Running head: MANAGEMENT IN ACTION

Management in Action- College Basketball Ethics

Chevelle Petty

BUSN105

Ivy Tech Community College

Running head: MANAGEMENT IN ACTION
2

1. The underlying problem in this case from the federal government’s perspective is the

manipulation of prospective college basketball stars. They are manipulated to choose their

college based on under the table financial gain, rather than what the college has to offer

them educationally. Those involved are not out to help the players but are out solely for

their own financial gain, and the gain of their companies and organizations (Kinicki &

Williams, 2020).

2. It makes perfect sense to me that these scandals and under the table activities would be

conducted by the assistance coaches, rather than head coaches. They can get away with

more. Head coaches are out front in the lime light. They must keep a clean ethical record to

keep their position and social status. Assistant coaches are paid less, looking for

advancement opportunities, and can make moves that will be more likely to go unnoticed.

Head coaches are already expected to have lots of interactions with prospective players

according to our reading. “Assistant coaches serve as the primary recruiters… and build

strong relationships with prize recruits.” (Kinicki & Williams, 2020), so, there is less of a

reason for outsiders to suspect foul play. I firmly believe that more head coaches are

involved than what can be proven, but they are simply not doing the leg work and keeping

their hands clean.

3. I think that the NCAA and the Commission on College Basketball should move forward to

prevent illegal behavior from occurring by tightening the penalties for illegal and unethical

activities and tracking funds better. More attention needs to be paid to funding being given

to colleges from corporate sponsors and rules need to be strict regarding what that funding

can pay for. There is no acceptable reason “tens of millions of dollars a year” (Kinicki &
Running head: MANAGEMENT IN ACTION
3

Williams, 2020) should be received and not very closely tracked by a third party. The fact

that coaches can give high school parents substantial amounts of money to secure a college

choice for their child and it go totally unnoticed is outrageous. There is no reason that

money should be able to disappear, and nobody questions it. Those in charge of funding

should have to answer for the dollars spent on their watch, and when they can’t, there

should be huge penalties for that. It appears that steps are already being taken to set a

higher standard in the future, especially considering the recent inditements.

4. I decided to address this ethical dilemma using the 2nd approach to deciding ethical

dilemmas called the individual approach. According to our book, the individual approach

focuses on that persons best long-term outcomes which are also in everyone’s self-interest

(Kinicki & Williams, 2020). From this perspective, I find that the high school recruits that

accept bribes are indeed guilty of unethical behaviors. While financial gain can seem to be

in their best interest at the time, they are taking money illegally with the agreement that

they will let that money decide what college they attend, their future careers, and their

future branding deals. If a recruit knowingly takes a bribe, its unethical. Using the individual

theory, these recruits are making poor decisions now, for immediate gains, that could cause

them to be forced into contracts and deals later that are not good for them or those around

them. The individual approach says that if you act ethically now, you can avoid being hurt

by others in the long run (Kinicki & Williams, 2020).

Running head: MANAGEMENT IN ACTION
4

Kinicki, A., & Williams, B. K. (2020). Management: A Practical Introduction. New York: McGraw Hill.