The "One and Done" Rule: Is it really a good rule to have?
Before hearing about Josh Selby and his experience with college, how he was not meant for it at all, I was all for the "One and Done" Rule and I liked it because it shielded the NBA from having to babysit immature high school seniors like Kwame Brown.
But after reading this article my persepective changed somewhat. I at first thought, "no, its still a good rule. Selby could have went and played internationally like Brandon Jennings and look how he turned out!" But then I thought, maybe Selby's situation is different. Jennings learned a lot from his international play. He grew alot became mature, I'd even dare say he became more mature than some freshman did out of college!
However, after reading the article when it said: "He grew up in a stereotypical urban nightmare -- violence, drugs, poverty, an unstable family situation and academic struggle was his childhood context. Nobody can blame Selby for jumping at the first available chance at a better life." I don't think Selby would have survived if he had played internationally like Brandon Jennings did. I myself have lived in a foreign country (I was in chile for 2 years serving a mission for my church, incase you were wondering), so I know that living in a foreign country can certainly change your perspective and certainly make you more mature, but I did not grow up in the same environment that Selby did so maybe for him it would have been different, and therefore he might not have been able to survive.
So with that being said, he was basically forced out of his will to attend college even though he himself knew he didn't belong there. Once he stepped on the Kansas campus he knew he was there for basically a one-way ticket to the NBA. He jumped at the chance to have a better life but because he was not meant for college nor apparently internationally either, he was there for a year and was done immediately. He maay not have been ready for the NBA after his year at Kansas was over but that didn't matter. He was still planning on going pro immediately no matter what. Thats why he immediately went to Las Vegas after the season ended to train and fully develop his skills.
Maybe the NBA needs to change the rule on being "one and done"? What are your guys' thoughts?
- Do you like it, meaning no change should be made.
- Or should the NBA go back to it's normal system of accepting anyone no matter if you are a high school senior, international player, or a college player?
- Or maybe the NBA should do something like the last 3 paragraphs of the artice I cited said, similar to what Baseball does. That would be allow all high school seniors to either go pro and play in the NBADL for a year before they declare for the draft or go to college and stay for however long they would like to, whether that be 1, 2, or 3 years before declaring for the draft. (the article said 3 years but I think it would be acceptable and appropriate if they stayed for however long they like, could be a year, 2 years, or 3 years, and if they really want to, the whole 4 years)
- Or maybe the NBA should up the rule to two years, making it essentially a "two and done" instead of a "one and done". I personally do not like this rule although this is being talked about as part of the new CBA
What are your thoughts? After reading the first article I cited, I really like the 3rd idea, similar to what baseball does.
I think the current rule is fine. Players prove time and time again that they are NBA ready after one year of college so user no reason for making them stay two years. And I think the NBA has the right to want to see players out of highschool for a year since it's their right as a business. Plus the players don't have to go to college if they dint want to. They can plAy in the nbdl or overseas or anything else they want to do.
No problem with the Rule. Only people who don't liek it is fans for there own selfish reason's or coach's for there own selfish reasons
I like the one and done deal, it strengthens college bball. It also allows the players who dominate college ball to continue their development against NBA competition if they so choose after one year. Its a good compromise between great players and their coaches who want to get their contribution for 4 years.
Rule is fine the way it is. Honestly, in the grand scheme of things, there's only a handful of freshman who can even legitimately consider thinking about putting their names in the draft. Probably btw 5-10 in any given year. And like others have said, Stern is only concerned about the product of his league. If anything Stern probably is happy with what the rule has done to some extent. Imagine where some guys would've been drafted, like Mullens, Koufos, Deandre Jordan, if they were allowed to come straight outta HS. But that one year of evaluation and scouting at a higher level allowed for the teams to take'em where they shoulda went. So in some way, Stern is not only protecting his league product, but also GM's from making crazy projections (even though they still do this to much of an extent; see Daniel Orton) that end up having you take a Robert Swift in the lottery looking to not miss out on the next ______.
Stern doesn't care about the effects of one and done on the college game. And just wants that extra 2 years (even though he settled for one) of evaluation. And like if others have said, one doesn't have a gun to his head saying go to college. If a kid is really that desperate for money to help out their family or whatever the case may be, there are alternatives. I like the rule, cause this is the highest level of basketball amongst players in their age group, so one can't just dominate with just raw tools like many do in HS that makes everyone looks great. It lets me evaluate guys against better comp, while also watching great basketball.
The NBA just wants the colleges to coach the kids a bit, give them some marketing, and an instant fan base. Having the kids go through college is huge for the NBA. Evaluating talent is also important and it makes the NBA better if teams don't blow their lottery pick on a dud. But I think it is the first part about getting free coaching and free marketing that the NBA really likes. Also it doesn't hurt that for some of the kids who are coming from poor schools and tough environments, going to college is a real education and I don't mean having anything to do with the classroom.
I personally dont like the rule, and its not for my own selfish reasons at all. The way I look at it is, is some of these kids who are projected lottery picks that are forced to go to "school" for a year are being denied the right to make millions of dollars right away, and most of these kids, not all, but most of them come from impoverished families and backgrounds. Now I'm a syracuse fan so i'll go with one of the former orange players, Paul Harris, who was a projected lottery pick coming out of high school, but he was forced to go to college for a year with the one year of "school" rule, now it turns out he wasnt the player people were expecting of him, but since he was forced to go to "school" for a year, he'll never ever make that kind of money he was going to make if he had gone right to the pros, in his lifetime, and to me, thats just not fair, this rule is in place to make more money for college AD's and Presidents, NBA GM and owners, everybody except for the people making them all there money, the athletes. So basically what im saying is, weather these kids turn out to be superstars, or busts, let them make there money right away. Implement a rule similar to baseball, if a kid wants to go pro right out of high school, let him, if he decides to go to college, make him stay 2-3 years, I think that helps the athletes, you know the people we pay and enjoy to watch, more then anybody else.
Cuseman, first off nobody is forced to go to school so you can drop that part of the argument. Secondly, your whole argent is based around protecting kids who can't hang and how they should be able to con ther way into a good contract they don't deserve? The reason the NBA requires a year out of highdcool is to make sure they hire men who are capable of performing the required tasks of the job. My sister is an accountant but can't get certain jobs without a CPA exam. I work in the water industry and cant get a promotion without state exams. Lawyers have to pass bar exams. Why should a business(NBA) have to appologize for having an evaluation requirement for perspective employees while no other busines in the united states of America has to?
I'm with you cusemen. I at first liked it because it allows high school seniors to mature, and we can find out faster if draft prospects are really busts or not, but I think there is another maybe more smarter way to do this. Not all kids have the opportunity to play internationally cuz like you said they don't have the money. The way the system is in place now, right after high school you either go to college or play internationally for at least a year before you go pro, or even enter the NBADL. But some kids aren't meant for college or even international play like Josh Selby and Paul Harris. (I remember hearing about this kid, and now I start thinking whatever happened to him) Like I said, I'm all for the one and done rule as far as maturing high school seniors but personally I think there is a much smarter way to do this. Baseball sounds like they are doing it perfectly. Having the NBADL is the golden opportunity to try something similar to what baseball does, instead of practically forcing high school seniors to either go to college or play internationally.
So why couldn't Paul Harris prove he was pro-ready while in college, where he came in older than his class? What is his position? Can he hit a shot outside of 15 feet? Physically he was solid, but skill was, had a long way to go. Would you want your team drafting Paul Harris straight outta HS in the lottery? Can he break down opposing guards off the dribble. I have a problem with guys feeling that their entitled to be an nba draft pick and entitled to be a lottery pick without having proven anything outside of the HS level. The rule is what it is, there's no point in playing hypotheticals. One year is good enough, although I would've liked it to have been 2.
I wish there wasn't such a stigma about going into the D-League out of HS instead of college. If money is such a concern, there's no reason why they couldn't get paid in the D-League until they are eligible. It's going to take a guy doing what Brandon Jennings did overseas for it to catch on, but I would love having the people who really don't want to go to college not taking scholarships they don't want and getting paid to play in a professional setting for a year. Plus, they might get slept on and end up in a Wesley Matthews situation, where they go undrafted but prove they can play and make more money than current rookies anyway.
David Stern implemented this rule because he wants the NBA game to be a better product for basketball fans. He believes that at least one year of college will better the development for future NBA players. I think he also feels that for a lot of these kids will have a hard time adjusting to the NBA lifestyle straight out of high school. Maybe he feels that these kids are physically not ready to compete with grown men. While those are valid opions, I still don't like the rule.
There have been numerous players (many of the best players in the league) have made the jump straight out of high school and have been extremely successful. It's been proven that many of these kids ARE ready to compete straight out of high school and play at a high level. Players like Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, Dwight Howard, Tracy McGrady are all superstars or have been superstars at points in their career's. Since it's been proven that there are 18 year olds ready to compete at the NBA level why would you keep them out?
Yes, there have been many players who made the jump from high school to the NBA that have fallen flat on their faces. You can say the same things about players who came out after one year of college or four years of college. It's all about the talent and potential for players. When talking about players who haven't been successful coming straight out of high school you don't say "well if Eddy Curry or Kwame Brown had one year of college they would be stars." That's completely untrue. What it boils down to is NBA scouts and general managers having to fully scout these guys to really get an idea of what they might become in the NBA. There are always going to be more question marks around guys coming straight from high school, but that is still part of the risk involved in drafting any player, college or not.
Many people think that going to college will further the development in terms of skill for players. I think this notion is false. While players might see more court time being a freshman in college rather than going straight to the NBA, NBA coaching is far better than any coaching they would receive in college. Any professional in any walk of life will be better developed by the best coaching/teaching available. NBA coaching for an entire season and playing against the best players in the world will develop these kids better than any coaching they would ever receive in college.
As far as development physically, the NBA again will be a better place for kids. In the NBA you are going to be eating well and will probably be on a nutrition program where you are eating proper meals. You also will be on a weight program and will be lifting on a daily basis. In college do you really think these guys are eating well and working out like they would be if they were in the NBA? The answer is no. Physically these guys will be better groomed if they go straight to the NBA.
All in all it isn't the worst rule in the world but I still don't agree with it. I understand where David Stern is coming from, but to be honest, the rule isn't fair. If it has been proven that there are 18 year olds ready to play at a competitive level against the best in the world, why would you want to keep them out? I would bet within the next 20 years the rule will be changed back to allowing kids to make the jump straight out of high school. I could probably keep going on why it isn't a great rule but I'm getting way too tired of typing. Starting to feel like I'm writing an essay for college.
Guys like Shelby and Paul Harris are exactly why the rule is needed. Now nobody will waste a high draft pick on guys like them.
There rule is there to protect GM's from drafting a bust with a high pick. Shelby's situation proves it is working.
llperez, these kids arent "conning" there way into the league, they have enough raw talent to deserve to be taken in the first round. GM's and scouts are paid to evaluate talent, if they think that a Paul Harris or a Josh Selby deserve to be taken in the 1st round out of high school, and these players dont turn out, that sucks, but I dont think there should be a bogus rule making these kids go to college for a year, and if these kids turn out to be a superstar, thats great, if not, well then atleast these kids made some cash in the process, and some of you are saying well its a good rule so some of these GM's wont draft these high school busts, well look at how many 2-4 year college players turn out to be absolute garbage, so its not as if some of these kids that GM's have watched for years in college and draft high are always going to be great, its a gamble, and its always going to be a gamble
You can only evaluate this rule based on your priorities. If you don't care about education and basketball is your number one priority, it's a great rule. This is a rule put into place to benefit the NBA and help stupid GMs avoid the embarrassment of drafting high school kids until they prove themselves against the best players in college.
The NBA tries to pretend this is a rule they enacted for the benefit of kids but that's one big lie!
If you value education, this rule makes a mockery of the already shaky term of "student athlete". Most One and Done players take nothing but Phys Ed courses during the fall semester. In the spring semester they can take Quantum Physics, Chemistry, and Biology because it really doesn't matter. Why? Because once the NCAA tournament ends, they can drop out of school and their spring semester grades are meaningless. Tell me that isn't stupid!
Finally, this is America and high school graduates should have the freedom to choose any occupation they want, including professional basketball.
@ cuseman, " these players have enough raw talent that they DESERVE to be taken in the first round."....... Uhm no they don't it's pretty clear lots of kids, highscool or college don't deserve to be taken first round just cause they looked like it in highschool. That's not even an argument. @ rtbt, " finally this is America and highschool graduates should have the freedom to choose any occupation they want including basketball."....who's stopping them from choosing basketball as a profession? Because they have to wait one year? How many professions can you get into straight out of highschool without any school, training, experience, exams etc.? Just about every good profession put there including police, teachers, politicians, business managers etc. Requires something so that statement makes no sense. Besides I can just as easily flip the argent and say well this is America and businesses should have the freedom to have whatever hiring qualifications so long as they are indiscriminatory, they want.
LLperez, I have tremendous respect for your basketball arguments but your logic in this one is flawed.
CPAs and Attorneys, plus many of the other professions you mentioned provide a financial or other type of service to the public. In order to protect consumers against fraud, we created laws to ensure CPAs and Attorneys meet certain standards and are certified. That's also true for police officers and teachers who protect the public and educate our children.
Basketball is a form of entertainment. It does not rise to the legal level of protecting consumers against financial fraud. No one will be hurt if a high school kids chooses professional basketball as his profession and he fails to succeed.
Except the guys paying their salary and the guys losing jobs cause they picked a bust. Besides in entertainment fields, people don't make any money until they prove themselves worthy. Actors don't just get a mill cause they choose that field. They have to do small roles and auditions and prove they deserve big money. Same for musicians before they get a record label to sign them. That is the American way so my argument still completely stands. Why should basketball players be treated different then everyone else?
I dont see the problem with telling high schoolers they cannot go straight to the NBA. I believe everyone involved benefits from this rule. First NCAA loves this rule it gives their leagues more superstars, Second David Stern & NBA GM's stops them from making "stupid" decisions on players that have only been tested against skinny 17 year olds, third the players a)get more practice at being the best player on their team rather than sitting on the bench for a year or two b) they also get exposed to the off the court celebraity that comes with being a professional Basketball player (even if it is on a smaller scale on the college level), Fourth the fans get to watch better basketball on both NCAA & NBA levels. I definitely believe this rule was made to benefit NCAA & NBA more than its concern about the young players or the fans. I do not see why it is bad though I cant think of any "real" negatives.
UnkleBuckshot I agree with everything you said. Look at the NFL where people stay for 3 years and you still have people like Pacman Jones and at a time Michael Vick that did not show much maturity just for "staying in college"
If we take the old rule that a player can declare at 18 years old then it puts the pressure on the GM's especially those of the lottery teams who may not be such experienced GM's as those on the play off teams and often they probably took a gamble on a player for fear that he could fall and turn out to be special further down the line.
The current situation gives the teams an extra year to identify players and evaluate them and also puts more stars into college for a year which for several of this year's freshmen will turn into a 2nd year. Bobby Knight has spoken out against it but others like Coach Cal have embraced it and just recruit for the next year.
I like some of what Ward12 suggests where effectively a player could be drafted out of HS and then maybe only play D-League for a year but could spend sometime with the guys on his NBA team's roster and get to know how things work and what is expected of them. Maybe they are paid a flat wage say $100,00 a year for top 10 picks down to say $50,000 for late first round picks and less for any 2nd rounders. These don't count on the player's rookie deals which kick in after one year but maybe count towards the salary caps.
International players can of course stay abroad but the above rules apply if they do declare at 18 and come to the NBA and High School guys could do a Brandon Jennings and go abroad for a year instead of doing an NBA intern.
I dont really like the rule but I can say a lot of players and NBA teams have benifited from it. There will always be some people and players that will not work with it. A lot of NBA Gm's are dumb and it seems that the NBA will continue to make concessions to support their stupidity. The issue with players and money is because of stupid Gm's and not the players.
llperez said, "Why should basketball players be treated different then everyone else?"
That's exactly why your logic is flawed. If a high school computer whiz kid wants to sign with IBM right out of high school he can. If IBM tells him he needs to spend X number of years in college, he is free to sign with Google, etc. It doesn't work that way with basketball because the NBA essentially has a monopoly. In reality, basketball players are being treated differently from everyone because they are not free to market their skills.
There are only going to be a very small handful of high school players each year who have the talent to go right into the NBA. In general they have zero interest in school so why perpetrate a fraud for one year? The only valid answer is to protect NBA GMs from stupid decisions.
If you restrict your argument only to basketball, don't care about education, and aren't interested in giving high school graduates the freedom to choose their own destiny, than this is a good rule.
Rtbt, let's be real and drop the whole education as an issue in this. Many athletes don't Care about education and it has always been that way and always will be that way. This rule changes nothing in that regard. There's guys who stay 4 years who don't take their education seriously. And you sound WAY overdramatic with the " if you don't care about allowing highschool graduates to choose their own destiny". 1 year of playing college ball or playing I'm the nbdl is not ending a kids destiny or stopping him playing pro ball just 12 months later. Microsoft and google are going to evaluate those computer prodigies to make sure they can adequately fill the position. Computer work is something where your performance is not impacted by competition like sports where a business can not know what they are hiring with a kid playing vs highschool kids.