They play college ball because it's the best option for them. They can go to the d-league or Europe if they want to, they just don't want to. If rather watch them than not watch them, so I am happy with the rule but would prefer 2 and done.
One and done, what is your opinion?
- Thread starter Mumbai1986
- Start date
I'll notify the President of the United States. The NBA isn't denying players their right to work.
It doesn't seem fair to put restrictions on the students as to when they can decide to get paid for their services. However, I do think it would be a good idea to place some sort of dis-incentive to the schools like Kentucky who are making a mockery of the system.
My suggestion would be to modify the current APR system such that schools are impacted by having too many players declare early for the NBA. Allow the schools to not have to count a limited number of players leaving for the NBA against their APR (say one player every two years) and hold all other student-athletes accountable to get their degree (or make "suitable" academic progress) within a set period of time or count them against the school's APR regardless of whether they went pro or not. This wouldn't make the problem go away, but it would water down teams like Kentucky (and now Kansas) that are making a mockery of the student-athlete concept.
My suggestion would be to modify the current APR system such that schools are impacted by having too many players declare early for the NBA. Allow the schools to not have to count a limited number of players leaving for the NBA against their APR (say one player every two years) and hold all other student-athletes accountable to get their degree (or make "suitable" academic progress) within a set period of time or count them against the school's APR regardless of whether they went pro or not. This wouldn't make the problem go away, but it would water down teams like Kentucky (and now Kansas) that are making a mockery of the student-athlete concept.
Colleges should always be penalized for preparing people to succeed in their chosen profession.
Not to be a **** or anything, but there are one or two occasions when their chosen profession doesn't work out for them. In that case maybe the college education started (two years of credits) might help persuade them to go back and finish.
I just think one and done is a joke.
I like it for my own viewing pleasure. Plus a 17-18 year old kid with a boat load of money can do things like this:
Robert Swift Finally Left His Foreclosed Home, But He Left Plenty Of Memories And Shell Casings And Feces Behind
Robert Swift Finally Left His Foreclosed Home, But He Left Plenty Of Memories And Shell Casings And Feces Behind
I think its good for CBB and the NBA. Recruiting without the one-and-done rule would have been nearly impossible. I think CBB is more exciting with all of the high school talent coming in, at least for one year. Also, if you really don't want to play for free for a year, go play in Europe. There would be nothing wrong with that.
Also, the idea that they take up a scholarship for someone who would use it on an education is a joke. The guy is getting one year of education in return for one year of basketball. Scholarships are renewed on a yearly basis, it's not as though the "deal" is come play 4 years of basketball here, and you can then have a degree.
In all, I think it's as good of system as there is. Give a guy a year to prove his worth in CBB. That could mitigate against the many flameouts we saw with the previous system.
Also, the idea that they take up a scholarship for someone who would use it on an education is a joke. The guy is getting one year of education in return for one year of basketball. Scholarships are renewed on a yearly basis, it's not as though the "deal" is come play 4 years of basketball here, and you can then have a degree.
In all, I think it's as good of system as there is. Give a guy a year to prove his worth in CBB. That could mitigate against the many flameouts we saw with the previous system.
From the student-athlete aspect side of things, one and done is ridiculous. However, when you consider the insanely small percentage of players that make an NBA roster, the people getting hurt the most are the ones that are told how great they are, hire an agent, leave early and never play a day in the NBA.
From a fan standpoint, I'd rather see kids have to stay 2-3 years. I rarely watch the NBA and like seeing the mix of elite talent, hard-working guys, and cinderella stories coupled with the college fanbase (which will always be greater than the pro level in my book, at least for basketball and football)
Also, if a team like KY had to keep students for 2-3 years, they wouldn't be able to reload every year simply from a scholarship numbers standpoint. The top players would have to spread out a little better creating even more parity. I know parity in life isn't realistic, but it creates a lot better match-ups in sports.
Finally, March Madness is the ultimate levelling tool. How often do experienced teams prevail over younger "superstar" teams?
From a fan standpoint, I'd rather see kids have to stay 2-3 years. I rarely watch the NBA and like seeing the mix of elite talent, hard-working guys, and cinderella stories coupled with the college fanbase (which will always be greater than the pro level in my book, at least for basketball and football)
Also, if a team like KY had to keep students for 2-3 years, they wouldn't be able to reload every year simply from a scholarship numbers standpoint. The top players would have to spread out a little better creating even more parity. I know parity in life isn't realistic, but it creates a lot better match-ups in sports.
Finally, March Madness is the ultimate levelling tool. How often do experienced teams prevail over younger "superstar" teams?
"If the point of intercollegiate athletics is to develop student-athletes, then these guys make a joke out of the whole process."
Aren't we way past that already? I love college sports. But the system makes little sense. Why is a big dollar sports empire grafted onto a university system in the first place?
I am largely indifferent, but would be ok with a system that requires kids to stay three years.
Aren't we way past that already? I love college sports. But the system makes little sense. Why is a big dollar sports empire grafted onto a university system in the first place?
I am largely indifferent, but would be ok with a system that requires kids to stay three years.
I think they should go for one year, and I think that all student-athletes should have to take a required course in personal finance. Most people don't go to college for the education -- they go to have the ability to eventually land a good paying job. If student-athletes can do that after one year of college, all the more power to them.
I think it would be a moot point if NBA GMs weren't so stupid as to draft a lot of the HS players they did (the rare exception like LeBron excluded). A lot of those HS guys ride the pine and develop on a team and then leave after 3 years as a free agent or wash out. There are very few cases where the HS player is a must draft type player. GMs afraid of missing out seem to mess up a lot in that regard.
If you can die for your country at 18, you can play in the NBA. Let the players and GM's make the choice and live with the consequences.
I think two years would be awesome.
Unfortunately the MLB model would suck because NBA teams, who already draft more based on potential, would still take guys who aren't ready out of high school. They don't have the development system that MLB does so these guys would go to the D-League and never do anything.
Unfortunately the MLB model would suck because NBA teams, who already draft more based on potential, would still take guys who aren't ready out of high school. They don't have the development system that MLB does so these guys would go to the D-League and never do anything.
NBA for sure made the right move with the age requirement.
College ball is more fun to watch with more talent available. The mockery of the student athlete argument is weak. Getting a degree is pointless if you can make a few mill playing pro. Colleges are profiting wildly off them and offering something that really doesn't cost them much other than a spot in a classroom and a small apartment at best. Besides Hoiball could soon experience the benefits of this system in the form of RV.
College ball is more fun to watch with more talent available. The mockery of the student athlete argument is weak. Getting a degree is pointless if you can make a few mill playing pro. Colleges are profiting wildly off them and offering something that really doesn't cost them much other than a spot in a classroom and a small apartment at best. Besides Hoiball could soon experience the benefits of this system in the form of RV.
There are arguments for and against, but this idea that one and done is bad because it makes a mockery of the student athlete concept is laughable. One and done is simply one of the many ways in which the NCAA's treatment of student athletes a joke, and to draw a line at one and done seems quite arbitrary.
The one and done rule is not an NCAA rule, it's an NBA rule, you realize that, right?
