The NCAA News - Comment

July 22, 1996

• Guest editorial -- Ethics, sportsmanship: Sides of the same coin ...By Russell W. Gough, Pepperdine University
• Letter to the Editor -- Put helmets on women's lacrosse players
• Opinions -- Chancellor blunt in opposing pay-for-play philosophy

Guest editorial -- Ethics, sportsmanship: Sides of the same coin

BY RUSSELL W. GOUGH
Pepperdine University

No one can write or talk about sportsmanship separately from ethics. That's the bottom line about the connection between sportsmanship and ethics. And it really is that simple.

Think about it this way: What do we mean when we say, "She is a very ethical person," or "He was unethical when he did that"? By the first statement, we usually mean that someone is a good person, that she has character, that she is a person of integrity or even that she is a good role model. By the second statement, we usually mean that someone's action was wrong, that it wasn't fair or honest or according to the rules -- something like that.

The upshot is that when we talk about "ethics," we're usually talking about one or both of two important things: the kind of person someone is -- his or her character -- and someone's actions. Here is a definition for ethics: Ethics is a matter of being good (character) and doing right (action).

Notice what happens when we ask the same sort of questions about sportsmanship that we just did about ethics: What do we usually mean when we say, "That coach is the epitome of sportsmanship," or "That athlete was very unsportsmanlike"?

The first statement, of course, points to a coach's good character. It says that a certain coach is the kind of person who characteristically does the sportsmanlike thing -- the right thing. The second statement suggests that a particular athlete displayed some sort of unsportsmanlike behavior. The athlete might have fouled unnecessarily hard, shoved an umpire, used illegal drugs to gain a competitive advantage, or unfairly criticized teammates in public -- something like that.

As with ethics, when we talk about "sportsmanship," we are talking about someone's character and actions, but specifically in the context of sports. Here is a general definition for sportsmanship: Sportsmanship is a matter of being good (character) and doing right (action) in sports.

Given these two definitions, we see a connection between sportsmanship and ethics, that they both involve character and action -- but so what? Why do they necessarily go hand in hand?

We can get to the heart of this connection by asking one more question: How many unsportsmanlike acts can you think of that would not be called unethical? In other words, if unethical acts are wrong because they are unfair, dishonest, disrespectful or against the rules, how many unsportsmanlike acts can you think of that aren't wrong for the very same reason?

Precisely why are unsportsmanlike acts wrong or bad?

Here's the point: The majority of acts that we consider bad in sports and call "unsportsmanlike" are bad precisely because they are unfair, dishonest, disrespectful or against the rules. They are unsportsmanlike because they are unethical.

In most cases -- and especially in the most important ones -- sportsmanship and ethics turn out to be two sides of the same coin. That coin represents our standards of right and wrong, of good and bad, of fairness and unfairness, of honesty and dishonesty, of respect and disrespect, of following and breaking the rules, among other things.

Notice that it ultimately makes no difference whether we are talking about sports or not. Most of the acts we call unsportsmanlike are going to be wrong or bad outside the sports arena as well. The same goes for sportsmanlike acts.

A cheater is a cheater. An act of respect is an act of respect. Breaking a rule is breaking a rule. A good role model is a good role model.

So, when all is said and done, we could say that "sportsmanship" is the sports world's all-encompassing word for "ethics." That being sportsmanlike is being ethical in sports. That being unsportsmanlike is being unethical in sports.

And we can better appreciate why calling someone unsportsmanlike can be just as serious as calling someone unethical; why describing someone as sportsmanlike can be just as complimentary as describing someone as a very ethical person.

We can also better appreciate why there's no concept or value more important to sports than sportsmanship. It's our foundation, our starting point. it gives us our very best reason to play fairly, to show respect to opponents and officials, and to follow the rules -- because all that is the right thing to do. The ethical thing.

With sportsmanship, we see that there's simply no escaping the ethical dimension of sports.

Without it, the game's over.

Russell W. Gough is professor of ethics and psychology at Pepperdine University. This commentary is excerpted from his recently released book, "Character is Everything," published by Harcourt Brace.

Letter to the Editor -- Put helmets on women's lacrosse players

Letter to the editor

Call it luck or the answer to prayers.

No one got killed in a recent girls lacrosse game involving two Pennsylvania high-school teams. "It was an accident," said the Radnor High School coach after the slash to the head.

Undoubtedly. But that is the point exactly -- even the best players can accidentally hit and hurt someone.

Dramatic? You bet. A life is a serious thing to waste. The solution? Helmets, because accidents do happen, nearly every game and in practice. In our game, it was a mild concussion. Tomorrow, who knows?

There were four yellow cards issued in that game, all resulting from poor decisions or accidents.

Girls' lacrosse is changing. Like other women's sports, it is faster and more physical than ever. At an increasing rate, fall soccer players are picking up lacrosse as a spring sport, or vice versa. Soccer is a quick and physical game. There is a lot of contact in playing the ball -- slide tackles, body checks, unintentional trips and shoves. Take those ingrained dynamics, better overall conditioning, the drive to win and add a weapon -- a lacrosse stick. The result is staggering.

Despite outstanding officiating, those four yellow cards issued identified only risk; they did not eliminate it. There is risk of injury in any sport. So the smart thing to do is minimize risk, not the opposite.

Safety rules should prohibit checking in congested areas and should require that the defensive player be ahead of the ball carrier. When a ball is down, one player from each team should go in to scoop it up, not a crowd shoveling their sticks at each other's faces. Better yet, alternate possession when a dropped ball creates danger. Of course, the obvious safety provision is wearing helmets.

There is resistance, however. "We don't need helmets. They'll ruin the game, make it more like boys' lacrosse."

Not true. Checks to the head are illegal, and called, in boys' lacrosse. The fact is that girls' lacrosse is already like a boys' game -- physical and dangerous, but with no protection. Helmets reduce unnecessary risk. Helmets protect the players and preserve the best features of the game.

Be forewarned, coaches, referees and athletics administrators: The safety of the players should be our primary consideration. Anything else is negligence.

Otherwise, our luck might run out.

Mary Brown
Rosemont-Villanova Civic Association Sports Program
Wynnewood, Pennsylvania

Opinions -- Chancellor blunt in opposing pay-for-play philosophy

David Ward, chancellor
University of Wisconsin, Madison

Discussing whether college athletes should be paid:

"Absolutely not. That's where we would abandon the idea of college athletics. At that point you go to farm teams and people should decide whether or not they want to go to college or not, or if they should go directly into athletics. If we come to that, that will be a parting of the ways. I am speaking personally. That would change absolutely the fundamental nature of college athletics....

"That's what makes it college athletics, providing the opportunity, if they are that talented and that able. We...provide them with the education, which may be the best piece of insurance they have. I believe it's a collective property. You can argue that we do the same with the reputation of our faculty.

"There are things we obtain...that are largely built on the reputation of our faculty who receive no recompense for that. I'm not sure the relationship between private talent, public recognition and the corporate reward are not that different."

Warren Goldstein, professor
State University of New York, Old Westbury

"Despite a raft of regulations, the NCAA is next to useless because it has never had the will or the power to enforce genuine amateurism. The truth is that no important--read powerful--interest group really wants amateur college sports. Not alumni, who want most to see winning teams. Not TV networks, which will only pay to broadcast first-rate sports. Not sponsors, who want the broadest audiences. Not most of us fans, who tune in to watch the best games.

"And certainly not colleges and universities themselves, which want mostly to avoid penalties and make as much money as possible. What about faculty? Faculty lost control of college athletics -- and, as a result, of their colleges -- a century ago.

"If colleges want to field winning teams to boost their reputations, why not let them? If young men and women want to play professional sports during what could be their college years, why not let them? By earning salaries now, they share in the proceeds of what they create. Colleges won't like this part, since they are currently free to make millions of dollars off the exploits of athletes whose 'salary' consists only of scholarships, and they are protected from potentially ruinous bidding wars for top high schoolers. But what's fair about the current system?

"College officials pretend that they are genuinely interested in the intellectual development of their top athletes, when what they really want is to field winning teams. What educational process is served by athletes being passed along by teachers?

"In the athletes' defense, how can they be expected to respect the classroom when they see it, rightly, as an obstacle to more practice time? With the money young athletes would make, they should be able to afford a real college education in the off-season or when their playing careers are over. Students who want to be in a classroom learn a whole lot more.

"Some would be bothered by this dramatic severing of the link between college sports and a college education, perhaps on behalf of the genuine scholar athletes. But there are very, very few such people at the top levels of their sports--far too few to justify an entire system that necessarily breeds hypocrisy and outright corruption."

Desmond Thomas, football player
Duke University

"There is no question students should play collegiate sports for the love of the game, and the chance to get an education. But some expense money should be included -- $100 a month would be adequate. Something is better than nothing.

"University presidents have the power to make a change. Each year, they vote on NCAA rules, maintaining the status quo. College athletes have no labor union to protect them from exploitation.

"The real victims of this system are the honest athletes who come from middle- and low-income families and have no source of money during college. It's downright cruel to keep an out-of-state player from visiting home for Christmas because he or she cannot afford to travel.

"We want economic freedom. The solution is simple. Either pay us enough to cover all college expenses with the profits we earn or allow us to be employed.

"Our scholarship status should not limit our quality of life."

Foreign athletes

Jack Bauerle, swimming coach
University of Georgia

"I think the foreign athlete has become an integral part of athletics in the United States. Anybody that has a problem with it has a real parochial way of thinking. I don't have any qualms with helping an athlete become better....

"It's a good education for our American athletes to be around foreign athletes. There are a lot of American athletes over in Europe this summer participating in events that they might not have gotten a chance to participate in if it weren't for the contacts they made with our foreign athletes."

Grover Hinsdale, track and field coach
Georgia Institute of Technology

"You've got to understand that the number of men's track scholarships in this country took the biggest hit of any of the sports by far. First, we had unlimited scholarships, and then it was cut to 22, and then 14 and now we have a maximum of 12.6.

"I'm not interested in taking any opportunity away from foreign athletes, but my personal feeling is (a scholarship) should be used to develop American talent. There are other avenues in foreign countries that could be used to send their athletes over here to train, but the various federations aren't spending a dime, and yet their athletes are being developed in the best system in the world.

"Then they go home and put on the uniform for their country and compete against us."

Carl Lewis, track and field athlete

"I'm a complete believer in open borders...people should be able to come and go to college. But we give so many scholarships to foreign athletes that it's taking opportunity (away) from American athletes. It's going to be very hurtful. It already has shown that."