I beleive it should be chaged to 3 years removed from HS. If a player goes to College he is commited to the school and to get an education while he is there. If a player doesn't want to go the college route then he could go over seas to Europe or play in the NBDL which is what the NBA developed the league for initially. I think this would weed out the players that are not ready and need more development before entering the NBA and will require the players that go to College to really go to college and attend classes. It's hurting the colleges right now because as soon as the first semester is over and a player knows he's not coming back he quits going to class and doesn't worry about grades. This hurts the colleges APR which in turn could cost them Schollys. So I beleive you make it 3 years and in the long run just about everyone wins. The only ones it hurts is the small and I mean small percentage of players that are ready for the NBA right out of HS.

A while back I heard someone suggest that the NBA go the MLB route, meaning that players can be drafted out of high school, but if they go to college instead they have to wait a couple years before they are draft-eligible again. I think this an interesting alternative and would like to hear what pros and cons you come up with.

If the kid wants to go the NBA from high school, let him. That way your coaching staff is not wasting time on recruiting, also your APR is not effected.

The argument has been that youngsters who aren't ready for professional sports end up foregoing their amatuer eligibility because they receive poor advice. Conversely, however, if they are ready and receive good advice, they make millions. Perhaps the real issue is forfeiting eligibility based on a pipe dream. Perhaps the NCAA, rather than looking for some sort of intellectual purity, ought to key eligibility the actual receipt of pay for play - let the NBA draft, literally, anyone. If they don't subsequently reach a contract, they don't forfeit eligibility.

What problem is the NBA solving with this rule ? Kids can still play in Europe at almost any age w/o regard for education.

I would eliminate the NBA rule . I donot think one&done players serve the college game anyway. Personally , I like to follow a player for more than 2 seasons as we all did w DJ in the recent past. It enhances the enjoyment of the college game.

Many folks on this site keep lusting after top 20 recruits. Because I hate one&done i am just as happy w David Williams and Jordan Hulls types.

Jerry I agree, watching Hulls, Williams, Elston for 3-4 years moves me more than lusting after the one and dones like teague and our former friend of KS Lance Stephenson.

bringing up Born Ready were is he going? I know he hasn't committed but the doesn't seem to be much news about him actually picking a school

Julian...Just read an extensive article on Born Ready.....the problem is....there is some question about his amatuer status as bornready.tv may have been a money maker for the film makers which gave mony to stephenson. The other issue is, taking him and his dad, as his dad has been a problem. ANother issue is he has made it clear it is ONE and DONE ironically and some coaches don't know if it is worth all the headaches for one year.

Right now I have heard Fla. International is interested and some other school...all the big boys have been scared off.

If KS were here he would be on his way to Bloomington right now..scary

I've had this debate many times on this site, but I am one that wants plenty of top 20 recruits. I don't understand how you can be as excited over David Williams as you are someone like Irving?

I don't see any problem with big time recruits, especially if you like winning. The key is going after the RIGHT top 20 recruits. Calipari will take anyone, hence him having one and dones (although I believe he only had 3 his entire time at Memphis). Coaches like Roy Williams and Bill Self consistently have loaded classes, but also consistently have top rated recruits that stay 2-3 years, hence the championships. I don't see why we wouldn't want that?

Of course guys like Hulls and Elston have to be involved too, as I am very excited to watch them play. You have to have some role players.

As far as the NBA/1-year rule, I think the way to go is that players can go right from high school, but if they commit to college then they have to stay 2-3 years.

If they declare for the draft out of high school, don't sign with an agent, and go undrafted, then they can still go to college. Only issue with this is that it would dramatically delay the decisions of some top players and really alter the way coaches need to recruit.

My only issue with this is "how can you make someone stay for 2-3 years" unless their choice of college keeps them locked out of the NBA. That would open up a lot of lawsuits.

I would like to see minimum 2 years between highschool and the NBA which could either be filled by going to college or the developmental league. 2 years in college forces them to study for at least 1 1/2 years and those that do not want that route could do the developmental thing.

They could also add the option of being able to pull a player from the developmental league for short time exposure to the NBA with some restrictions on how long and how many times in the 2 year period.

This can all be worked out, but whatever is done it will not be perfect. The one year deal seemed pretty good at the start but after going into use the problems became obvious. In the same way any new program will have problems. It needs to be an evolving program.

I probably used a poor choice of words there. My point is that if they don't declare for the draft out of high school, then they can't declare for 2-3 years. What they'd do with those 2-3 year is up to them, college, NBDL and Europe would all be in play.

One thing a lot of people miss is that the NBDL option is currently in play. Eric Gordon could have skipped college altogether and played in the NBDL for a year before declaring for the draft. The issue is that the pay and exposure are so low in the NBDL.

BGleas, As Alex said " the D.Rose SAT/story has taken over...". It seems the media finds more about Calipari every day. Now this from ESPN..."ATHENS, Ga. -- Former University of Memphis forward Robert Dozier's initial SAT score was invalidated by the company that scores the exam, and when he took the test a second time, he scored 540 fewer points, ESPN.com has learned through an open records request".
QUESTION if IU had hired Calipari would we fans be supporting him like KY or would we be calling for his head?

Hey Craig,

I think if IU had hired Calipari and these things happened the fanbase would immediately turn on him. We questioned and turned on Sampson (rightfully so) pretty quickly.

Not sure if you were just asking me hypothetically, or if you think I would support Calipari, but he's not someone I ever wanted or would want want IU to hire.

Just clearing that up in case there was a misconception.

I agree, I think our fanbase would be screaming "OFF with his head" if
Calipari were at IU. Wonder why Kentucky has no integrity?

I agree about the type of low cue players and i also think it should be 2 years because college teaches more than just bball skills. I hope they just dont just eliminate the rule all together. But players are getting better and some dont really need college

I love college basketball more than NBA basketball, so I am completely biased towards the best players playing in college. But, I see no reason for the NBA to make them wait to come into the league. If they are good enough, they will be drafted, if not, they won't. College is supposed to a gateway to a better job. What better job is there than playing basketball for a living (my opinon)?

What I would like to see is if the kid does not get drafted, allow him to play in college. I also like the idea of at least 3 years in college if they go. It allows the university to recoup some of its investment (as minimal as it is) and it allows the fan to follow a kid for a while and take that fandom to the NBA with him. What the NCAA has become is a minor league for the NBA for one year; it ruins the APR for that team.

Ultimately, I want to see kids play in college, but I believe people should make as much money as they can when they can, because that opportunity only comes when it comes and you don't want to miss it.

I like what you're saying, Fowler. My only concern with extending the minimum time in college to three years is the risk for shenanigans on the academic side either at the HS level or once the player steps foot on campus. If an institution will bend the rules to get a kid in, what will they do once he gets there and must maintain some degree of academic integrity in order to play?

The NBA is concerned solely for protecting itself against the immaturity of young athletes who suddenly find themselves multi-millionaires. I also think there is a vested interest in having one-and-dones at elite colleges to provide the exposure for marketing the next generation of NBA superstars. This is not a college-friendly rule. It benefits the NBA much more.

I do find the MLB arguments interesting and think there are some alternatives to make this a truly palatable situation for college fans.

I think the NBA should do away with the rule or extend the age limit. I like what pro football does, which is a player can not declare hardship until after their sophmore or junior year. I can't remember which year. But the player has to stay in college until he and his body is more mature. I know basketball maybe different as far as their body being mature, but they aren't mature enough to handle the benjamin's.

Here is what I would like to see done. The NBA either totally do away with their rule or move the age limit to 20 or 21. Then college can adopt a rule of their own saying once a player signs a letter of intent he has to stay at least 3 years. If he leaves before then, he pays the university the remaining tuition. For example: If the NBA does away with their rule a player can go through the draft. But if he decides to go to college instead, he must stay 3 years. If he leaves after his freshman year, he pays the remaining 3 years of his tuition, housing, and other perks he might have. If he leaves after his sophomore year, he pays the remaining 2 years. If he leaves after his junior year, he doesn't owe anything. This way the university would get some of the revenue lost from recruiting, ticket sales, and other stuff and it could keep the player from leaving earlier if he has to pay $50,000 back to their university. I know it would be pocket change, but the real losers in all of this is the university and they would get something back.

Just my thoughts.

The rule should be eliminated as it is arbitrary and does not end any of the perceived problems it was designed to ameliorate and allows the NBA to promote itself in a false light (i.e. that it is looking out for its players and potential players, that they "care").
The rule also essentially creates a de facto farm league system by using NCAA schools as the farm league - something they should not be in the business of - but yet this rule promotes nothing substantive towards its alleged goal(s). As stated by others, this rule promotes academic/enrollment ridiculous situations like Derrick Rose - who I do not really fault since there is no way he would have wasted his time with college but instead to comply with the rule, went through the farce of the SAT, dubious high school graduation and enrollment at Calipari U. It also promotes the careers of guys like Worldwide Wes, John Calipari and undermines the entire concept of "student-athlete" by perpetuating a mercenary culture of people who are motivated to get around existing NCAA standards to make sure they play for the "one and done" year.
Further, there is little chance that this rule prevents some of the kids who made/will make the mistake of coming out early. Players will continue to leave college early due to poor judgment/advice and economic necessity.
Finally, this rule could cause a person who could otherwise earn a living by playing basketball to risk potential injury by playing in the NCAA (perhaps the NCAA should offer some form of low cost insurance to a player.... nah, that would make sense). I realize there are now arguments that a player could go to Europe and maybe that is the wave of the future but why should that be the case?

I do like the fact that the NBA and College basketball are at least working together so my stance is to keep but adjust the rule:

1. This may be extreme, I say go min. 3 years. As the General said, kids after one year only have to go to class for a semester at the most then blow off the rest. A 3 year minimum focuses on education, maturity, and those who go pro will only have to complete one more year of education if they chose to do so....."Basketball won't last forever" just ask......Johnathan Bender!

2. Kids committing to a school/college will now have an actual committment....and not use college as an audition and promotion for the name on the back of the jersey.

3. Kids that want to go pro over seas...have at it. I would even allow kids who want to bypass the three year rule can go to the NBDL for a minimum of two years.

4. One and done players being dissallowed would further the demise of Kentucky basketball sooner.....(Just a little joke and poke at Cal)

The ultimate focus of this is better preparing players for basketball in the NBA via the NBDL or three years in college, better prepare players for life giving them more education and maturity, and finally giving a player three choices.....

1.College for 3 years
2.NBDL for 2 years
3.Overseas

I would institute the same rule the NFL has in place; you must be three years removed from HS, kids playing college football can't declare until after their junior season. It's simple, legal and effective.

I follow reports of ex-IU players but I can't stand watching the NBA. They've abandoned basketball as a team sport in favor of personality driven entertainment that grows closer to pro-wrestling every season. As a basketball fan it irks me that enough people buy tickets and merchandise to keep it going as is, but then again I'm not losing any sleep over it.

As for the sad but unavoidable impact on college ball, I don't blame any kid for going for the money but I'd prefer they skip college rather than distort the game. So I guess I hope the NBA either drops their rule or beefs it up to encourage kids to play at least 3 years in college.

I've often had this discussion/argument with friends and family. I use this analogy to illustrate my point. Imagine there is a kid in high school and is supertalented in some non-athletic skill such as computers. Microsoft "discovers" his skills and decides they want to hire him right out of high school, pay him $5M a year for the next 4 years and then they'll see how he's doing and they could re-hire him or maybe some other company takes a chance on him. He jumps to Microsoft and never becomes the next Bill Gates, but does an adequate job for a few years, then goes to Sun or Dell or Apple or some such nonsense like that. Does it decrease the talent in college because he's not there providing his skills? Maybe a little, but there's still plenty of good computer guys in the ACC. Does it hurt the kid? Nah, he's got $20M. It's an arbitrary rule. Let the kid try.

Wow that is an interesting point that i do some what agree with, and i have to admit, it is pretty funny...but i am concerned about those kids like Louis Williams (76ers) who get drafted in the second round and don't make and impact on the team till 3 years down the road. Wouldn't it be great to have him in college then go to the NBA after his junior year.

Well, who would it be great for? The kid or the organization? Would he be better served by working with his management team and learning professional computer systems, making big money but maybe not making presentations to potential clients and developing "real" stuff OR would he be better served by learning less sophisticated programming and software, for free, with the potential of breaking a finger on a keyboard and never being able to work for Microsoft down the line because he can't type?

I mean, I think everybody should further their education to the extent that they can. But college isn't for everyone.

Let young athletes go directly to the pros, if it dosen't work out then there is european ball and if that fails there is always the fast food industry. Perhaps a basic life management associate degree should be required ? Most of these kids have been treated like they are "golden" and the advantage of a college lifestyle is meeting others like you and having an injection of reality in your dream of the NBA. Maybe the NBA should be required to pay for a failed kid's education if he dosen't work out?

The NBA and its players association collectively bargained this rule as a way of mitigating the flow of unready kids into the NBA draft. The teams were looking for a way to protect themselves from making huge draft bets on kids like Kwame Brown. So the intent behind the rule has little to do with college.

Although I think the vast majority of players that have entered the NBA draft straight from high school would have benefited from college, the fact is that they should be free to make the choice.

Good points Dave. It also had to do with having ready to market players. When kids were going right from high school the fan base had no knowledge of them, with a year in college they are ready to be marketed to the fan base.

On another note, although some would definitely benefit from going to college, there's no debate that the vast majority of straight from high school to the NBA players have been successful in the NBA. Many are superstars and a majority of the rest are/were at least regular rotation players.

I would agree, talent is talent. What they do with it determines whether they become stars or not. Kwame Brown, Korleone Young, and Shawn Livingston make headlines, but Al Harrington, Josh Smith, JR Smith and the like have done very well, although not quite stars, and that describes a multitude of players and college graduates as well. I think it has everything to do with the Magic/Larry model of pulling the college fan to the NBA, and having stars in college so people will tune in to watch talented players.

Agree, your Magic/Larry comment was exactly what I was trying to convey. The problem with straight from high school players was they were taking high draft slots, but the NBA didn't know what to do with them in terms of marketing, they weren't known personalities.

With the 1 and done rule, Stern know has known/tailor-made stars coming into the league. It's all about marketing, not really maturity. Is a 19 year-old with 1 year of college all that more mature than an 18 year-old out of high school, no.

good point

I would like to see the rule extended to 2 or 3 years not only for the good of college basketball, but for the good of the NBA as well. I feel that the NBA is doing a disservice to itself f they draft kids straight out of high school. I look at the NBA as the highest level of basketball, but it has turned itself into a training ground. Players get drafted on potential not skill. Make them prove theirselves before you draft them. Let them build a resume. What have Leon Smith, Jonathan Bender, Kwame Brown, Sebastian Telfair, etc, etc, etc done to earn their money. I hate seeing players sit on the end of the bench for 3 years because they were drafted on potential. I would like my NBA players to have skill rather than hype.

Let them go. We promote stupidity and mediocrity in this country on an everyday basis. We pass laws that force high schools to graduate students who don't care nor put out any effort. We send children back into abusive and neglectful homes to save the governments money. Why not encourage kids to skip school in lieu of a possibly short career that teaches them nothing? They don't want to go to college to set up their future so let them skip it, go straight to the NBA, and in most cases have a shortened career where they waste all their money and end up welfare so guys like us can support them with our ever-increasing tax rates!

I would get rid of the one and done rule or implement a rule that would require the athlete to wait to 2 years before playing in the NBA. The 2 - 3 year rule could be bypassed ONLY if the athlete's family had a high need for the income that the NBA could provide. Also with at least 2 years the athlete would be required to go to class in his second semester. Yes, the athlete could play in the D-league or at a prep school for a year as well. If the time that a player had to stay in college was increased then it would help college basketball and the athlete if he went to class and learned something.

The NBA needs a chance to take a better look at the players. B.J. Mullens is obviously not ready in our eyes but to the NBA he has potential. If he or someone in a similar situation is forced to stay 2-3 years the NBA can really see if they are living up to their hype and if there is no improvements then they don't have to take the risk in drafting him. There are very few players that have come straight out of High School and made an immediate impact. If you look at players like Josh Smith, and J.R Smith they are now starting to become stars after being in the NBA for a couple of years which is around the time they would be getting out of college. I just think no one should go pro in any sport until they are 21 because when they get drafted they will always want to celebrate and it isn't legal to drink until you are 21.

Yes, I'm sure this is all about preventing underage drinking.

Almost any time the free market is distorted the problems geometrically expand. If you require 3 years from a basketball player what about a soccer player or an academic scholarship ? How can you restrain the free will to work a job ? etc, etc.

The college product is so good it does not need "one and done" freshmen players to be good.

I see no reason to exclude players from the NBA on an artificial basis or force them stay in college either . Neither product is better because of it.

It seems to me many are trying to improve the college product by restraining players and especially freshmen players. I would prefer to improve the IU product through an alternative approach that stresses reasons to stay; 1) player skill and strength development, 2) player personal development, 3) team performance development ..............ie things that make the time in college more valuable to the kid , to the fans , to the program in the long run and to the NBA.

Looking at the poll I can see how easy it for us to be over-impressed (or distressed) by HS recruits before they have matured and incoming freshmen before they have played a single college game. It appears a majority think freshmen will lead us in scoring next year. I would have thought that last year would have proven how difficult this is. I think IU has maybe had 2 in our whole history, and that might have to count George McGinnis sophmore year.

There shouldn't be any rules at all. If a kid wants to go straight out of high school, let him. If he wants to go after 1, 2, or 3 years, let him. A player has every right to try and turn pro as soon as he feels he is ready. If a player is considered a 15-20 pick right out of high school and decides to go to school and develops into a consensus lottery, let him go to the draft. You can't force a kid to play in college when he is clearly ready for the pros.

The reason rules like this work in the NFL and the MLB is because so few prospects are ready out of high school or only one or two years removed from it. Whereas in basketball, there are probably 3-5 prospects every year who are ready out of high school.

If the NBA wants to protect their incoming players then it is on them to provide better counseling to these kids o that they can make a correct decision. It is on them to make the NBDL a more appealing alternative to these kids.

This rule was only ever implemented to protect the NBA and it's players, so it squarely on them to fix it.

The rule isn't about maturity, counseling or protecting players. It's all about marketing. If it was about development the rule would be 4 years, not 1.

It's all about using college to build a market for the direct from high school player. When all these guys were skipping college, the NBA didn't know how to market them to fans, now they have college to do that for them for a year.

You would not have had the huge marketing campaign surrounding Oden/Durant in the 07 draft if they were coming right from high school.

David Stern was interviewed yesterday on ESPN about the rule. He said that the reason they put it in place is because the NBA GM's felt it was impossible to evaluate the real talent of a kid out of High School and they want them to have at least one year of better competition to gage the player's draftability. Before the rule there were too many that got drafted and failed to work out.

He said that kids have three choices; college, the D league, or Europe. The NBA does not care where they go they just want a chance to better evaluate the players.

Stern is a joke just like his league.

I used to think they should make kids go to college. I could go on and on about the reasons why it would benefit them. However, you have to look at the reality. They are going to figure out ways to get around the rule, no matter what.

What does the rule really serve? Is it to ensure this kid gets an education? NOPE Is it to ensure that a university gets a bunch of money by having this kid at that school while the NBA gives a token attempt to look like it gives a damn? DING DING DING - WINNER!

It's a selfish act on the part of the NCAA and NBA. It's a token a gesture and does nothing for the kids. If it truly benefited the kid, then I'd say keep it or extend, but that's not what happens and we all know it.

In fact, I believe it hurts a college program more than anything and quite typically its a huge gamble by the NBA to sign one of these players. The NBA should invest its money on programs that require these young adults to seek and receive the proper guidance in terms of financial security, appropriate relationships, and adulthood.

The one-and-done rule isn't going anywhere. The NCAA has no control over it, and it makes too much sense financially to the NBA to abolish it. Their teams get to draft players that are more established names, and they get an additional opportunity to evaluate talent. The players they do draft are older, closer to being physically mature, and for the most part are able to benefit from good coaching in the college ranks.

Everything I've read has indicated that the NBA is going to pursue changing the one-and-done rule to a two-and-done rule when their current contract with the players expires. Given that this is collectively bargained with players who don't like to lose their job to rookies, it is likely that it will pass without much difficulty.

I would like to see the NBA open up their developmental league to phenoms, they likely cannot, because that would probably be the basis for challenging the legality of the one-and-done rule, so it will never happen. Given that, I have no problem with a talented player going overseas. It will certainly open their eyes to participate in a work environment where they aren't constantly coddled.

Now, as for the sanctity of the college game, the NCAA can do things, but as usual, that organization will pawn responsibility off on everyone else and try to claim that they are on top of things.

That said, I would like to see them:
1. Make a scholarship have a minimum commitment of 2 - 3 years by the player. In exchange, the NCAA should make scholarships a true four year commitment. None of this John Calipari-running-off-half-a-team-to-sign-new-players bullshit. If you sign a player to a scholarship, it is their scholarship for their education.
2. Tighten up the academic clearinghouse process. The stupidest part of the recent headlines involving Derrick Rose is that the NCAA initially cleared him to play. I realize the logistics of this are daunting, given that the NCAA is more than football and basketball, but there's got to be a way to administer ACT/SAT to a kid in a way that someone else can't just take in your place.

I like that kids have to go to college, but i dont think you really can force a kid to go to a school when his heart is set for next year for the draft. And dose anyone think that Eric Gordon improved his stock in the draft just by going to school, well maybe that is just me

No i do not think it should be changed.The players that are ready for the nba
is a very low number most are not ready out of high school many are drafted and sit for 4 years before playing as well . I believe it is also good for college
basketball. Dont think we should be so quick on this subject.

As Alex said " the D.Rose SAT/story has taken over...". Now this from ESPN..."ATHENS, Ga. -- Former University of Memphis forward Robert Dozier's initial SAT score was invalidated by the company that scores the exam, and when he took the test a second time, he scored 540 fewer points, ESPN.com has learned through an open records request".
QUESTION if IU had hired Calipari would we fans be supporting him like KY or would we be calling for his head?

Just as long as they don't make any impermissible phone calls, cheat away.

Sure, everyone points to Kwame Brown, but Michael Olowakandi spent four years in college. The known quantity argument is crap. If you go through the history since Garnett, a much higher percentage of college players have been busts than high school players. It's a marketing ploy, and it's also supported by NBA vets not wanting to lose their roster spots.

Louis Williams developed because he rode the bench for the 76ers for three years, not despite it. College ball is a joke competition-wise compared to both the NBA and Europe, to act like it gives a developmental advantage is insanity.

Mentally, it's the same. Large state universities, while great research institutions and still home to many a genius undergrad, have also become a breeding ground for neanderthals. College isn't what it used to be, and there's no reason to think an immature high schooler won't gravitate towards the immature segment of the student body. Someone like Brandon Jennings, who has experienced living in a foreign country, learned what it's like to have limited minutes (to which no college program would subject its prized recruit), and also learned how to manage money and a job is light years ahead of the average college player.

the one and done rule was established in order to allow players to mature before attempting to enter the NBA. that being said, what if players wanting to come out of high school had to have a certain gpa ( maybe a minimum in the 3.0-3.5 range) or even SAT/ACT score in order to be eligible for the draft? that would ensure that true student atheletes are being drafted and would allow the NBA to have a positive impact on its young fans.