As to your first point, yes, I’ve played with guys who are “me first” kind of guys. They exist in every sport and every level. I think your initial post made a broad generalization of “one-and-done” players, that, for the most part, they are guys who are “me first, need to put up big numbers, I’m the star” kind of players. Your line of thought assumes all of the one-and-done guys are like Mayo, Bayless, and Jennings.

Simply put, I don’t think that’s true. K-Love was able to fit himself into the team game. Jrue chose UCLA, when, by all acounts, he could have gone anywhere to play his year of college ball. It’s no secret CBH is a team-first, defense-first kind of guy. It’s well known that if you don’t play defense at UCLA, you don’t play period. Ask Stanback. Yet, Jrue and Bobo Morgan both chose UCLA.

Jrue will play within CBH’s system or he won’t play. And he’ll still be a lottery pick. Putting up big numbers and being a lottery pick are not mutually exclusive. Again, look at RW. His season numbers were lower than Mayo, Augustin, and Bayless, IIRC. And yet, except for Mayo, he was taken ahead of them in the draft. GMs don’t draft guys based on college numbers alone, so that is, IMO, a flaw in your logic. RW played the team game and got a pretty impressive pay-day.

Adam Morrison, J.J. Reddick, and Gerry McNamara put up big numbers in college. And on the next level? They suck.

As for your examples of Bayless, Jennings, O’Neill, and the Mildcats: those problems of meshing those two guys to Arizona isn’t a by-product of the one-and-done system. It’s the product of Lute bringing in guys with attitude problems and a me first attitude. There’s a fundamental difference between CBH recruits and Lute recruits. Our guys are willing to sacrifice their personal glory for the team, whereas Lute’s guys are all about showcasing themselves. And we have just as many one-and-done types as Arizona does/did, so it’s not like these one-and-done kids are flocking to just the places where the coaches will let them do what they want.

As for your second point, I again disagree with you. The European leagues are not competition to the NBA’s grip on elite talent. European leagues are, far and away, second-tier compared to the NBA. This is not, as you alluded to in your initial post, an NBA-ABA type rivalry for talent. The fact remains is that the best talent goes to the NBA and the guys who couldn’t make it in the NBA go to Europe (just as in football, if you can’t make it in the NFL, you go to the CFL). Europe only lures away role players from the NBA and only because European leagues will pay top dollar to NBA role players. Europe will never be able to pry away elite talent from the NBA. Can’t ever see Kobe playing for Barcelona. Won’t happen now. Won’t happen ever.

Finally, as to making fundamental changes, I do agree with you there. The D-League needs to be completely re-vamped into a full-blown minor league system. The best system for the players (and for maintaining the integrity of student-athletics that Fox and ‘66 have mentioned) is the system used for college baseball. Guys get a choice coming out of HS: accept the scholarship and spend at least 3 years in college or go straight into the minor leagues and work your way up to the big show.

It works for baseball. I see no reason why it couldn’t work for basketball in this country. The one obstacle to this, of course, is the NCAA. There’s a reason college baseball isn’t a major revenue sport and why college basketball and football are. The former loses most of the elite talent to the minor league farm system while the latter two are a glorified farm system for the NBA and NFL. The NCAA isn’t going to give up that cash cow without a fight, so be prepared.

Fox,

While the connection between U$C’s success and any revenue the NCAA may draw from it hasn’t been fleshed out, the NCAA does draw major revenue from both televised bowl games and the March Madness tournament (as in the television networks pay top dollar for the rights to televise BCS games and March Madness)

First, we have to remember the NCAA is a voluntary organization of member schools. With that in mind, revenue taken by the NCAA can come in a couple of forms, but usually either to the NCAA as a whole, or revenue distributed to the NCAA member schools.

As for March Madness, the NCAA distributes the revenue from the multi-billion dollar television contract to the Division I member schools with basketball programs based on a formula.

As for the BCS and bowl games in general, schools skip the NCAA HQ altogether, getting the money directly themselves through its contracts between the BCS and Fox for the broadcast rights.

Now, for some raw numbers, it looks like, the NCAA (or the member schools directly operating through BCS) had these contracts:

BCS (Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Championship Game) (FOX): $80 million
BCS (Rose Bowl) (ABC): $30 million

BCS combined: $110 million

March Madness (as of CBS’s 1990 contract): $1 billion

I assume, of course, that the dollar value has gone up significantly since 1990, but I wasn’t able to find a dollar figure in my quick research.

Finally, as a point of comparison, I couldn’t find a dollar figure for the College World Series alone. But, in my quick research, I discovered ESPN paid a lump sum for 21 (that’s right, twenty-freakin’-one) championships, including both the Div. I Women’s Basketball tournament and the Div. I Men’s College World Series. That deal, over 11 years, was worth $200 million ($160M in raw money and $40M in promotions).

Basically, ESPN paid double the cost of the BCS bowl games for 21 championships. The BCS bowl games brought more than half of the same revenue that 21 championships bring in. March Madness? A cool billion in the NCAA and member school’s pockets.

I think it’s safe to say, based on this quick run-through of the numbers, that football and basketball (and the accompanying TV broadcasting rights) are major sources of revenue for the NCAA and its participating member schools (such as the BCS schools for football).

I hope this helps, at least a bit.