Reference no: EM133026824

Ethical Case Study: Who's Accountable? 

Who is responsible for the performance and conduct of a team? At work it is typically the team members and the immediate manager, and to a lesser extent, the manager's manager and so on. In sports, most would agree at the very least players and coaches. In collegiate and professional sports many others are involved in creating, supporting, and contributing to the performance of the teams, such as assistant coaches, general managers and owners (in professional sports), and athletic directors, presidents, and trustees at the college level. All of them, individually and collectively, share some measure of the glory of victory and the agony of defeat. But who, if anyone, shares the responsibility for conduct off the field, court, pool, or arena? If it's misconduct, then who shares the responsibility is unclear, or at least uneven.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the governing body for college sports, routinely sanctions violations of rules related to recruiting, academic eligibility, and illegal payments. Titles and wins are vacated, schools can be banned from playoff participation for a season, coaches and players are suspended for a given number of games. Nevertheless, misconduct is widespread, and at some schools and with some coaches, violations occur repeatedly, suggesting that current efforts to prevent unethical conduct in college sports are ineffective.

The most egregious misconduct sometimes qualifies as criminal, as was the horrific sex abuse case involving team physician Larry Nassar (Michigan State University and USA Gymnastics) and defensive coordinating coach Jerry Sandusky (Penn State University football). They received prison sentences of 40 to 175 years and 30 to 60 years, respectively. Some misconduct qualifies as bribery and fraud and also ends up in courts. The vast majority of misconduct in college sports is wrong, but not illegal, and therefore is left up to the NCAA, universities, and respective university leaders at all levels to monitor, prevent, and punish.

With this as background, one can appropriately argue that everyone makes mistakes. Indeed, it is part of being human. It's also reasonable to assert some mistakes should be forgiven (get a second chance), however, the larger issues in college sports are patterns of misconduct that exist. Patterns of misconduct occur in particular programs, universities, and with certain coaches. Nassar's and Sandusky's crimes continued for years and many people knew about it; some of these "others" have also suffered consequences. But what about Rick Pitino? He had a prolific coaching career across college and professional teams: Hawaii, Boston University, the Knicks, Providence, Kentucky, the Celtics, and finally Louisville. He was implicated in various and multiple types of misconduct in his first position, and yet later Kentucky hired him when they were already in the process of "paying for the sins" of their previous coach. Eventually, the scandal at Louisville seemingly ended his career.

Then there is Larry Brown, who was hired to coach basketball at Southern Methodist University in 2012. Like Pitino, Brown had legendary success at both the college and professional levels. But his UCLA championship team was stripped of its title because of NCAA violations, and when he later coached the University of Kansas the team was banned from postseason play for a year and placed on probation for three years. If that wasn't enough, while at SMU he and the team were hit with additional NCAA sanctions for violations.

With the preceding as background, the point of this Legal/Ethical Challenge is determining who should bear the consequences of such misconduct. It seems that leaders at different levels of universities reap the benefits of wins and championships, but rarely suffer the consequences of the misconduct, even misconduct they (should) know about. Moreover, these same university officials are routinely involved in the hiring and annual reviews of these troubled coaches, athletic directors, team physicians, etc.

If you agree this is a problem that needs to be addressed, and despite its intentions and efforts, the NCAA is only part of the solution. Perhaps the ultimate solution lies in the quality of university-level leadership by boards of trustees, presidents, and athletic directors. The NCAA gives college presidents wide latitude to govern sports programs. They have official authority, and typically report to boards of trustees who are in effect their bosses and thus should be responsible for their conduct. What if sanctions were extended to university leaders? For instance, what if the board of trustees at a given university said that if a player is suspended, so are the coach(es) and the athletic director, without pay. If the player is dismissed, so too are the coach(es) and athletic director, and perhaps even the college president. After all, business executives and managers are fired every day when their conduct, or that of their employees, jeopardizes far less money than is at stake in major college sports programs.

While this solution may seem extreme and even unrealistic, it would certainly motivate presidents, athletic directors, and trustees to take greater responsibility for and oversight of the ethical conduct of their sports teams and programs. These leaders bask in the rewards when their teams win championships, but they are able to contain or even avoid the costs of their misconduct. If both the rewards and the punishments extended beyond individual players, however, that behavior would likely change. It is also more likely that leaders, such as university presidents and trustees, would be more proactive. For instance, they might think twice about hiring coaches who bring not only mistakes, but patterns of misconduct with them.

In the current system, if anyone pays penalties in a meaningful way it is the players who lose postseason opportunities and scholarships, compared to a token few game suspensions for coaches who are already wealthy. But what about the other leaders-athletic directors, presidents, trustees?

Questions:

What should be done about unethical conduct in college sports? Provide a point of view (POV) explanation for each of the following approaches.

Option 1: Don't change anything. The current means for dealing with misconduct, including NCAA sanctions, are sufficient. Justify.

Option 2: Modify the NCAA authority and sanctions but keep the system more or less as it is. Explain.

Option 3: Hold university leadership accountable-some combination of coaches, their bosses (athletic directors), their bosses (university presidents), and their bosses (boards of trustees). Explain.

Option 4: Brainstorm another alternative (your personal opinion/POV) and explain.