One and Done Rule: Eliminate It!

• ernest_t_bass

  

  Eliminate the rule, or start paying these players to play. NBA talent belongs in the NBA. If you want them to "grow up" and learn about life, develop something in the NBA to do this. The players that are only going to go to college for a year hurt the college game more than they help it. Yes, the athleticism goes WAY up, but here is how it hurts:
  
  1) Lots of teams focus recruiting on these high level players and not on 4-Year players.
  2) NBA game (where these kids belong) is now creeping into the college game, at a horny rabbit's pace.
  3) These colleges are making TONS of money (probably millions) off of these high profile players.
  - Imagine if Lebron James went to OSU for one year. Can you imagine the MILLIONS of $$$ they would make off of his name? And he would get NOTHING! Turner gets a full scholarship, but he doesn't even sniff the amount of money that OSU makes off his name. Sad.
  
  /rant
• SportsAndLady

  

  Yeah, you make it either straight to the pros, or 2-3 years out of high school...I still can't decide whether it should be 2 or 3. See in college football, it makes perfect sense for 3, because it takes a year or two out of high school to adapt to high level of football and to get bigger, stronger, faster.
  
  In college basketball, soon as they graduate high school, you really only need a year or two MAYBE. The John Walls, DeMarcus Cousins, etc. you just send to the NBA so you don't have to worry about them. But the players who needs a couple years you gotta make em stay 2 or 3.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  You shouldn't MAKE them do anything, unless you pay them, or they get a % of what the college made off of you when you leave. Failure is a part of life. If the kids want to go to the pros and fail, it's THEIR fault. If you are going to "make" them stay 2-3 years, then pay them. If you want to make a rule in the NBA where NO ONE straight from HS allowed, then send them to the D-League, and PAY THEM! Would help the D-League out a lot.
• SportsAndLady

  

  They are getting paid..it's called a full scholarship.
  
  Are you gonna pay pre-med students, because they are made to stay in school for 4 years?
  
  Fact is, the NCAA needs to have some say in the situation; they are giving the kids a choice, either go to the professional level, or go to college...now since you are in college, and well we are in charge of running this, you have to follow our rules. And our rules say, just like in any other field, you have to stay in college for a minimal time.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  The NBA made the rule, there is nothing the NCAA can do about it.
• Prescott

  ernest_t_bass wrote: You shouldn't MAKE them do anything, unless you pay them, or they get a % of what the college made off of you when you leave. Failure is a part of life. If the kids want to go to the pros and fail, it's THEIR fault. If you are going to "make" them stay 2-3 years, then pay them. If you want to make a rule in the NBA where NO ONE straight from HS allowed, then send them to the D-League, and PAY THEM! Would help the D-League out a lot.

  I agree 100%.They should be allowed to apply for the draft whenever they want to.
• SportsAndLady

  

  Prescott wrote:

  ernest_t_bass wrote: You shouldn't MAKE them do anything, unless you pay them, or they get a % of what the college made off of you when you leave. Failure is a part of life. If the kids want to go to the pros and fail, it's THEIR fault. If you are going to "make" them stay 2-3 years, then pay them. If you want to make a rule in the NBA where NO ONE straight from HS allowed, then send them to the D-League, and PAY THEM! Would help the D-League out a lot.

  I agree 100%.They should be allowed to apply for the draft whenever they want to.

  Coaches would HATE this rule. How are you supposed to plan for the future, recruit, etc. when you don't even know when your players are going to leave? At least with a minimum 2 years rule, they can put together a list of recruits they'll need by a specific time frame.
• centralbucksfan

  SportsAndLady wrote: Yeah, you make it either straight to the pros, or 2-3 years out of high school...I still can't decide whether it should be 2 or 3. See in college football, it makes perfect sense for 3, because it takes a year or two out of high school to adapt to high level of football and to get bigger, stronger, faster.
  
  In college basketball, soon as they graduate high school, you really only need a year or two MAYBE. The John Walls, DeMarcus Cousins, etc. you just send to the NBA so you don't have to worry about them. But the players who needs a couple years you gotta make em stay 2 or 3.

  This I would agree with. You either go pro, or you commit to the college for 2/3yrs. I'd probably say 2yrs instead of 3. But torn on this as well.
  I'd also like to see a rule similar to baseball. Where a player could go into the draft..but decide to come back or go to college.
• Prescott

  Coaches would HATE this rule.

  So what.This about the players. What right does anyone have to restrict their ability to make a living?
  
  I think there would be very few instances of a player playing one year and leaving. The NBA ready kids would go straight from high school.If an NBA ready player chose college first, he values the college experience and is likely to stay for more than one year.
• mallymal614

  I agree with Ernest. As of fan, of course I love seeing these stars play in the college game. But removing my bias aside, the rule isn't right. A 18 year old kid should have the right to play NBA ball right after high school if he is good enough.
• SportsAndLady

  

  Prescott wrote: So what.This about the players. What right does anyone have to restrict their ability to make a living?

  The same right that gives hospitals the right to say their future doctors must go to school for 8 years.
  
  It's not like this is some radical, unknown thing.
• Prescott

  The same right that gives hospitals the right to say their future doctors must go to school for 8 years.

  C'mon, that isn't close to a valid comparison. What kind of board tests does a basketball player have to pass in order to ply his trade? If that is all you got, you lose this debate.
• darbypitcher22

  

  I say go with the baseball rule.
  
  Go after your senior year of HS, or wait until after your Junior year to be drafted again
• krambman

  

  ernest_t_bass wrote: Eliminate the rule, or start paying these players to play. NBA talent belongs in the NBA. If you want them to "grow up" and learn about life, develop something in the NBA to do this. The players that are only going to go to college for a year hurt the college game more than they help it. Yes, the athleticism goes WAY up, but here is how it hurts:
  
  1) Lots of teams focus recruiting on these high level players and not on 4-Year players.
  2) NBA game (where these kids belong) is now creeping into the college game, at a horny rabbit's pace.
  3) These colleges are making TONS of money (probably millions) off of these high profile players.
  - Imagine if Lebron James went to OSU for one year. Can you imagine the MILLIONS of $$$ they would make off of his name? And he would get NOTHING! Turner gets a full scholarship, but he doesn't even sniff the amount of money that OSU makes off his name. Sad.
  
  /rant

  First thing, Turner was never going to be a one-and-done player. He became a great player and a lottery pick while at OSU.
  
  Second, you seem to be blaming the NCAA for this rule. This is NOT the NCAA's rule. It is the NBA's rule. I agree with you though. I think they should either be allowed to jump straight from high school or be required to wait at least two years after high school. One year doesn't really help anyone. Some schools have been hurt by this rule (see: Duke) because they will not recruit this type of player, but other schools have benefited from it (see: Ohio State and John Calipari) because they are willing to recruit these players. Most of the things you rants about are though the people who created the rule (NBA) couldn't care less about because it doesn't affect them any. The (seemingly) negative effects have been on the college game and they have no control over it.
• Prescott

  Go after your senior year of HS, or wait until after your Junior year to be drafted again

  I agree this would be the best for college basketball, but I don't think it is fair to the players. If they are good enough to earn a living, at any point, they should be allowed to make that living.
• SportsAndLady

  

  Prescott wrote: Go after your senior year of HS, or wait until after your Junior year to be drafted again
  
  I agree this would be the best for college basketball, but I don't think it is fair to the players. If they are good enough to earn a living, at any point, they should be allowed to make that living.

  Oh yeah, God forbid kids have to go to college for a few years before making a living...
  
  What an unknown process that would be!
• sleeper

  

  It should be like baseball, you can either go straight for high school or you have to be in college for a couple years.
  
  I personally like seeing the NBA talent in the college game, makes it more exciting and goes to show how much of a team game it really is.
• Prescott

  Oh yeah, God forbid kids have to go to college for a few years before making a living...
  
  What an unknown process that would be!

  It is irrelevant what you or I think is best for the athlete. People, in this case the athlete, should be permitted to make the choice based on what he thinks. It is his life.
• NNN

  

  It has NOTHING to do with what's all well and good for the kids involved for a few very good reasons.
  
  1) There aren't that many players (less than five) in any given year who can actually declare out of high school and be drafted.
  2) Almost every year, there are more NCAA underclassmen who declare for the draft than there are actual draft spots
  3) It is absolutely insane for a kid to be allowed to laze his way through high school for the intention of being drafted, not get drafted, and have literally nothing for a backup plan.
  
  Let's consider a kid. We'll call him "Leon". Leon demonstrates a particular basketball proficiency at an early age. By the time he's a freshman, people are talking about him being an NBA lottery pick when he's a senior. He takes the absolute minimum number of classes that he'll need to graduate high school, misses about half of those classes anyway because he feels like it, and basically hangs out when he's cutting class.
  
  Funny thing is, his game doesn't continue to develop the way it was supposed to. When he's a senior, he's no longer a lottery pick. But because he has a bare minimum GPA and no SAT/ACT scores (since he has no intention of going to college), his academic life ends at age 18. He declares, doesn't get drafted, and can't go to college. Why?
  - His family is poor and can't afford it
  - He can't get a basketball scholarship because he declared for the NBA draft
  - His grades are an abomination, so an academic scholarship is out of the question
  
  So what's Leon to do? He has absolutely no future. He's 18, has a high school diploma that's not worth the paper it's on, and has no way to advance. He has literally pissed away his entire life because the system was set up to enable exactly that to happen.
  
  Now, which is actually better for the kids? Forcing them to actually be able to get into college (and thus actually try to learn something in high school), or talking about "freedom of choice/employment/workers rights" even if it means kids like Leon get left behind?
• ernest_t_bass

  

  NNN, is that the socialistic approach to basketball?
• ernest_t_bass

  

  My biggest beef with the "rule" is that these colleges are making potential MILLIONS off these big names. Granted, there are only a few a year, but they are still banking on these kids. Examples:
  
  Jon Wall
  Derek Rose
  OJ Mayo
  Greg Oden
  (Help with some more)
  
  These players deserve to get paid more than just scholarship. I think they should be allowed to sign contracts, get an agent, and IF they make the pros, then they get a cut of what their school made while they were there.
• hoops23

  

  I'm fine with it as it is and I'm not real sure what the problem is.
• NNN

  

  ernest_t_bass wrote: NNN, is that the socialistic approach to basketball?

  We don't trust 17-year-olds to be able to drive in certain conditions, to handle tobacco responsibly, or to be able to handle alcohol. Why would we expect them to make a decision like this intelligently?
  
  Let's just get it out in the open here. Whereas most other 17- and 18-year-olds' college decisions consist of "Should I go right now, should I go later, or should I enter the workforce and ignore it entirely?" and "Where should I go?", we're asking basketball players to basically change that first question to "Should I go, or should I decide that I will never be able to go?"
  

  ernest_t_bass wrote: My biggest beef with the "rule" is that these colleges are making potential MILLIONS off these big names. Granted, there are only a few a year, but they are still banking on these kids. Examples:
  
  Jon Wall
  Derek Rose
  OJ Mayo
  Greg Oden
  (Help with some more)
  
  These players deserve to get paid more than just scholarship. I think they should be allowed to sign contracts, get an agent, and IF they make the pros, then they get a cut of what their school made while they were there.

  The hell they do. In the eyes of the law, they are no more valuable to the schools than any other player on their team. If you don't think there'd be lawsuits-a-plenty from Mike Conley or really any other player over "Oden gets all this money, but I get nothing?", then you're crazy.
  
  Plus the fact that it goes back to what it always does. An EXTREMELY small number of schools derive a benefit while everyone else struggles to get by. What's Akron's basketball revenue look like? How about Ball State? North Texas? North Carolina A&T? You're basically proposing the creation of a system whereby the richest schools would be able to pay the players while everyone else scrapes by. What 18-year-old is going to say "I can start at Akron, or I can get $15,000 to sit on the bench at UCLA. I'm going to Akron!" Hell, we see kids every single year lose their eligibility for taking a couple hundred dollars, so why wouldn't several thousand be more enticing?
  
  The NCAA DOES allow freedom of choice on the matter. If you want to see something much more restrictive, look at the Canadian Junior Leagues. They get paid to play, their school is free, and they're also drafted at age 14 or 15 and sent to live hundreds of miles away from home. A great number become alcoholics or drug addicts, to say nothing of the fact that, because the league age range goes from 15-20 (in excess of Canada's drinking age), it turns every team into a mobile frat.
• jordo212000

  

  I agree with several others... the baseball rule.
  
  If you enter the draft fine, but if you go to school you must stay 3 years
• ernest_t_bass

  

  Do you not agree that some of these universities make insane amounts of money off these players? How about the NCAA institutes a rule that no merchandise bearing any roster player's number be sold. Would that work?