Spm

1. Eitzen (2016) identifies the effects that positive or negative leadership can have on the behavior of athletes. He highlights several instances in which coaches encouraged athletes in their charge to engage in acts of deviance.
Eitzen (2016) also addresses acts of “retribution” for behaviors or plays that defy implicit “codes” or “traditions” in a sport. The acts of retribution might fall into a grey area of deviance in sport, because they are often part of the sport’s culture (e.g., an “enforcer” in hockey).
View the video clip of a youth softball game.
https://youtu.be/YYkWhtkAA9E

In the clip, it is alleged that the coach instructs the players to engage in unsportsmanlike behavior.
DAY 1: In your first posting to this question, please respond to the following questions:
a) What is your opinion of acts of “retribution” for plays that violate the implicit codes or traditions in sport? Do they have a place in sport; do they serve a role in supporting traditions?
b) Do you think the act in the video can be considered an act of retribution? Support why or why not.
c) How does this incident reflect the impact of leadership on character development of athletes? What might be the outcomes for the players in this scenario?

2. Often, the public associates deviant behavior with individuals or teams, but Eitzen (2016) identified that academic scandals can represent deviant behavior by an organization. Eitzen (2016) contends that “… the temptations are great … to find illicit ways to keep [athletes] eligible (phantom courses, surrogate test-takers, altered transcripts)” (p. 77). This form of deviance affects more than just individuals and teams, but can have dire consequences for the organization, and for the institution of sport as a whole.
In the case of academic fraud at the University of North Carolina (see more information here), the allegations and effects are still under investigation.
In this recent clip of coach Williams discussing the case against UNC, the topic is the impacts on the basketball program and how it has suffered in recruiting players. Watch the video of Williams’ press interview. https://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article142322134.html

Williams separates the basketball program from the allegations of academic fraud levied against the University, and addresses the difficulties he has had in recruiting since the story broke; the interview doesn’t address any effects that the fraud had on the athletes or other students, nor on the university.
DAY 1: In your first posting to this question, please respond to the following questions:
a) If the coaches and institutions are incentivized to keep thier player eligible, at what level should cases of academic fraud (deviance) be managed? In other words, is this an issue that needs to be addressed with players, with coaches, with administarations, with the NCAA…? What do you think can be done to stop the escalation of academic fraud when the potential pay-out might eclipse the risk?
b) Who do you believe are the victims in this case of academic fraud?
c) Should recruiting for basketball, the money-maker for the UNC athletic department, be a primary concern for the athletic department in the wake of the scandal? Why?