How does an
Athletic Director create a compliant and ethical athletic program? From a framing perspective (Bolman &
Deal, 2008) it will enable different methods in which to come up with a
solution. Is compliance an issue due to
people or is it the organization (human resource vs. structural framing)? Perhaps it’s an issue of culture and values
or institutional/personal agendas (symbolic vs political framing). From framing perspectives, there are various
solutions on how to address the issue of compliance. Brad Humphreys (2009) views the answer to
compliance as a human resource framed solution.
Proffitt and Corrigan (2012) allude to inadequate structural framing as
a reason that programs are violate National College Athletic Association (NCAA)
bylaws.
In Organizational
Theory, human resource framing would view the answer to compliance as people
driven. An athletic program would have
the right athletic director, coaches, staff, and student-athletes to ensure no
violations occur at the institution. In
NCAA Rule Infractions, Humphreys makes the argument that student athletes are
no more deviant than general society (2012).
He surmises that the answer to ensuring a compliant program would be to
find student-athletes that value amateurism.
Humphreys (2009) doesn’t view student-athletes as the problem as much as
he does the self-interested and capricious nature of the NCAA. “The NCAA has clear and strong economic
interests in maintaining the existing cartel agreement and its exemption from
labor and antitrust law”. (2012, p. 711)
There is a structural frame response to Humphreys’ critique of the NCAA,
however. He does not view coaches and
student athletes as “bad” as much as he sees the rules (i.e. the structure) as arcane
and self-serving. There is a rule
enforcement disconnect “that punishes a 21-year-old for accepting a free drink
in a local bar” juxtaposed to coaches earning salaries in excess of $4million
(2012, p. 711)
Piquero (2012)
hypothesizes that due to the current temptations (i.e. access) student-athletes
face, infractions would be inevitable.
Structural framing would have to address an assumption that student
athletes face more temptation than average “non-college athletes”. Again, Piquero (2012) is critical of the
rules that govern compliance yet not as much on student-athletes violating
rules. The life of student-athletes is
so unique. “Student-athletes live in two
college contexts, one organized around the traditional college experience and a
unique one organized around athletics.”(p. 715) Piquero argues that opportunity
for deviancy is actually higher for athletes yet they offend on levels similar
to traditional students. A 2011 Sports
Illustrated investigation conducted on every player on opening day rosters of
the preseason 2010 top 25 showed that 7% of players had a criminal record
(Piquero, 2012, p. 715). Piquero argues
that by being held to a higher standard, it creates an artificially higher
standard of deviance in student-athletes.
What is considered
deviant is a much higher level of scrutiny than typical delinquent behavior of
traditional students. Not only do laws
and student code of conducts apply but so do NCAA bylaws. “If a non-student athlete would receive a
free meal or t-shirt, then it would unlikely be illegal, but it if a
student-athlete received a free meal or free t-shirt during the course (or as a
result of) their occupational status, then it would likely be considered an
NCAA violation” (Piquero, 2012, 715).
This does not excuse student-athletes of committing infractions but,
rather, gives the reader better insight into the rules and that “deviancy”
doesn’t necessarily equate to a bad or untrustworthy person. There is context to compliance in collegiate
athletics that must be considered.
To better clarify
his position, Piquero (2012) makes parallels of NCAA infractions to
corporate/organizational crime.
“Researchers have routinely found that although microlevel factors are
important for understanding corporate offending, so too are macrolevel factors
as well as general cultural influences that specific to the pressures and
realities of the business world” (2012, p. 715)
He asserts that violations are only made possible by the fact that these
student-athletes have an exclusive type of access. Would a traditional student of modest means
at USC have access to front row tickets to an NBA playoff game as OJ Mayo?
(Katz, 2008) Student-athletes have exclusive
access in the context of their celebrity.
Piquero’s
solutions to ensuring compliance are unrealistic. He calls it the “two-prong policy”. “The prevention of student-athlete misconduct
needs to start as early in the life course as possible, largely because
athletes need to be socialized in fair and ethical conduct and behavior.”(p.
719) He believes that receipt of goods for performance should not be the prize
but wins and stats are the philosophical reward of “doing one’s job”. Secondly, upon enrollment into college,
student-athletes should be taught and assimilated into an ethical athletic
culture. “They should be tested early
and often about NCAA rules, so that they are absolutely clear in what they are
permitted to do and what they cannot do.”(2012, p. 719) This is a symbolic frame point of view but
how realistic or pragmatic is this?
Student-athletes will one day leave college and have professional
careers (some even in professional sports).
Why would having the expectation of goods for performance not be a
virtue?
No comments:
Post a Comment