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.

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 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

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.