After watching the NCAA Championship Game on Monday night, a tense game with enough drama to make it memorable, the chorus began singing. And no I’m not referring to Luther Vandross’ “One Shining Moment” in the background of CBS’ season ending montage or a proverbial Fat Lady. I allude to the chorus of personalities, pundits, and eggheads who began proclaiming Kentucky’s win proved the ultimate corruption of college basketball. For the first time, a team purely of freshman and sophomore talent won the title, with all those players expected to leave for the NBA next season. By now, the cacophony in the sports media world should bore you, but the fundamental question remains. Does the one-and-done rule truly diminish college basketball and, for lack of a better word, assault the sport’s integrity?
The arguments on both sides are tantalizing and resonate with almost everyone. A college education and subsequent degree holds a lot of respect and reverence among many of us. As the world evolves, the overwhelming majority of jobs require a college degree, making it difficult to achieve large social mobility without one. The NBA, however, does not require one, only stipulating you must be 19 to be eligible for the draft. Given the riches and prestige associated with professional basketball, others of us say, “let them play right out of high school and take the risk of not making it.” One thing for sure is that fans no longer can connect with individual players over 3-4 years since many aren’t around that long. I will say that is not good for the game, as college football shows how fantastic three years of exposure to players like Tim Tebow, Andrew Luck, and Trent Richardson can be from a fan perspective
From my perspective, the one-and-done rule attempts a middle ground that ultimately will be untenable for all concerned. For me there are two choices: revert to high school entry or allow no eligibility until after age 21. The benefits of both outweigh the current ruling by a long shot.
High School Eligibility
High school entry will sound very controversial to some of you. After all, why do we want to propel immature 18 year olds who’ve never lived by themselves into the temptations of pitfalls of the professional basketball life? A fair point, but is that truly our call to make? The great ESPN documentary “The Fab Five” details the early 90s Michigan basketball phenoms who came from poorer backgrounds and, while wanting a national championship, couldn’t wait to provide for themselves and their families by jumping to the NBA. Let’s face it, many of these prospects come from poorer segments and would benefit from the lucrative money in the NBA. In addition, while we should support education, personal responsibility must also be supported and if these kids are willing to risk their career in the NBA, they can return to college later to pursue a degree.
On another note, few labor forces in the world are exploited financially like mainstream college athletes. While I do not want to invite labor stoppages or players’ unions onto college campuses, consider the amount Kentucky pays for a one year scholarship and then how much revenue the institution makes off basketball. Even if a player stayed all four years the profit would still be gargantuan, but at least the school would then provide an education, somewhat offsetting its profits and provided the athlete in question with a degree for the future. (I don’t think those things equate, but it’s better than the schools making tons more revenue and the athlete not having a degree -- like under the one-and-done rule).
Yes, we as fans would not see people like Carmelo Anthony or Anthony Davis in college. Those national title runs made for great theater and drama and make me admit watching LeBron James, Kobe, or Kevin Garnett in the college atmosphere would have been a huge treat. But, can you truly say your appreciation for those guys is diminished because they didn’t attend college? They would have succeeded regardless in the NBA so I think fans would not be too unhappy. Perhaps without people like Anthony Davis the college game would decrease in competition level, but the lack of such players would also even out the sport as a whole, achieving more parity and most likely a little more excitement. Chuck Klosterman of Grantland makes an excellent point that continuing the one-and-done will create tiers where top tier programs literally revolve around recruiting guys for one or two years, wooing them with the prospect of a championship. I don’t think that would be much better, as one one-and-dones for the most part congregate in all the same programs.
Under this rule you could still leave after one year, but why leave after one year when you could have springboarded earlier? I believe in championships as motivation for some, but if you’re a kid from humble origins the money would look much better. In the three years after 2005, when the one-and-done took effect, 27 players left early. In the previous three years, only 15 did the same. So the numbers bear out the idea that players who attended college are more likely, though not guaranteed, to stay longer.
Eligibility after age 21
I see this as the perfect scenario that would ultimately satisfy everyone in question. But, for this to work college athletes would have to receive a stipend to make it feasible, since I don’t see too many star recruits delaying huge money for three years. I want to, since college football athletes do, but recent investigations into college football calls into question what exactly those athletes receive in school.
While star prospects would have to delay lucrative money, many of them would see their draft stock rise playing well against better competition in college, possibly leading to even more NBA money. I realize that might seem like a stretch and there are busts from both high school and college, but someone like Kobe, traded on draft day, might find his name at the top if he had shown his stuff in college. Even more beneficial, this idea would buoy all players who would also be much closer to obtaining a degree (on the school’s dime) and might decide ultimately to stay one more year to attain that. At the very least, being closer to that goal would cause them to think about it more than as freshmen.
I think fans and the game would benefit as well. For one thing, a fan can now follow players and their intimate details throughout college, in much the same way Thomas Robinson of Kansas received attention this past year for his incredible journey. Also, the inclusion of players like John Wall, Kyrie Irving, Anthony Davis, and Austin Rivers would make for some great teams. More importantly, those teams would be more spread out across the college landscape. Rivers probably goes somewhere else to play if Irving remains in college, for example. While I don’t doubt the traditional programs would remain powerful, I think teams like the 2011-12 Kentucky Wildcats would not be the norm. (This is a semi-bold prediction since players could congregate in programs to try and win three championships, not one. Ultimately, there is too much talent in high schools however to make that a more likely possibility in my mind).
Some of you will disagree with either or both of these alternatives, but I think they would provide the greatest benefit to everyone, at least more so than the current ruling. Don’t blame Kentucky or John Calipari, as he assembled a great team using a rule he doesn’t like but also didn’t create. Obviously I want to see how good his team is through the next three years and, ultimately, I think history will peg this team as one of the greatest “what-ifs” in college basketball, assuming they all leave.
The issue regrettably is the NCAA has no real say on this, as the NBA’s eligibility rules are the only one that matter. If the trend continues in college basketball of one-and-done wins, I would expect some movement on this. David Stern admitted this week he wants the age to increase to 20 but can’t obtain approval from the players’ association. I think my idea of 21 as the age limit would be fantastic, but in the end look for the system to either stay the same or revert to high school eligibility. We as fans should take the time to enjoy one-and-done players in college when we can, appreciating their talent and abilities in the fun, traditional setting of college basketball, because this type of player looks to have a very short shelf life.
No comments:
Post a Comment