Thoughts on the ethics of medical hardships
I was like many Mgobloggers yesterday in being unhappy to learn of the acrimonious end of Ondre Pipkins’ career at Michigan but also uncertain of whether the coaching staff did anything wrong. Regardless of the specifics of Pipkins’ situation, it raises this difficult question: When is it appropriate to for a player to take a medical hardship? Edit: I presented the question I addressed below poorly. The question is: When - if ever - is it appropriate for a program to try to impose a medical hardship on a player? The analysis below is from the point of view of the school. I thought that was obvious, but it was not.
I think we can all agree that a medical hardship is appropriate when a player, his doctor(s), and the coaching staff all determine that the player cannot or should not play football again. This is the Platonic ideal of medical hardships. It doesn’t require discussion, because of what I assume to be a consensus on its propriety.
Reality rarely fits, though, so neatly into such a category. It is uncommon, as far as I know, that a player becomes incapable of playing football in the most literal sense. Antonio Bass stands out to me as the only player I know to have left Michigan while being truly unable to carry out the basic functions of a football player. We are accordingly left to sort out what a program ought to do regarding a medical hardship when faced with various shades of grey.
To help think about medical hardship situations, I refer below to an imaginary player, Player X, who plays wide receiver for State University (“SU”), a major-conference Division 1 team. When uninjured, he has the speed to be a deep threat, runs good routes, has good hands, and is a willing and capable blocker. It is realistic to believe that he can catch 75 passes for 1,200 yards. To make this all easier, assume that he is neither a positive nor a negative presence in the locker room.
To further help think about medical hardships, I list below a series of situations in which Player X suffers an increasing accumulation of injuries but – crucially – does not want to leave the team. I’ve done this because I think considering plausible scenarios – but not real players who played for schools we may like or dislike – keeps us grounded in reality but not so grounded that we make choices based on our fandom. Many injured players will not fit exactly into the situations I describe, but I believe I’ve broadly covered the possibilities.
A final thought before we start: When thinking about what SU should do when Player X has suffered an injury or injuries, we have to consider SU’s ethical duty to Player X, to its competitors, and to its own program. The need for SU to consider its duty to Player X is obvious. It may be less obvious (to an Alabama fan) that SU has to consider the rightness of its actions in relations to its competitors, but it does. A team that removes injured players from its 85 man roster more liberally than its competitors will likely have an advantage over them in terms of talent (thus the long-time complaints about Nick Saban). Finally, I think SU has at least some ethical duty to its program – its coaches, players, etc. – when considering whether to give a player a medical hardship. We can at least imagine a player or players who insist they can still play despite the fact that they have no realistic chance of contributing and who become, at the risk of being crude, dead weight that takes up reps, time in the weight room, scholarships, and fall camp slots* that could go to players who can help the team win.
*Poster Reader 71 pointed out yesterday that the NCAA limits you to having 105 total players – scholarship or walk-on – in fall camp.
All of that having been said, on to the hypothetical situations:
Situation No. 1: Player X suffers an ACL tear, and he can now realistically be expected post-recovery to catch 50 balls for 500 yards in a season.
I think the vast majority of us will agree that SU owes a duty to Player X to keep him on the team here. 50 catches for 500 yards are the numbers of a very valuable player even if they are not as good as those Player X could have produced pre-injury. And we have to assume that he still takes satisfaction of some sort in playing football. We can hardly say that he has broken any obligation to the program by “only” gaining 500 yards or that he is not still benefitting from being on the team.
I think the vast majority of us will also agree that SU would be violating an ethical duty to its competitors by pushing Player X out the door in this case if it did so to replace him with a better player. I’m not sure anyother program would cut Player X here (maybe Tom Crean if this were basketball), but we can certainly say that most would not and that pushing him out here would violate the intent of the medical hardship rule. SU, then, would at least potentially gain an unfair competitive advantage by cutting Player X to make room for, say, an all-everything high school wide receiver or an All-American wide receiver transferring from another school.
As for SU’s duty to its program in this case, Player X could possibly be replaced by a better player, but he is hardly a non-contributor. Cutting him and replacing him with a better player would improve the talent on SU’s team but also likely hurt team chemistry and player morale.
Considering all of SU’s ethical duties in this case, it’s easy to say that they should keep Player X. Using a medical hardship in this instance would be wrong.
Situation No. 2: Player X suffers yet another knee injury and can now realistically only be expected to catch 25 passes for 250 yards.
I think the vast majority of us will still agree that SU owes a duty to Player X to keep him here just as they did in Situation No. 1. The same reasoning applies despite the fact that Player X is less valuable than he was before. 25 catches for 250 yards is a nice contribution even if it likely won’t get you on an honorable mention all-conference list. It’s also still the sort of contribution a player presumably takes pride in making. Player X has not broken any duty to SU that would allow them to impose the end of his playing days, and football is likely still rewarding to him.
I think the vast majority of us will also still agree that SU owes a duty to its competitors not to cut Player X to make room for a better player in this instance. The same reasoning that applied in Situation No. 1 makes sense here. Rule-abiding teams do not get rid of guys who can catch 25 passes.
As for SU’s duty to its program here, the same reasoning applies as applied in Situation No. 1, though I think we have to concede that – all things being equal – team morale will take less of a hit when a player who catches 25 balls is pushed off the team than when a player who catches 50 balls is pushed off the team. The player with 25 catches is less obviously succeeding, and so it is easier to find logic in getting rid of him (even if that logic seems more misguided than not). And I think we have to concede that a potential replacement of the 25-catch player has a better chance of improving the production of SU’s wide receiver position than would a replacement of a 50-catch player (the replacement of the 25-catch player only has to catch 26 passes for there to be an improvement). So the team is more likely to lose out on increased production by keeping the 25-catch player than it is by keeping the 50-catch player.
Considering all of SU’s ethical duties in this second situation, it is still fairly easy to say that SU should keep Player X on its roster here. A replacement of Player X who is better than him could be found somewhat easily, but that consideration is trumped by all the others by a wide margin.
Situation No. 3: Now things get a little harder. Player X tears an Achilles. He can only be expected post-injury to catch 10 passes for 75 yards, serve as a decent blocker, and play a bit on special teams.
My guess is that Mgobloggers are somewhat divided over a case like this. I believe, though, that the reasoning of Situations 1 & 2 still applies here as far as SU’s duty to Player X. 10 catches for 75 yards is not a lot, but it’s still a contribution. And Player X made no promise when he accepted a scholarship that he would play football with any particular degree of success. He also likely feels some satisfaction in what he provides to the team.
As to SU’s duty to its competitors here, I believe it would still be an unfair competitive advantage to dump Player X in this situation. We might say that a player who is only going to grab 10 passes for 75 yards didn’t pan out, but not all players pan out. And the medical hardship rule was not designed – nor is it generally used – to allow teams to cut a player simply because he might be considered a bust.
As for SU’s duty to its program in this situation, I think we have to conclude that dropping 10-catch Player X will hurt team morale but – all things again being equal – not hurt it as much as dropping 25-catch Player X would. It is relatively easy to see 10-catch Player X as having failed and therefore to rationalize his departure. It is also the case that replacing him with a wide receiver who can out-perform him will be that much easier than it was for 25-catch Player X.
Balancing all of SU’s ethical duties here, I believe SU must keep Player X on the roster. He is not giving SU a great deal, and he could likely be replaced by someone who would help the team more. But SU would be violating the agreement it made with Player X when it offered him a scholarship to play football, robbing him of a still-rewarding experience, and gaining an unfair advantage over other schools.
Situation No. 4: Now we will certainly be divided. Player X tears a hamstring and suffers an MCL tear and ACL tear to his other knee. He is capable of running routes in only the most literal sense, and he is a poor blocker. He gives 100% effort at all times, but he produces no more than a good intramural player off the street could.
SU’s duty to Player X in this instance is difficult to pin down. They offered him a scholarship to play D1 football. He can now do so in a literal sense, but he will never contribute to a win. We could thus arguably say that Player X now has – through no fault of his own – reached a point at which he is failing to live up to his end of the scholarship-for-play bargain. And it also becomes fair to question how rewarding football could still be for Player X, though it is ultimately only Player X who can make that determination.
SU’s duty to its competitors here is also hard to determine. Is the medical hardship rule generally taken to mean that a player like Player X can be pushed into leaving the roster? My sense is that it is, and this is partly informed by posts by Reader 71, who played at Michigan.
SU’s duty to its program, when considered in isolation, points toward pushing Player X to take a medical hardship. Every practice rep that he takes could go to a player who might help the team win. And his scholarship could be used for a player who could help the team win. There would presumably be some morale loss by pressuring him into a medical hardship, but it would be relatively easy for players to rationalize this action.
When balancing the above considerations, I still lean toward believing SU would be wrong to force Player X to take a medicalhardship. As I noted regarding Situation No. 3, Player X never promised to play football with any particular success. And we have to assume that being on the team is still rewarding for him even if an outside observer might question that, because the cost to him of staying on the team in terms of time and energy spent is very high. He is being rewarded – at least in a subjective sense – by remaining on the roster, or he is self-destructive, and we have no right to assume the latter.
SU seemingly wouldn’t gain a competitive advantage by cutting Player X, and the program as a whole would benefit from removing him from the roster. But my instinct – and I admit this is a conclusory statement – is that SU’s ethical duty to Player X is more important than its ethical duty to the rest of its program within the context of considering his scholarship. I do not feel particularly strongly about this, though, and readily admit that I may be discounting the wellbeing of the program as whole.
Another thought: The question of whether Player X has a duty to his teammates to take the medical hardship here is an interesting one, though one I don’t have time to take up.
Situation No. 5: Player X suffers multiple concussions, a neck injury, or something similarly serious. He can play post-recovery, but his doctors tell him he is at risk of experiencing a lifetime of unpleasant and debilitating symptoms if he endures another injury of the same type.
I believe SU is free to take a paternalistic approach here and tell Player X that, while he is free to transfer and risk his health with another program, they are not going to watch him leave the field on a cart in an SU uniform. If the coach of SU wants no part of Player X having to spend years sitting in a dark room because, like former New York Jet Al Toon, he becomes dizzy and experiences terrible pain if he stands or sees light, then the coach is free to tell Player X that he has to play elsewhere if he is to play at all.
If SU is willing to keep Player X on the roster, then I think they at least owe him a duty to explain to him the potential risks and the potential rewards of continuing to play football. Perhaps a potential top-10 pick could rationally choose to continue to play even if he faced, say, a 25% chance of paralysis. But he should make that decision with as must information as possible.
There is no problem here as far as SU’s duty to its competitors. A great many programs would, I think, push Player X into a medical hardship here.
As far as the program as a whole, the question hinges in part on how well Player X can play. Can he still gain 1,200 yards? Then the program obviously benefits from keeping him around. Can he only gain 75 yards? Then the program might gain by being rid of him. But regardless of his remaining ability, it is worth considering the potential damage to the program in terms of morale and image that would result from having a player seriously hurt (consider the Shane Morris incident last year).
The issue of how well Player X can play, though, is very small in relation the potential that he suffers a debilitating injury. The consideration that dwarfs all others is whether he ought to risk his health in order to gain from remaining on the team and potentially playing professional football.
Summary: This isn’t an easy issue. Some cases will be black and white, but the right answer is often unclear – and arriving at it requires a good deal of detailed information about the given situation. I lean toward believing programs should keep players on their rosters in almost all instances, but there is room for reasonable argument as to when exactly they are not required to do so. And there may even be cases in which a program should force a player to take a medical hardship.
The question is: In college football should coaches be allowed to cut players from the team that are not performing the way the coach expected (even if their scholarships are still honored)?
If the answer is yes, then there is no "oversigning" and we should all shut up about it. Coaches will bring in as many kids as they like, and cut the ones they don't think are performing the way they expected, to get to 85 positions.
If we are going to allow coaches to cut players for "performance" reasons, then it does not even matter why they are under-performing - medical reasons, physical reasons, emotional reasons, whatever. If we are going to let coaches cut players, then the reasons are secondary . . . or not even necessary. We've decided that coaches can cut players who are not "performing" to thier satisfaction.
But i the answer is no, then only doctors should be allowed to cut players, and only for medically necessary reasons. Given that, those doctors should have some kind of independence from both the team and the player when they make this decision.
Most college football coaches can, indeed, cut players from the team for non-performance - they have year-to-year scholarships. However, Michigan gives four-year scholarships, and so the coach can't cut players based on performance. I agree with you that the medical call should be independent of players and coaches, and should be based purely on the interests of the student.
I don't actually know what the rule is, or if there even is a rule.
If there is no rule and coaches can indeed cut kids, then you could actually make the case that Saban is doing these kids a favor . . . "Kid, I'm allowed to cut you but I'll medical you instead so that you still get a scholarship."
For schools / conferences that give guaranteed four year scholarships, it should be clear if that means that the kid could still be cut from the team independently of the money still coming in (via a medical).
The 105 limit applies only before classes start, IIRC. It presumably exists to prevent coaches from requiring potential student-body walk-ons from reporting to camp before they start classes - that would represent a hardship for them, since they'd have to pay rent, etc before strictly necessary.
Well, if what you are suggesting is that a coach would put a player in a position to aggravate an injury so that the player could be "medicaled out," then that would be unethical under any circumstances.No, I never implied that a coach would do any action with the intent that a player be injured and thus "medicaled out." I don't know where you would get that, and why would the coach do that, just medical the player now. But a coach might more inclined to put at risk a game-changing player in order to have a better chance to win some games. That I did imply in the further above post, and the intent isn't to injure the player, but to win games. And that is the problem with the OP in that by taking into consideration what a player can contribute to the team as a factor in whether to give a medical hardship (and that is the basis of the OP and all of the different scenarios). And that is VERY different than the risk/reward consideration a player might take in whether it is worth the risk of injury with the reward being a NFL draft pick.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
A kid should be medicaled only if he is physically unable to perform or if playing presents a real threat to the long-term health of the individual. An right to appeal to an independent medial panel would clean up much of the abuse or conflict that is in the system today.
You're right, he probably isn't. He is not going to hurt himself if he keeps playing. Pipkins might.
A medical necessity should not be "can't perform very well" though, it should be "we are protecting this kid's life and future".
If you think that coaches should be able to cut players from the team because they are not performing very well and can't contribute to the team in a meaningful way, for whatever the reason, then that's fine. But it should up front and not be hidden behind some medical excuse.
I agree with your general point here, but even making it a dichotomy I think Hatch is almost certainly a unique circumstance that shouldn't have any bearing on any other case or necessarily reflect Beilein's position on medicals.
I'm with you that there's not a lot of nuance deciding whether a coach can ethically cut a player, but the Hatch situation is an extreme exception and actually nuanced.
Yeah, Hatch was probably a bad example. it shows how much gray area there is.
to decide who is healthy enough to practice and play for his team. If a player has suffered sufficient injuries that he can no longer contribute, the coach has no responsibility to put him on the field. At this point, absent aggregate data, I'm willing to believe this is the case here, especially with the concussion history.
But how is that any different than this wording:
It is absolutely true that the coach has no obligation to play a given player. However, the school has an obligation to keep the student on scholarship unless medical necessity dictates otherwise. The contract between the student and school stipulates what the student has to do to maintain his athletic scholarship, and nothing in that contract refers to performance or contribution.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
It's definitely a lot more comments than most diaries get.
but an athletic scholarship is NOT contingent upon a certain level of play, unlike an academic scholarship being contingent upon maintaining a certain level of scholarship (ie, GPA).
If the student-athlete is in good academic standing, hasn't violated the code of conduct rules or team rules then those are the breaks if he doesn't perform as well athletically as projected.
Therefore, why should "We could thus arguably say that Player X now has – through no fault of his own – reached a point at which he is failing to live up to his end of the scholarship-for-play bargain." even enter into it?
The more this becomes the way college sports operates, the more I agree that they should be paid. Because if you are going to manage the roster like a pro team, then pay them.
I may be of a different opinion than some people on here, but I feel it is a good idea to do one year scholarships, especially at schools like Michigan where there is so much scrutiny on high performance. So many fans complain about the team not meeting expectations, and sometimes kids just don't turn out to be as good as people thought.
The kids should be rewarded for their ability to play. If this was the norm, then there wouldn't need to be grey areas regarding unnecessary medicals. You would just discontinue the person's scholarship if they are not good enough to play. In this instance, the kid can go to a different college and be able to play if they are in fact good enough to play at a lower level.
We put such a big emphases on winning at the highest level and sometimes it is in fact coaching that needs changed. However, when coaching is not the cause, to have the ability to replace an athlete with another more suited for your level of play would be more beneficial.
Just another wrinkle to throw out, medical prognoses are often very difficult to do without a pretty wide range of outcomes. And for someone like a D-lineman who weighs over 300 lbs. and whose knee is going to be subjected to a frequency and level of torquing that most people wouldn't encounter, it has to be even more difficult.
So in many of these cases it's not like there is a single, definitive medical conclusion that every or even most doctors would come to.
For players facing the possibility of having to consent to the end of their athletic careers, it absolutely should be the standard that they receive a very comprehensive assessment that includes perspectives from a wide array of practitioners. The enormity of the situation is too much for the outcome to be left in the hands of just one specialist.
That said, physicians such as anatomical pathologists, radiologists specializing in musculoskeletal imaging, and (most notably) physiatrists should be providing their input. Then after gathering all the information, some sort of independent medical committee could reach a verdict.
........I feel it's all about opportunity.
Was the player afforded the opportunity he was promised when he was offered?
Player A is a freshman, shows up on campus and the team doctor diagnoses a problem. Instead of immediately talking "medical" I think a team needs to invest that first year on rehab to see if he can get healthy, if he does the kid will still have 4 years of eligibility.
To try to get an 18year-old to give up dream of playing college football without them getting even a year is not giving an opportunity.
Player B is a junior has only 1 season of eligibility left, has appeared in over 20 games without having much impact and now he's got chronic injuries in the knees. I mean it would be nice if they had the room for him to burn a year on redshirt but that's not really worth it for one season.
Still, he got his opportunity it just didn't work out.
hardship on a player by saying they're just trying to free up scholarships while at the same time, you try to take a coach's side when it's your team that you root for.
Yes, some are shady with it, but you don't know the whole story.
I agree that we don't always have the whole story, but when Alabama is putting 12 kids* on Medical and every other team is 0-2, then the data does the talking.
http://mgoblog.com/content/evaluating-mike-slives-oversigning-proposal
but for fans to jump into conclusion without fully knowing the other side of the story is dumb.
Again, all concussions are not created equal. Mild concussions (headache, brief dizziness) are different from severe concussions (loss of conciousness, "seeing stars," vomiting, etc). Unfortunately, we don't know exactly what that means, but we do know that people who suffer severe concussions are likelier to suffer severe concussions while recovering than people who aren't recovering.
So, I'd agree hat playing with two previous severe concussions might not be a bad idea, I'm not sure we can say the same about two previous mild concussions.
The same dark shadow lingers over NCAA teams and their respective futures today.
The NFL collects about 9 billion revenue each year currently. Major college football takes in approximately the same amount. Where there is money there will be lawsuits.
After the Shane Morris incident, I wouldn't be surprised if an insurance expert actually drove the conclusion that Ondre Pipkins needed to leave. Suspected brain injuries at Michigan will no longer be granted leeway as perhaps they once were. I believe that Ondre Pipkins is among the first of many similar decisions.
Litigation mitigation. That's the proper context.
my take on this is completely sabanesque or aligned with SEC thinking. If you receive an academic scholly you have to maintain a minimum GPA to retain it, or if you are faculty and get a grant you have to show results otherwise it's taken away. Many professionals today such as lawyers, doctors, accountants are hired as at will employees or independent contractors and can be let go for any reason. This is today's world, no guarantees, perform or you're gone. Why should adult football players in college be insulated from real world dynamics? They are receiving a 6 figure education in return for performance on the field, if the coach or boss thinks someone doesn't fit or is underperforming then they need to go period. These are not 10 year olds you are coddling trying to develop confidence. These are adults getting a free premier education hoping to parlay this opportunity into something more lucrative in the NFL. Part of the reality of getting this opportunity is that if they don't live up to expectation they shouldn't be entitled to the benefits.
that this is still amatuer athletics. If we allow something like this to happen than the less that it feels this way.
What's being described here would end up being a total free for all. You'd end up having teams trying to sign as many guys as they could get their hands on. They'd all be rotating thru players as fast as they could in hopes of building the very best roster not only for this season but for future years as well.
A kid comes to play college football and he busts his ass for a couple years in the weight room and on the practice field. He also puts in all time working hard in the class room as well trying to earn his degree (remember this is what CFB will be about for 95% of the players).
The school ends up hitting on a few recruits that end up playing the same position as the above example. So when this guy becomes an upperclassmen and the writing on the wall becomes clear he's not ever going to play meaningful time, you're okay with booting him off the team? Even though this guy has been a model teammate/student and has done all that's been asked of him but talent wise he didn't live up to the expectations of the coaches who offered him a scholarship years earlier when he was in high school?
All of the responsibility is on the kid (key word) and none of it is on the staff for missing on a recruit? Most of these guys moved thousads of miles away from their homes and have to deal with the pressures of everyday life of a CFB player. This would add even more pressure here.
This is the point where most of these players football careers will end. Why not at least give them all a 4-5 year commitment in return for all that they give to this great sport.
Comments