Hard to argue any major conference is going to be as historically horrible at the bottom as that.
In comparison the new "worst" program in the Big 12 has 5 NCAA tournament wins. TCU has five wins and 12 appearances compared to Nebraska/Northwestern's zero wins and six appearances. TCU is a JUGGERNAUT in comparison!
I think you should have a rule where you either go pro out of HS, or you have to stay at least 2 years.
If you are forcing them to go to college and not allowing them to go pro out of high school 1 or 2 years is a lot better of a system.
As good as George Mason, VCU and Butler were in those tournaments, it's quite possible those programs could have never built themselves to that point playing in the Big East or Big 12 year after year.
If you have a forum post asking what teams you hate most in college football, lots of people will throw Boise State in there. Don't see any of that toward bracket buster tourney teams. In reality it's obvious that it's simply selfish rationalizing, they know Boise State is easily good enough to get one of the 10 BCS spots, but they want it for their own team or conference even though they may not deserve it. With 68 teams the deserving mid majors aren't really squeezing out a significant number of the power conference teams.
My issue with 1 and done players is simple. It is a built in advantage for the elite college basketball programs. Every basketball program is trying to stockpile their roster with talent. A program like ISU has a great need to bring in players that will be in the program for 3 or 4 years because they can't replace lost talent as easily and stability is absolutely necessary when trying to improve the program. Does a program like ISU take the risk of leaving a hole in their roster by taking a 1 and done player to have quick success over a 3 or 4 year player that is good but not great? It's a pretty big gamble.
Programs like Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, Kansas, Ohio State, etc... don't have that concern. They can bring in 2 or 3 kids for a season and ship them off to the NBA and they will just simply replace them with McDonald's All-Americans the next year and more 1 and done players. They have no risk at all by taking a 1 and done player because recruiting isn't an issue. That is why programs like Kentucky who can already attract the best talent in the nation has a distinct advantage. How many 1 and done players has Kentucky had in the last 3 or 4 years? It has allowed these elite programs that were already basketball factories to become even more efficient at what they do. In a 2 year span Kentucky had six 1 and done players and they didn't even skip a beat. They likely have two or three 1 and done players on their roster this year as well. The 1 and done rule has literally turned Kentucky into an NBA D-League franchise which defeats the entire purpose of what the NCAA is supposed to be all about.... STUDENT/athletes.
This also creates a monopoly of the top talent by the elite programs. Kentucky only has so many scholarships they can offer because they can only have so many players on their roster. They can only play 5 kids at a time. Lack of available scholarships and lack of playing time at these elite basketball factories could send some of these top recruits to other non-elite programs. Instead places like Kentucky can turnover 3 or 4 scholarships every year making sure they can bring in the top players from the next years recruiting class to replace their top recruits from the previous year. It's ridiculous.
While I don't necessarily agree with the "1 and done" college rule, your arguments seem irrational and bitter.
To claim that programs like ISU wouldn't take a potential "1 and done" player because it's such a gamble is a joke. Correct me if I'm wrong but ISU recruited Harrison Barnes for a very long time, and while he decided to come back to UNC for his sophomore year, he could've easily been a top 3 draft pick had he come out after year one. To say it's this huge risk/gamble is flat out ridiculous. Any school in the country would take a player who has the potential to be a lottery pick the following year in the draft. A player like that could flat out change a program by himself. You get a player with that type of talent to come to ISU, and instantly you're on the national scene. You get all sorts of national media coverage and hype, and you also get all sorts of talented recruits taking notice of this and wanting to come to ISU and play alongside this stud. Sure, you're going to have to re-recruit somebody else if that player leaves, but without a doubt you'll have more recruits interested in ISU if you start bringing in those types of players.