Gary Brown ponders the different phases of winning and losing.

University of Indianapolis Athletics Director Sue Willey used to teach a sports ethics class that among other topics focused on the four "phases" of winning. At the top is playing to your potential and winning, and at the bottom is the reverse. Then there are the two in the middle - you play to your potential and lose or you don't play to your potential and win.

All of us - from student-athletes to coaches to administrators to fans - would prefer our teams to play their best and grab the W, but what would be the second option? For how many of us does "playing to your potential" come before winning?

It's an interesting question, and it may depend on who's answering. For example, I'm a Tennessee Lady Vol basketball fan. In their national semifinal against LSU, neither team played to its potential, but did that matter to me after Tennessee's Alexis Hornbuckle tipped in a last-second shot to send the Lady Vols to the national championship game? No. They won. I was happy. 'Nuff said.

Would the players and coaches say the same thing? The school administrators? Would anyone rather they had lost just because they didn't play to their potential?

My guess is no, but whatever happened to the saying "It's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game?"

Now I know that statement is more of a motivational mantra than a hard-and-fast rule, but does such desire to win lead to being OK with winning at all costs (which prompts cheating and other nefarious means)?

Everyone likes to win, but I wonder if we all need to take Sue Willey's sports ethics class just as a refresher. If I were to do so, I'm not sure which of the two middle options I would choose - as a fan, probably the latter.

Which would you pick?