Deadspin writer skewers John Beilein
I think this Laura Wagner person should hear from Michigan fans. Blaming John Beilein for the problems in college basketball is laughable:
https://deadspin.com/if-john-beilein-is-such-a-good-person-why-was-he-a-col-1834763261
I also hate that college athletes are forced to sign their LOI at gunpoint.
If you don't want to play college hoops, just don't do it. Spend your time playing playground ball, that way you won't be exploited.
This is such a bad argument it's hard to believe people still make it.
Imagine if Google constructed a system where its workforce received a fixed stipend, food, and room and board. Let's say the stipend was 25k / year. Should Google employees be happy, per your argument?
You'd probably say "no! there should be an open and free labor market! one in which employees can take their specific skills (in this case, computer programming) and seek out the best pay, etc." Or something like that.
Yet, in this case, you personally conclude "this is enough compensation".
Meanwhile, coaches profit directly off the backs of these players, making ridiculous amounts of money. Schools profit, making ridiculous amounts of money. Conference executives profit, making ridiculous amounts of money. And TV networks profit, making ridiculous amounts of money.
What is it about this market that makes you think that it shouldn't be free and open like other labor markets should be? Because it's a better deal than you received for school?
" What is it about this market that makes you think that it shouldn't be free and open like other labor markets should be? "
It is.
Every basketball player can play professional basketball directly out of high school if they can find a team willing to sign them.
They've just largely decided that the compensation from universities is BETTER than the compensation they'll make from the available professional leagues.
Uh, not really, thanks to NBA collective bargaining agreement. I guess you side step that by saying "available" professional leagues - ugh.
This type of thing is why unions get created; those in power are profiting at ridiculous rates (coaches, ADs, conference commissioners, TV networks, schools, etc.) and yet everybody gets up in arms when someone says that the kids driving the entire thing should be able to profit off of their own images(!).
"They pay the kids enough" you say. And yet, why don't you say that when they pay the coaches another few million? Or the AD? Or Jim Delaney? Aren't they paid "enough"?
Imagine if Google constructed a system where its workforce received a fixed stipend, food, and room and board
Hilarious.
Google is doing exactly that.
All these narratives are driving me crazy.
In the NBA, you get to coach the greatest basketball players on earth. He damn well may coach Zion next season too.
It's just a better lifestyle. People are overanalyzing this like crazy
Admittedly I could only read to the first dumb question she posed before I stopped reading. Beilein is a great person and this writer should be ashamed of herself
I read Deadspin everyday but its 80% pretentious garbage. And there's a ton of anti-Michigan sentitment on there. This whole article misses the point and smears Beilein just to be mad at the NCAA. The title itself suggests a lazy claim to guilt by association.
Beilien did lose his 'unpaid workforce' - I don't think he wants them to continue to be unpaid (in fact he goes out of his way to help his early entries ready for the pros). But its' exhausting to have to re-recruit positions each spring to fill spots that he already filled years ago. He doesn't have to do that in the pros. And they take aim at him for being highly paid in a profession in which all of the coaches are highly/over paid - blaming the man for the sins of the system.
It also doesn't highlight one thing he's done wrong that would make him a bad guy. THis is trash.
The writer suffers from a lack of basketball IQ. She's a little out of her element. She actually is ignorant of how Beilein is distinct from other NCAA coaches.
Her point is that it doesn't actually matter how Beilein is distinct from other coaches because those differences do not get at the fundamental injustice -- athletes not being fairly compensated for their labor. Yes, he's a great guy, yes he doesn't freak out on his players like Izzo, yes, he doesn't cheat. But he's still a cog in an immoral system, and "not cheating" means "not finding ways to give players money to compensate them for their labor."
i missed the point because she shouldn't be writing about basketball. it's a hastily thrown together compilation of quotes and talking points. also she makes no such distinction between beilein and izzo.
She's not writing about basketball. She's writing about labor rights as they pertain to college basketball.
i get your point but that is not a labor rights article. deadspin is not my go-to for labor rights
"This person shouldn't be writing about basketball" is certainly one way of admitting one's own failures of comprehension.
In your defense, most of the takes in this thread are even more embarrassing.
you folks need to read more if a deadspin article is your idea of good writing, let alone the champion of labor rights. jesus.
1) I'd make an aggressive wager that David Roth is better at writing than you are or ever will be at anything.
2) Refusing to own a mistake (here, the gross misreading of an article), in a situation with exactly zero actual stakes, does not reflect well on your character, nor does deflecting away from that mistake through a string of petty insults.
David Roth is not the author of the posted article. get fucked trash
edit: i actually had to google david roth. LOL
you folks need to read more if a deadspin article is your idea of good writing
I understand that it isn't a strong suit, but if you can't comprehend your own writing, you might look for a different way to vent.
try arguing to the points, mr. reading comprehension. i have an english degree and a juris doctorate backing my writing up. you've made no intelligent contribution on the analysis of posted article.
You: Try arguing to the points.
Me: My point is that you grossly misread the initial article and have followed up with further failures of comprehension and argumentative misdirections.
You: I HAVE A JD
yeah you're bad at this. what youre referring to is subjective analysis and not comprehension, champ
The coup de grâce of logic and wit. I submit.
Yeah you're right but its still a bogus argument. She's basically trashing Beilein because the NCAA is corrupt. He did everything right and followed the rules in a game in which NOBODY else does. It's like he was pro cycler who never doped and left the sport because it was exhausting to continue to compete while following the rules and she's upset that he didn't change the system from within. It's weak.
Her whole argument is: I'm mad because players should be paid and the NCAA is bad. John Beilein was an NCAA coach. John Beilein is bad.
Yeah, exactly. Even if you agree with the final destination of her argument, the path she takes to get there is ludicrous. Painting Beilein as a guy who enslaved kids to make millions for himself and then left in a huff when the kids tried to free themselves is completely unfair. He tried doing the right thing and played by the rules in a system that is now totally corrupt. The article is garbage and it makes me sad that anyone would publish it, especially unchecked.
This is exactly how I read it. She even insinuates that he used his players and that their choices (leaving early) and the new college rules are why he left. What a bunch of garbage. Every interview I have ever seen with Beilein he always promoted the players doing what is right for them.
I understand the argument for paying players and I understand the value of a free education, tutors, amenities, coaching, and athletic development these players get. I also find it crystal clear that she has her agenda and nothing else. In the SI article she is quoting, there is a section that talks about the fact that when there are finals coaches can't hold practice, yet the players can work out with NBA scouts at the school facilities at that same time. She leaves everything out that doesn't fit her message.
This isn't a simple issue and she flat out doesn't know what she is talking about and is picking select moments from multiple sources to fit her agenda and paint the picture she wants to paint.
Jesus, that's some pro-level hot-takin', right there. what a steaming pile of horseshit.
also - "supposedly clean?" fuck right off.
Did she mention the part where those free laborers like Duncan Robinson and Caris Levert went from lowly regarded to NBA rosters making at least six-figures?
Not wanting to cheat =/= liking the status quo. There seems to be confusion going around about this.
Wow talk about thin skin, I tweet a light hearted jab in response, and gets blocked. O well
I wrote a response on the article site and it won't post / show up. "Journalism" today my friend.
Left a GIF saying that she "tried"...got blocked as well.
She quotes...wait for it: MICHAEL ROSENBERG.
’Nuff said
She quotes him by way of relentlessly skewering his take. Jesus, these reactions.
and "blue-pilled cuck" is your idea of an intelligent reaction
The reading comprehender has logged on. Kudos, sir.
man who uses "cuck" regularly has words
This is cute. Cooley Law must be extremely proud. BTW, and I know that context is hard, but when you were very non-pathetically looking through my comment history, did you happen to notice the context in which I used the word "cuck"? Was my expression by any chance derisive of people who un-ironically employ "cuck" as insult?
you sound like a valuable contributor to the community. welcome
Being a college basketball coach does not disqualify an individual from being a good person. To suggest or imply otherwise (see her title) is as disingenuous as the bullshit term "student athlete."
She's pretty spot on-- the response by most here seem to be lots of feelings getting hurt and not too many good arguments to counter her piece.
It's interesting to have her frame it in the way she did, I like most have always parroted the "Beilein is a good man" and left it at that without further examination. I think the crux of what the author poses is whether or not running a 'clean' program is actually a noble thing when the way labor is set up under the NCAA is inherently exploitative, along with the arbitrary year basketball athletes have to wait in order to get paid the money their labor is actually worth. People like John Beilein who play by the rules yet become millionaires on the backs of their athletes unpaid at worst to underpaid at best labor should be at the vanguard of fighting for a fairer system to the athletes.
Getting tuition, room and board etc pales in comparison to the millions some of these kids should be making if they were able to actually participate in the 'free market' which so many of us Americans seem to be so fond of.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic about "Getting tuition, room and board etc pales in comparison to the millions some of these kids should be making if they were able to actually participate in the 'free market' which so many of us Americans seem to be so fond of. "
Assuming you're not, I would argue that free tuition, board and normal college life expenses already make these athletes highly-privileged compared to the rest of the student population. That they have a choice which school to attend is their "free market". The "millions" you refer to only derives from a ridiculous cable/media monopoly that parasitically rent-seeks from tens - if not hundreds - of millions of people who don't care about college sports. Maybe only .01% of athletes, even in just football and basketball, would warrant such a notional market value.
"Your argument must be a joke. But in case it isn't, here are some transparently terrible rebuttals."
That athletes get perks unavailable to the general student body, that they have (limited, viz transfer rules) choices among schools, or that cable bundling fees are somehow unfair(?) are all immaterial. The point is that the organizations that control players' labor make *enormous* sums of money while systematically denying the players' any opportunity to bargain for a share of that money. Are high-profile NCAA players the moral equivalent of 1890s textile workers? No. Are they systematically denied compensation commensurate to their labor's market value? Absolutely undeniably.
My main argument is that the schools and the media should not be making enormous sums of money in the first place. This is why we're paying our cable bills *AND* being forced to endure a ton of advertising.
I don't think college players are being denied their "market value," (very, very few would be worth millions/year) but you can't have an tenable, competitive (even if illusory) league where some schools can afford to play high salaries and the teams they play against cannot.
But it isn't that simple. As I mentioned above it is a complex issue. You simply break it down to players getting paid and Beilein making millions off the backs of their athletes. He is providing a huge service to many of these athletes. Developing them and putting them in a position to show off their talents. You simply can't ignore that or the benefits the players receive. Beilein also has put in countless hours and time prior to WVU and Michigan that I am sure he made little to nothing and had a massive impact on athletes lives then.
I get it, the players are not compensated based on their talents and what they bring to the table. This is common with lots of people in lots of positions all over the country. It is not unique to college basketball. The world is not a fair place and hopefully the NCAA can figure out a solution here. They should to save the sport and help players.
Lastly, do you know where John stands on the paying players? Does anyone have a quote out there from him? I can't find one. I don't know where he stands. It is unfair to cast him in that kind of light.
I stopped trying to post my brilliant rebuttal once I read that it could post tweets from my account. Huh?
Meh. I was prepared for outrage and ended up being untroubled. I agree with her overall take on the college athletics cartel.
I liked Beilein but this last part of her article resonated with me a little bit:
Coaches would be nothing without players. If Beilein found himself suffering headaches because his players were eager to leave an exploitative system and seek fair compensation for their work, he had the ability to work to change that system from within. Instead, he decided to go and do something else.
That portion of the narrative, if that's what she said (I have not read it) lacks realism, because Beilein doesn't have any magic powers to change the system from within.
It's tempting to think that strong leaders, who care, can change an entire system. How I wish that were true. Beilein is one coach who marches in a parade pretty much all by himself. That he has done as well as he has, shows his competence. He's done well for Michigan. But he can't be held responsible for college basketball.
In the very basic of senses she's right, but it's such a surface level argument she's making. The whole Gizmodo enterprise loves to rip Amazon for all of their poor business practices, yet every third post is a link to a deal they offer on Amazon. Now, she could go somewhere else and write, one where they don't rely on ads from companies she ostensibly doesn't agree with. She could write about topics other than sports whose labor exploitations she takes issue with. But she doesn't on either front and nobody would expect that.
I think John Beilein believes in the notion of amateurism. Personally I disagree with the limitations the NCAA has placed on that term and the resulting impact it's had on players. But on balance he does well by his student-athletes and that shouldn't be minimized because of some amorphous "he could have done even more" argument.
Her point on the unfairness of the NCAA system is valid; her anger at Beilein as emblem of that and the writers and fans who admire him for sticking with the rules is misplaced. The author seems to think that if you are not committed to the somewhat radical cause of unlimited payments to the players you are somehow an evil emblem of the NCAA oppressors. Who knows what Beilein's true wishes are, but I don't think you should fault him for operating within the rules of the system. He can at least point to his steadfast commitment to following NCAA rules as a point in favor of his integrity compared to the coaches who are getting cash to players through shady middlemen, or compensating the players in tattoos, hookers, and other sketchy ways.