Potentially good news on the One and Done rule with the NBA

[Pakuni]

The bolded happens in almost every profession.

Agreed.
The difference is the NBA is placing a false standard on necessary development (age), rather than one based on required skills, abilities and education (as with, say, doctors or architects).

Ultimately, the NBA has a right to put its interests ahead of the players' interests. Nobody says otherwise. But that doesn't make it any less unfair or cr@ppy.

[muwarrior69]

I thought athletic scholarships were offered so a STUDENT can get a degree. How naive of me to think otherwise. Wouldn't it be a novel idea that the NBA require a 4 year under graduate degree to play basketball just like most other professions.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Oh, come on.
You don't really believe this has anything to do with the "betterment of their product" or looking out for the interests of 18- and 19-year-old players. It's about "the betterment of their (and the NCAA's) bottom line."
I mean, not to get too far off topic, but 18- and 19-year-olds can handle military life (and war), but not life in the NBA? Do we have any actual data or evidence that supports one-and-dones to better either on or off the court than the previous generation of players who went from high school to the NBA?

Could you show where I suggested "forcing" the NBA to do anything?
Once again, I'm not arguing what the NBA can or cannot do. I'm arguing what they should do.
Also, I suspect you realize that the whole point of an association like the NBA and its CBA with players is to circumvent the free market.

I'll clarify, by betterment of product, I meant NBA's bottom line. I don't care if they are making a decision to make themselves more profitable, its what businesses do. As long as their methods aren't unethical, which I hardly feel making players wait an extra year while getting to go to college for free is qualifies as.

And I'll apologize. You are right, you never suggested forcing the NBA to do anything. Silly wording on my part.

[ChicosBailBonds]

But why be forced to the NBDL if an NBA team is willing to draft and pay you?
If your child was sitting on two job offers, would you suggest he take the lower-paying, less prestigious one? Or better yet, a take a year or two to work for free first?

I don't think it is for the NCAA to fix a problem that impacts .1% of all players.  The NBA can fix that.  The NCAA can't be all things to all people, and especially to the smallest of the small percentages.  It was never intended to be and shouldn't start now. 

I get your point, but I also think the NBA knows they are a beneficiary of the college basketball system.  Doing a 1 and done plan hurts college basketball and potentially hurts the NBA because teams are having to takes guys based on one year potential.  They would rather take kids on 2 years of work, even if that doesn't necessarily what some of the players want.  To this, I would suggest to those players, you have options.  Go to Europe...go to the NBDL, or you can play college ball for two years.  If the NBA wants guys to go directly to the NBA at age 18, then they can do that, but don't saddle that problem onto the NCAA.  Either do it, or make them play a few years.  One or the other.....or, the players can pick other options.  Hell, if the idea is so great, then a minor league system can be started, but I view today's comments from Silver as a good thing for the NBA and an even better thing for college basketball.

[Stretchdeltsig]

Excellent point.   There is no way a 19 year of can compete physically with a 30 year old or play in 100 games without his body breaking down.  Come on NBA and NCAA get together and establish a rule on a 21 year old minimum age.

[Goatherder]

Do we have any actual evidence of this?
I mean, are the one-and-dones of today any more productive/ready for the pros than the straight to the NBA players from 10+ years ago? Guys like LeBron, Kobe, Garnett, Howard, McGrady, Stoudemire, etc., seemed OK without that additional year of development. Not just asking rhetorically, wondering if there's actually anything to support this/

There were obviously notable busts in the straight-to-the-NBA crowd, but the one-and-done rule hasn't eliminated or even reduced that, just forestalled it a year.  (see: Anthony Bennett, BJ Mullens, Daniel Orton, Josh Selby, Jereme Richmond).

I will leave it to the NBA to come up with the evidence, but I am willing to take their word for it.  They have a better idea of the players they are drafting.  The league surely benefits from getting an extra year to watch a player develop so that they are not drafting strictly on potential and hope.  That seems reasonable enough.  The NBA came up with the one-and-done rule to avoid getting players directly out of high school.  Yes, LeBron and Kevin Garnett and Tracy McGrady were ready to play directly out of high school.  Many players are not, or at least they are not ready to contribute enough to justify their salary.  I cannot recall the name of the player some years ago who came directly out of a Chicago public school to Dallas, and was gone in about two weeks.  It was not even a matter of athletic ability.  It was that he simply was not able to handle showing up for a demanding job every day.  It seems to me that the NBA has a right to protect itself from those situations.  And players can go to the D-League or can go to Europe or can stay home and practice at the local playground.  That may not be enough options for players, but that is not the NBA's problem. 

The current one-and-done rule is a farce that benefits no one.  It is typical for players who know they are going to turn pro to effectively drop out of school.  Even seniors do it, which is why many get around to graduating a semester or two late.  What that means in a one-and-done situation is that a player has to remain eligible for the first semester.  I would like to think, and truly believe that Marquette required Henry to attend class like everybody else on the team.  Does anybody really believe that Cal at Kentucky requires that of his players?  I expect they can take twelve hours of Sandbox and Introduction to Learning or something, then effectively skip class for the second semester.  A two year rule would at least require a player to complete a full year of college and remain in good academic standing.  Of course, that would still be meaningless at many places, but any rule is going to have people evading it. 

[reinko]

Excellent point.   There is no way a 19 year of can compete physically with a 30 year old or play in 100 games without his body breaking down.  Come on NBA and NCAA get together and establish a rule on a 21 year old minimum age.

You are spot on.  We all totally sucked our first when we entered the league when we 19 or younger, we totally should've waited 3 years.

Best regards,
Giannis, Bradley Beal,  Anthony Davis, Andrew Wiggins,  Aaron Gordon,  LeBron James,  KG,  Kobe,  Dwight Howard,  Justice Winslow,  D'Angelo Russell,  Karl Anthony Towns...

[Ellenson Guerrero]

You sir are the one for disdain for the free market. You want to force a private entity, the NBA, to change its standards that it has established for itself in order to increase its profitability. The NBA is free to make whatever standards it wants.

I'm sorry, but as a matter of antitrust law the NBA is not free to make whatever standards it wants.  The NBA needs justifications for the eligibility requirements it imposes on prospective players as these requirements are definitionally an agreement in restraint of trade.  Restraints like these aren't per se illegal, but they can be illegal if they aren't justified by pro-competitive effects. 

It is debatable how a court would rule on whether the NBA's justifications for its age-requirement, but personally I think it'd likely be found illegal. In any event, legally it is a more complex question than just saying the NBA can do whatever it wants.

[Babybluejeans]

Excellent point.   There is no way a 19 year of can compete physically with a 30 year old or play in 100 games without his body breaking down.  Come on NBA and NCAA get together and establish a rule on a 21 year old minimum age.

Having just lived my 30th year, it should be the other way around. My buddies and I are in good shape but playing pickup hoops, still get smoked by the college kids. Adam Silver should establish a maximum age rule to protect the 30-and 40-year-olds.

[auburnmarquette]

I think this would benefit both the NBA and NCAA basketball. Hope the Union will allow this.

The problem is it would not benefit teams like Marquette unless we get another one-and-done.

If you go to two years, you end up with Kentucky and other blue bloods keeping the most talented players in the country for a second year, when they are twice as good as the freshman year. I don't believe you have open years like this where a ton of teams have a chance at the title. The chance programs like our recent great teams have is that the freshman dominated power teams make so many mistakes (turnovers, stupid shots etc.) that on any given day they can lose.

Make Caliprari keep trying to win it with a new set of characters learning the game every year - it gives the rest of us a chance for that miraculous year.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

But it also spreads out the talent because cal doesn't have those open scholarships every year. Also, cal couldn't offer the same treatment to two year players. He can get away with one and dones never going to class. That doesn't work with two year players. It would hurt Kentucky more than help them

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

But it also spreads out the talent because cal doesn't have those open scholarships every year. Also, cal couldn't offer the same treatment to two year players. He can get away with one and dones never going to class. That doesn't work with two year players. It would hurt Kentucky more than help them

+1 - I don't know that it would hurt UK, but it would improve college bball to increase the number of talented players -- particularly in a world of fixed number of scholarships per team.  On the flip side, how many one-and-dones are there per year....I would guess somewhere between 5 - 15...so not a huge number compared to the total number of college players.

[mu03eng]

It will go to a 2 year cap because both the NBA and the players union want it to be that. The union opposes it in public as a negotiating ploy so they can "give something up" that they wanted. A union is always interested in the needs of the current membership not future potential members and if they can reduce the available pool of talent (18-40 years is a bigger pool than 20-40 year) that drives up the value of the pool (supply and demand).

At the end of the day, the NBA will find a legal justification to do it and they will do it while window dressing it as doing the right things for the kids. Which is crap, they are doing it so the NCAA can be both their development and talent assessment tools.

What will be interesting is what happens when the new rules are in effect and some LBJ 2.0 comes along, a can't miss talent out of high school that doesn't want to go to college. One and dones work in college because the APR is weight just so that you can take a couple of those hits, but to keep a kid eligible for two years and not negatively impact the APR is really tough if they don't want to be there. So does this LBJ 2.0 go the Europe or China route. Once someone successfully goes professional overseas and gets drafted into the NBA at 20....those "can't miss" talents will go that route and forgo college all together. Not saying whether that's a good or a bad thing, but a 2 year rule will eventually lead to talent skipping college and going overseas.

[CTWarrior]

Agreed.
The difference is the NBA is placing a false standard on necessary development (age), rather than one based on required skills, abilities and education (as with, say, doctors or architects).

Ultimately, the NBA has a right to put its interests ahead of the players' interests. Nobody says otherwise. But that doesn't make it any less unfair or cr@ppy.

The NBA instituted the one year out of high school rule for the simple reason that it's hard to be sure how good a player is based on him dominating other high school kids.  Watching a guy play for a year against college competition gives them a much better feel for their actual talent and reduces the risk of spending a high draft pick on player that doesn't pan out.  Plus a year in college gets them a year of interest and hype for a kid that wouldn't otherwise have it.  It is a selfish rule for the NBA, but a good one for them and them alone.

There's really not much the NCAA can do about it, as they'll never be able to stop a kid from quitting school, nor should they be able to.  I also think that one year is probably enough for NBA teams to evaluate a kid's potential, so I'm not sure why it is in their interest to change the rule to two years, unless they feel that they can less often pay first round money for a benchwarmer for a year.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

It will go to a 2 year cap because both the NBA and the players union want it to be that. The union opposes it in public as a negotiating ploy so they can "give something up" that they wanted. A union is always interested in the needs of the current membership not future potential members and if they can reduce the available pool of talent (18-40 years is a bigger pool than 20-40 year) that drives up the value of the pool (supply and demand).

This has always been my thinking as well.

[mu03eng]

The NBA instituted the one year out of high school rule for the simple reason that it's hard to be sure how good a player is based on him dominating other high school kids.  Watching a guy play for a year against college competition gives them a much better feel for their actual talent and reduces the risk of spending a high draft pick on player that doesn't pan out.  Plus a year in college gets them a year of interest and hype for a kid that wouldn't otherwise have it.  It is a selfish rule for the NBA, but a good one for them and them alone.

There's really not much the NCAA can do about it, as they'll never be able to stop a kid from quitting school, nor should they be able to.  I also think that one year is probably enough for NBA teams to evaluate a kid's potential, so I'm not sure why it is in their interest to change the rule to two years, unless they feel that they can less often pay first round money for a benchwarmer for a year.

It's in the NBA's interest because they don't have to develop a player. There is no doubt that Henry in his 2nd year out of Marquette is a better, more ready to contribute player than 1st year Henry.

Essentially, the GMs in the NBA need to be saved from themselves as they will draft potential over proven track record every time.

[rocky_warrior]

But it also spreads out the talent because cal doesn't have those open scholarships every year. Also, cal couldn't offer the same treatment to two year players. He can get away with one and dones never going to class. That doesn't work with two year players. It would hurt Kentucky more than help them

I donno.  Won't Cal just $nag players #1-6 every year, and have a dominant team of soph's with top freshman coming off the bench?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I donno.  Won't Cal just $nag players #1-6 every year, and have a dominant team of soph's with top freshman coming off the bench?

Part of Cal's sell is that one and dones will spend their entire time focused on basketball. Their class loads are independent studies and physical educations. As mueng pointed out, it becomes a lot harder once you add that second year of eligibility. I really think this would throw a huge wrench in Cal's machine.

[mu03eng]

Part of Cal's sell is that one and dones will spend their entire time focused on basketball. Their class loads are independent studies and physical educations. As mueng pointed out, it becomes a lot harder once you add that second year of eligibility. I really think this would throw a huge wrench in Cal's machine.

If Cal can figure out how to keep Kentucky as a player development program that does the minimum to keep players academically eligible for two years, his model will work....but that is really really tough especially since the NCAA requirements go up from freshmen to sophomore year.

What will truly break Cal's model, if they go to two years, will be players successfully skipping college all together, going overseas and coming back as 1st round draft picks. Then the only kids that'll go to college and be drafted will be the Kris Dunn/Jimmy Butler types that need multiple years of development and a fall back in case they don't get drafted.

[GGGG]

Cal hasn't seemed to have a problem keeping kids eligible who were potential one and dones who stay longer than expected.  Alex Poytress had his career derailed by injury and he earned his bachelor's degree in three years and is in graduate school this year.  Tyler Uliss, the Harrison twins, etc. have all stayed multiple years.

I think it's kind of insulting to one-and-done types that keeping them eligible is going to be a problem.  Just because they are great basketball players doesn't mean that they are poor students.

[mu03eng]

Cal hasn't seemed to have a problem keeping kids eligible who were potential one and dones who stay longer than expected.  Alex Poytress had his career derailed by injury and he earned his bachelor's degree in three years and is in graduate school this year.  Tyler Uliss, the Harrison twins, etc. have all stayed multiple years.

I think it's kind of insulting to one-and-done types that keeping them eligible is going to be a problem.  Just because they are great basketball players doesn't mean that they are poor students.

Not my intention to imply all high talent basketball players are automatically bad at school, nor was my intent to say that one and dones are dumb so can't cut it in school. But the % of one and dones that are not academically viable or not focused on school is higher than players that are intending to be in school for multiple years.

I have zero doubt that Ben Simmons is smart enough to get a 4 year college degree but he clearly wasn't interested in even maintaining anything more than the bare minimum in school though(couldn't win the Wooden because he couldn't get a 2.0 as a freshman). It is really easy to get a 2.0 in college when you are a basketball player who isn't getting a degree and has a ton of academic support staff.

[GGGG]

I wasn't trying to single you out mu03.  But I think many one-and-dones like Simmons aren't great at school because they don't have to be like you say in your second paragraph.  I think good coaches, and I include Cal among them, talk to their players about these situations and tell them to keep their eye on the ball academically.  Because you never know...

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Cal hasn't seemed to have a problem keeping kids eligible who were potential one and dones who stay longer than expected.  Alex Poytress had his career derailed by injury and he earned his bachelor's degree in three years and is in graduate school this year.  Tyler Uliss, the Harrison twins, etc. have all stayed multiple years.

I think it's kind of insulting to one-and-done types that keeping them eligible is going to be a problem.  Just because they are great basketball players doesn't mean that they are poor students.

I was looking at this from a recruiting angle. Poythress came to Kentucky being promised he would never step foot in a classroom. When it became apparent that he wouldn't be drafted he adjusted and is now getting a degree. Not saying they would be poor students, but part of Cal's recruiting pitch is that one and dones will be able to solely focus on basketball. If loses that pitch, his machine won't be as successful.

[GGGG]

I was looking at this from a recruiting angle. Poythress came to Kentucky being promised he would never step foot in a classroom. When it became apparent that he wouldn't be drafted he adjusted and is now getting a degree. Not saying they would be poor students, but part of Cal's recruiting pitch is that one and dones will be able to solely focus on basketball. If loses that pitch, his machine won't be as successful.

Was Poythress "promised he would never step foot in a classroom?"  I doubt that. 

I don't necessarily think Kentucky's curriculum for first year basketball players is substantially easier than many other schools.'   I think he sells the residence hall, the academic support, the crazy atmosphere at Rupp, and the fact that he will go balls-to-the-wall for his players to help them get to the NBA.

I mean, there is no way that Poythress could have graduated in three years unless he took a regular course of study starting his freshman year, first semester.

[Herman Cain]

I think this is a step in the right direction. To me it makes business sense to have a more polished college athlete product and also more name recognition . The student will benefit as well, by building brand equity in their name as well as skills.

Ideally it would be like baseball. Either come our after high school or stay a minimum of three.