserably on many occasions. However, I know that all is forgiven PTL!

SO, there may be an occasion where I would break the law/rules to aide someone, but I would hope that I would only do it as described above.

[dukeimac]

I disagree with Bilas, the system is not broken.

For every rule made, there is someone out there trying to find a way around it. The tax code is a prime example. For every rule that is written, there is a way around it which creates new rules which creates new ways to get around it. Thus, rules are created to keep people from going around an old rule. People keep finding ways to get around the old rules that the new rules become more finite thus they get too tight.

If you want to fix anything, create more ethical people.

[pfrduke]

Yes, in my opinion, when I do so I am VERY SLIGHTLY behaving in both an illegal and unethical manner; the illegality is obvious. The failed ethics is less so, however, I place my personal convenience ahead of society's laws, which can be viewed as unethical.

Further (to test the situation you established), if you or I were to drive at 120 MPH in a 20 MPH School Zone -- one straw-man deserves another -- that is flagrantly illegal and unethical (willing to trade individual expedience for clear public safety). Obviously, both examples violate traffic law, but one clearly has a FAR greater potential to cause societal harm.

Let's consider a third scenario: we are driving that 120 MPH in that School Zone, but we are rushing a man who has just had a heart attack to the local emergency room, and we KNOW he can only be saved by getting him there within x minutes, with that only possible thorough egregious violation of traffic statutes. Is that illegal (I don't know), unethical (perhaps not).

A final complication: is it unethical and/or illegal if, while rushing that ninety year old heart attack victim (who is certain to die within two years) to the ER through that School Zone at 120 MPH, we kill a child who has a full lifetime future? I suspect it is both, but I am not certain. You tell me.

Well, I got us distracted down this path, so I feel compelled to respond, although we're now certainly far afield from one person paying for another person to fly into the United States. However, I would say that the very way you asked the questions shows the difference between ethics and laws. Driving 120 in a 20, for whatever purpose, is not legal. It may be ethical, depending on the circumstances (such as those you set forth above).

More to the point, I'm curious what it is, precisely, you find to be unethical about this:

On the point at hand, have you read any more detailed coverage than the article you linked? Let's take this out of the context of the NCAA rule book for a second: kid lives in Nigeria. A Nigerian native (and former NBA player) tries to help other Nigerian kids follow in his footsteps and play basketball in the US. He meets a US high school coach (at a Christian school) whom he respects, and puts him in touch with Ayegba. The coach pays for the kid's plane ticket to come to the US, where he plays high school ball. And the kid turns out to be a good enough player that he get a scholarship to go play for an excellent US university, while getting a world class education.

I would also be interested to know who you believe is being unethical - The student? The coach? The school? - and why.

[Indoor66]

Well, I got us distracted down this path, so I feel compelled to respond, although we're now certainly far afield from one person paying for another person to fly into the United States. However, I would say that the very way you asked the questions shows the difference between ethics and laws. Driving 120 in a 20, for whatever purpose, is not legal. It may be ethical, depending on the circumstances (such as those you set forth above).

More to the point, I'm curious what it is, precisely, you find to be unethical about this:



I would also be interested to know who you believe is being unethical - The student? The coach? The school? - and why.

A simple maxim: Hard cases make bad law.

[pfrduke]

A simple maxim: Hard cases make bad law.

I'm not quibbling with the rule; well, more specifically, I'm not quibbling with the fact that the rule was violated. Nor am I quibbling with the outcome - if the rule was violated, and the violation results in a 9-game suspension, so be it. I'm quibbling with what I understood to be 4decadedukie's premise; namely, that any violation of an NCAA rule represents an ethical shortcoming on the part of the violator. I don't think that's right, and I think that this factual scenario is a good example of how people can behave ethically and still run afoul of the NCAA rule book.

It is entirely possible that I am misunderstanding 4dd's premise, which is why I tried to get at what, precisely, it is that he finds unethical about the situation (and who is being unethical).

[4decadedukie]

More to the point, I'm curious what it is, precisely, you find to be unethical about this . . . I would also be interested to know who you believe is being unethical - The student? The coach? The school? - and why.

I opened this thread yesterday, having only read ESPN's less-detailed piece. With that in mind, my opinions follow:

The student came to the US to compete in intercollegiate athletics; he knew (or he reasonably should have ascertained) the NCAA regulations that apply to student-athletes in his situation. To those who suggest that those rules are imperfect, I certainly agree; however, few statues, regulations and/or policies are faultless, but we are nevertheless obligated and accountable for compliance. Therefore, the student was willing to accept the benefits (at a minimum, a significant undergraduate scholarship package) of becoming a Division I student-athlete, however, he disregarded the responsibilities imposed by the applicable regulatory entity (the NCAA). That, to me, is unethical.

Similarly, the coach and the university are (or certainly should be) “expert insiders” concerning NCAA guidelines and rules; in addition, they can request advice from counsel, from independent experts, from the conference and from the NCAA itself. It would be logical for the university to ask this student how his intercontinental voyage to the United States was funded, especially since these circumstances are not typical, not a drive from (for example) Dallas to Austin to join UT’s athletic program. Their failure to do so may be innocent, however, they had the duty to determine the facts and to ensure compliance. That obligation, if properly fulfilled, would have precluded this violation. Further, one could plausibly speculate that the coach/university did not do so to gain an illicit advantage; specifically, fielding an intelligible athlete to enhance performance and victories. To me, that too, is unethical.

Finally, we come to the professional athlete/benefactor. I am far less certain concerning his ethical status. If he knew (or reasonably should have known) that his gift would violate NCAA rules, then his charity, even if nobly intended, enabled prohibited conduct, which is unethical (in my opinion). On the other hand, if an individual – probably not an NBA player, who likely has some understanding of NCAA policies and who certainly has access to knowledgeable advisors – were to provide entirely altruistic assistance without any knowledge of NCAA regulations, then his action probably would not be unprincipled. Of course, this is precisely where the student and/or the coach, the AD, the Compliance Officer, and the university should discharge their responsibilities and should assert their expertise to preclude regulatory infringement.

[pfrduke]

I appreciate the detailed response, which certainly clarifies your position. I have to respectfully disagree with your conclusion that the conduct engaged in by all parties involved renders them all guilty of ethical lapses, and I reiterate my very strong conviction that the NCAA rule book is not a proxy for a code of ethics.

[4decadedukie]

I reiterate my very strong conviction that the NCAA rule book is not a proxy for a code of ethics.

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.