The One Year Rule Is Paying Off For The NBA Big Time ...

by Achilles on Jun 29, 2008 5:00 AM PDT in Basketball

The one year rule is win win for the colleges and the pros, or so it seems.

The colleges are benefiting from getting a year out of the guys who would have gone pro straight out of high school. (Would it be better for colleges if there was a two year rule or a three year rule? Sure. But the comparison is between the one year rule and the zero year rule.)

It's no fun losing your best guy after only one year if you are a college fan, but it is so much better than not having him at all. I'm glad we had Love, you know SC is glad they had Mayo, Ohio State is thankful for Oden, Texas loved having Durant ... these guys were all pros who made the last two college seasons much better than they would have been if those guys went straight to the league.

And the NBA is going to benefit as well.

I read this blog enough to believe that being an NBA fan (and I am) is a minority view. There are other NBA fans on BN, but there are more who don't like it or are indifferent.

But having our guys in the draft seems to have made a huge difference. Some of us want NBA jerseys, more are vowing to watch the Sonics and the Timberwolves and so on. That's exactly what the NBA wanted.

For a long time, the NBA benefited because the NCAA made stars of the players before they went into the league. Rookies were known, they had a following. That's what they wanted when the put in the one year rule. ESPN is again making stars of the college players.

Not only that, but the players/NBA are benefiting from college coaching. With Howland, I think it is obvious, because his focus on defense is a bit of an anomaly -- getting guys who play defense with the intensity of our guys is rare. But most of the players are getting something out of a year in college, no matter who they are playing for.

(A side note: You know how there is something slightly off about Kobe, something you can't quite put your finger on? I mean, you know he's great, but there is something about his attempt to be a great teammate that's slightly unnatural for him. It's the thing that separates him from Jordan ... and that thing is Jordan played three years for Dean Smith and learned to be a teammate and Kobe came straight into playing for Del Harris and never quite got that part of being a star.)

0 recs | Comment 9 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Faulty Logic

Good point from a business standpoint. I do find myself following the progress of guys like Afflalo, Farmar, Love, Westbrook and Moute, thus following more NBA teams.

I believe your last analogy with Kobe is faulty. You’re saying a player that doesn’t go to college becomes a bad teammate.

This can easily be disproved by players like Garnett, James, and Howard, and a host of other high school to pros players.

There are so many more factors that alienate Kobe. He was brought up in a different country, didn’t grow up poor, living in the era of camera phones and 24-hour, on-demand media, etc…. To say its only b/c he missed out on college coaching is what separates him from Jordan is absurd.

One and done only benefits the NBA and Colleges. Its a pure business move. If the NBA were truly committed to developing players, they could easily develop a true minor league system.

If expensive sports like baseball and hockey can have them why not basketball?

You answer this in your post. Its about having these kids pre-packaged for the NBA. Hypocritical of the league, being many of their current superstars and solid players that came straight from high-school: James, Garnett, Howard, Bryant, McGrady, O’Neal, Stoudamire, Ellis, Chandler, Jefferson, Lewis, Miles, Harrington, Green, Smith, Smith….

by Bruindropout on Jun 29, 2008 10:08 AM PDT 0 recs

Hell add Perkins to that list too.

After the NBA finals I’d say Perkins belongs on that list too.

by Bruindropout on Jun 29, 2008 10:09 AM PDT up 0 recs

I disagree with your basic premise, A

I would prefer letting kids go straight to the NBA from Jr. High, if they want to. Robin Yount went from playing short for Taft (I think it was Taft) to playing short for the Brewers – no college, no minor leagues. He may well have gone to UCLA, but not having had him, I didn’t miss him. Same think for Kobe – are there huge groups of college basketball fans who would have wanted to see him play for one year? I don’t think so.

I think one and done is just a tease to college basketball fans. Sure, I’m glad Kevin Love played for the Bruins, but if he had not paused in Westwoon on his way to the NBA, our team still would have been successful and I would have gotten over not having had Kevin in Blue and Gold.

I still favor the approach that says kids can go to college or not, but if you commit a scholarship to a kid, that scholarship is unavailable for anyone else if that kid opts to go pro either in the US or in Europe. So the one and done mills might hang tough for 3 or four years, but they would not have a lot of scholarships available at some point. In short, I’m for college basketball, not pro basketball college version.

by Fox 71 on Jun 29, 2008 11:52 AM PDT 0 recs

I agree with the Geezer

I simply cannot accept the idea that the role of a university is to be an athletic farm system.

First and foremost, universities are academic institutions—places of higher learning. Yes, some one and dones get a smatter of education, but most don’t. And, while their seats in classes go empty, there are people who could not get into UCLA or the school of their choice because their space was lost to a one and done athlete.

I don’t buy the argument that athletes have a “right”, as do all students, to stop learning when they want. That their curriculum is to learn to play their sport better.

That argument raises the classic distinction between a trade school and an academic institution.

I have no problem with trade schools giving on-the-job training to athletes just as they do for carpenters and cooks.

I just don’t think that is the role of a great university.

So, Achilles, with deep respect, I disagree with your statement that the system is working for both the NBA and the university. It is only working if we forget the academic component of the university’s mission. I cannot do that.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Jun 29, 2008 12:15 PM PDT up 0 recs

On the other hand

Yes, 66, I agree with you in that

It is only working if we forget the academic component of the university’s mission. I cannot do that.

I can’t do that either. And I’m willing to bet most Bruins can’t. We take an immense amount of pride in the fact that UCLA is not just an athletic powerhouse but a world-class academic institution.

So, yes, in that respect, this system is not working for us. But while we may not be willing to overlook the university’s academic mission, a lot of other schools are quick to turn a blind eye to make a quick buck. So, for those schools that don’t care about the academic component to “student-athlete” this system is perfect. They improve the quality of their program with a quick infusion of talent waiting to jump to the NBA (look at Ohio State w/ Conley and Oden) and turn a quick buck in the process (Ohio State attendance increased during the Conley/Oden year).

The way I read Achilles’ point is that the system is the perfect union for the money-hungry NBA and NCAA institutions willing to turn a blind eye to the academic goals of college.

Look no further than across town to see proof of that in action.

by norcald503 on Jun 29, 2008 10:45 PM PDT up 0 recs

I have to agree with the old men

Mainly because I really don’t follow the NBA. I followed the finals more this year because it was Lakers-Celtics, but I do not get emotionally involved like I did 20 years ago. Those days are long gone for me.

Yes, I enjoyed KL’s year here at UCLA. He’s a great kid, has a good head on his shoulders, and I wish him a long and prosperous NBA career. But I would have loved one more year of Uncle BB and I sharing notes about basketball and telling each other, “There’s no stopping that monster.”

Earlier this week, John Berry brought up a good point that NBA GMs are now forced to take chances on talent that has still been unproven. In the past, first rounders had at least three solid years and a proven record. Now, the perspective is that if a player spends all four years in school that there is something wrong with his game. I find that incredibly sad.

If you are an NBA fan, then yes, this is a good trend. But for me, I will always have a big place in my heart for players like DC and LMR who fully bought into CBH’s program and lived up to their scholarships.

by bruinbabe2000 on Jun 29, 2008 12:43 PM PDT up 0 recs

Make that Geezers Three

For me, a three-year rule is the best compromise. While I agree that the soundest solution, in terms of promoting academic integrity, is Fox’s suggestion about reserving scholarships for 4 years, I don’t think that will ever happen, in any sport.

But, the three-year rule is working pretty well in football. It strikes a nice balance between an athlete’s commitment to the university and the athlete’s freedom to make a living. I may be wrong, but I would think that most players who had stuck it out for three years would eventually get their degree.

The alternative to accepting a scholarship and committing to three-years of true scholar-ahtleteness is to go pro right out of high school. Or, play in Europe. Or, play in the NBA D-league. Or, get a new PlayStation. But, if you want to play in college, you’re going to have to make a serious commitment with regard to the, you know, academics.

The NBA is exploiting the one-and-done situation as a cost-free developmental league. So, while there is benefit to both the NBA and to colleges with the current situation, the scale is heavily tilted, in my view, toward the NBA. The win-win is more like WIN-win.

by Bruinut on Jun 29, 2008 4:26 PM PDT up 0 recs