National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2007
« back to 2007 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
Unsporting conduct - Better conduct requires attitude adjustment
Entitlement blurs tolerated behaviors
Entitlement blurs tolerated behaviors
|
By Gary T. Brown
The NCAA News
The NCAA News
NCAA Committee on Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct Chair Alan Patterson likes to tell the story of Anderson University (South Carolina) President Evans Whitaker running into Clemson University President James Barker a couple of weeks after the two schools’ women’s basketball teams played at Clemson.
The Division II Lady Trojans were no match for the Division I Tigers, but that wasn’t what concerned the Clemson president. “Did we treat you with hospitality?” Barker asked his colleague. “Did your players and coaches feel that we were good hosts?”
Whitaker said yes, but the moral of the story to Patterson, commissioner of Conference Carolinas, of which Anderson is a member, is that the question was asked at all.
“It tells me that sportsmanship is a priority to President Barker,” Patterson said. “And if it’s a priority to him, it must be for his institution, too.”
Whether it’s a priority for others is unclear, mostly because people define the collegiate sports environment differently. What constitutes unacceptable behavior for some is perfectly fine for others.
For example, Division III Ohio Athletic Conference Commissioner Tim Gleason said student-athletes on the fields and courts realize how hard it is to do what they do and they have more respect for each other, whereas fans have no idea how hard it is to be a student-athlete and sometimes want to call attention to themselves by being funny.
“So they end up mocking student-athletes,” Gleason said. “It’s easy to do when you’re sitting in a seat and you don’t have to perform or compete. It’s easy to ridicule others when you haven’t walked a mile in their shoes.”
What perpetuates such entitlement? Mars Hill College Athletics Director Dave Riggins, a member of the Division II Management Council, said somewhere along the line, fans got the idea that boorish behavior was not only part of the contract that comes with buying a ticket, but that it also helped the home team win.
“The lines have become so blurred that the question is no longer whether we will allow any disrespectful behavior, but what level of disrespect we will tolerate in the name of creating excitement, home-court advantage and fan participation,” Riggins said.
If disrespectful fans actually believed their actions were out of bounds, Riggins said, the remedy would be clearer. “We would just have to convince fans to employ their belief system,” he said. But many think their disrespectful behavior is part of the “team support system.” Convincing someone to change behavior they deem acceptable is an uphill battle.
“I’m not certain many game administrators would want to take on that task night after night,” Riggins said. “The only lasting victory would involve changing the thought processes of those who sit in the seats at our events. We need to understand whether we are trying to change actions or attitudes.”
Patterson sides with attitude.
“It’s better to teach people to think about what they’re doing rather than impose guidelines or restrictions,” Patterson said. “That way, you build a culture in which people reflect upon their behavior rather than act simply because everyone says that is the way people act or react during sports events.”
That requires an ongoing educational effort, Patterson said, and may require student-athletes, coaches and administrators taking the lead for fans to follow. Student-athletes in particular, Patterson said, may not realize the opportunity they have to debunk the myths fueled by talk-radio hosts and television broadcasters who paint the collegiate sports environment in a way that’s simply good for business.
For instance, Patterson said, the cliché from announcers that “there’s no love lost between these two teams” is nothing but fan titillation. “It’s a pretty common theory these days that one has to dislike his or her opponent to compete at the highest level,” Patterson said. “But if you ask people who they really enjoy beating most, it’s usually somebody they know and perhaps is relatively close to them. But if I’m Joe Public, I accept what is told to me by people on talk radio and TV broadcasters.”
That mindset in turn affects fans who try to one-up their rivals by creating stunts and cheers that border or even cross the offensive line.
At some point, Riggins said, NCAA administrators may have to recalibrate that line.
“Are we dealing with people who actually know better acting in bad taste or are we dealing with people who don’t see their actions as bad taste at all?” he said. “There is no merit to seeking solutions until we know the answer to that question, because the answer is the key to the course of action. Once we have reached a consensus regarding that matter — if that is possible — then we could get down to solutions.”
The Division II Lady Trojans were no match for the Division I Tigers, but that wasn’t what concerned the Clemson president. “Did we treat you with hospitality?” Barker asked his colleague. “Did your players and coaches feel that we were good hosts?”
Whitaker said yes, but the moral of the story to Patterson, commissioner of Conference Carolinas, of which Anderson is a member, is that the question was asked at all.
“It tells me that sportsmanship is a priority to President Barker,” Patterson said. “And if it’s a priority to him, it must be for his institution, too.”
Whether it’s a priority for others is unclear, mostly because people define the collegiate sports environment differently. What constitutes unacceptable behavior for some is perfectly fine for others.
For example, Division III Ohio Athletic Conference Commissioner Tim Gleason said student-athletes on the fields and courts realize how hard it is to do what they do and they have more respect for each other, whereas fans have no idea how hard it is to be a student-athlete and sometimes want to call attention to themselves by being funny.
“So they end up mocking student-athletes,” Gleason said. “It’s easy to do when you’re sitting in a seat and you don’t have to perform or compete. It’s easy to ridicule others when you haven’t walked a mile in their shoes.”
What perpetuates such entitlement? Mars Hill College Athletics Director Dave Riggins, a member of the Division II Management Council, said somewhere along the line, fans got the idea that boorish behavior was not only part of the contract that comes with buying a ticket, but that it also helped the home team win.
“The lines have become so blurred that the question is no longer whether we will allow any disrespectful behavior, but what level of disrespect we will tolerate in the name of creating excitement, home-court advantage and fan participation,” Riggins said.
If disrespectful fans actually believed their actions were out of bounds, Riggins said, the remedy would be clearer. “We would just have to convince fans to employ their belief system,” he said. But many think their disrespectful behavior is part of the “team support system.” Convincing someone to change behavior they deem acceptable is an uphill battle.
“I’m not certain many game administrators would want to take on that task night after night,” Riggins said. “The only lasting victory would involve changing the thought processes of those who sit in the seats at our events. We need to understand whether we are trying to change actions or attitudes.”
Patterson sides with attitude.
“It’s better to teach people to think about what they’re doing rather than impose guidelines or restrictions,” Patterson said. “That way, you build a culture in which people reflect upon their behavior rather than act simply because everyone says that is the way people act or react during sports events.”
That requires an ongoing educational effort, Patterson said, and may require student-athletes, coaches and administrators taking the lead for fans to follow. Student-athletes in particular, Patterson said, may not realize the opportunity they have to debunk the myths fueled by talk-radio hosts and television broadcasters who paint the collegiate sports environment in a way that’s simply good for business.
For instance, Patterson said, the cliché from announcers that “there’s no love lost between these two teams” is nothing but fan titillation. “It’s a pretty common theory these days that one has to dislike his or her opponent to compete at the highest level,” Patterson said. “But if you ask people who they really enjoy beating most, it’s usually somebody they know and perhaps is relatively close to them. But if I’m Joe Public, I accept what is told to me by people on talk radio and TV broadcasters.”
That mindset in turn affects fans who try to one-up their rivals by creating stunts and cheers that border or even cross the offensive line.
At some point, Riggins said, NCAA administrators may have to recalibrate that line.
“Are we dealing with people who actually know better acting in bad taste or are we dealing with people who don’t see their actions as bad taste at all?” he said. “There is no merit to seeking solutions until we know the answer to that question, because the answer is the key to the course of action. Once we have reached a consensus regarding that matter — if that is possible — then we could get down to solutions.”
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy