A Point About Derrick Rose

I don't know, Jason.  Isn't it more about making sure that there aren't a flood of prospects who are impossible to judge against real competition (a star in high school is going to dominate inferior competition)?  Isn't the NBA looking for fewer Kwame Browns to get drafted #1 overall and then suck?  

I don't think that the NBA really cares where these kids go off to spend their year after high school, but even that kid who went to play in Europe because he couldn't get into his college of choice now has game film where he didn't excel against even international competition (I believe he was left off his franchise's playoff roster).  

It's not about what's good for the prospects, it's about what's good for competition in the NBA.  It's not like Reggie Bush's career or image has been derailed by the much more serious allegations leveled at him after he left Southern Cal.

This case is really illustrative of the fact that the baseball rule makes SO much more sense and would be a great fit for basketball too (even though there's no substantial minor league system).

For kids like Rose (or Lebron or Kobe or Garnett or McGrady, etc.), who are truly gifted enough to jump straight to the league, a forced year of college is unfair to the player and makes a farce out of college itself. For the other 99.999 percent of basketball players, for kids who either want or need to develop their game (or for that matter their intellect) by attending college, institute a requirement of three years enrollment.

In baseball, as I understand it, you are eligible for the draft immediately out of high school. If you don't like your prospects or don't want to go straight into professional baseball (where there are far better opportunities to develop talent through the farm system), you opt out and are not eligible to apply for the draft for another three years.

For a player who isn't going to be an early-first round draft pick, make them ineligible to be drafted for another two or three years. Then you've got more predictability for both coaches and players, more freedom for special talents that should not be forced to fake a year of college, more integrity in our college athletic departments, and more common sense in an otherwise absurd, counterproductive system.

Kerouac is correct. The one and done rule isn't about protecting the image of NBA players, it's about protecting the value of high draft picks and the contracts given to them. Teams want a longer look at these players before they use a high lottery pick on them. If the Wizards had had a chance to look at Kwame Brown for even a year in college, even a godawful GM like Michael Jordan would have been able to see his fundamental laziness and lack of interest, and drafted someone else instead.

Derrick Rose was (allegedly) forced to cheat?  I guess because, you know, we couldn't expect him to study or something.  

Forgive my ignorance, did the rules change or something?  There are tons of NBA players (including some major stars) that didn't go to college at all.  

I am a Bulls fan, and love watching Rose play.  As such, I have avoided this story.  I like Rose, and find him a bright, respectful kid.  That said, my reaction to hearing about it was: who has to cheat to get into Memphis?  

I have heard David Stern defend the one and done rule and kerouac9's argument is the one Stern makes.  He says that it gives the league a year to scout these players at a higher level of competition.  and in combining the one-and-done rule with the rookie salary scale, the NBA has essentially gets a free year to determine who they can sign as cheaply as necessary to help there team without paying development costs.

I agree with dnyedkerouac and DC Spence re: the NBA;' reasons, but I would also argue that there are benefits to the one and done players.  They have a period of adjustment from living at home to being in the center of the media, wealth, hype storm that comes with being in the NBA.  They have to deal with the pressure of being a big recruit, but it's nothing compared to being the first round lottery draft savior for the team.  In the same vein, it provides an intermediate step, jumping from the shorter high school schedule to a 40 game season before the NBA 82 game, October to May or June marathon.  

Second, Going through the college system can provide a highly important reality test for a high school player.  The hype machine will be met with actual results: In college the highly talented won't be quadruple teamed because teams will actually have the athletes to match up with his size, athleticism, or skill.  The average high school team doesn't have a seven foot player, but good college teams can run several guys 6'8" or so plus against someone like that.  I mean, you think Cole Aldrich was ever seriously challenged in high school?   At college, a closer parity of talent forces big men to develop real skills, whether it's back to the basket offense or strong low post defense. It forces wings to develop reliable jumpers or agressive D. I also dispute the notion that playing in college somehow doesn't develop the athletes.  One of the bigger offseason recruiting developments was that Xavier Henry, a priced wing recruit was going to Kansas after Calipari backed out at Memphis.  You think he's going to get playing time to shine under Bill Self if he doesn't play defense?  I imagine he's going to play more defense next year than he has for the first 18 years of his life.  

I mean, I seem to recall that we were supposed to remember the name Brandon Jennings.  He was supposed to be the big project that would beat the NBA Age Limit by going oversees, except it turned out that he found out he wasn't that talented, had a pretty lousy time and is pretty much an afterthought. I remember the bold predictions that "if he came out now without the limit, he'd be a consensus #1 pick" or some such.  However, look at the mock drafts now, and in a week talent field he's going 6th or 7th, after Blake Griffin (who was a one and done who came back and became a much better player), and several others.

Third, , the one year with a college coach can greatly improve their skill set.  As a one and done player on a college team vs. a high school rookie, they'll get a lot more playing time against quality competition in competitive games rather than riding the pine or being shipped to the wasteland that is the D-league.  Moreover, if the player works for a good coach, that coach can increase their basketball skill set.  One of the best "one and done" careers was that of Brandon Rush.  Wait, he left as a Junior?  Yes, but he came to Kansas as a one and done, then decided against jumping because the Bradley bummer left a bad taste in his mouth, and then on the eve of jumping as a soph he tore his ACL, came back for his Junior year, and was the best player on a national championship team.  More importantly from a basketball perspective, he went from being a one dimensional slashing player to being the team's best lockdown defender, routinely tasked to slow down and stop All-Americans like Kevin Durant, Michael Beasley, Stephen Curry, UNC's various wings and Chris Douglas-Roberts.  He also moved from a borderline first rounder to a lottery pick.

Finally, it can help the player's own stock.  Guys like Kevin Durant or Derrick Rose were thought to be good out of high school, but they were hardly the consensus top or top 2 pick.  Moreover, they were able to build their own star power that boosts their own brand awareness so they can make a better money impact as a rookie.  People know who Derrick Rose or Kevin Durant is much more than they would have if they had gone straight there.  Also, it can provide a strong reality judgment to the player.  If they come to the NCAA game and don't show that they can compete on that level, it can encourage them to stay in school longer to develop their game and improve both their stock and their long term success.  It forces them into a system, yes, but it forces them into a system designed to improve them as players (if you don't want your players to get better, why coach), and can provide them better advice and skills for their long term success.

It can improve their basketball skills, grant them an adjustment period for their emotional maturity, provide a reality check so they can see how realistic their long term plans are,  and raise their public profile and thus their earning potential.  If these little John Galts .can have some patience, their tomorrow will be alot better in the long run.

boneill -- I've been thinking that since I heard this story but you're the first person I've heard say it.  I've been thinking I missed something and confused Memphis with Vanderbuilt or something.

Here is where the curmudgeon from academia grumps that, all of the arguments about how the one-year rule is or is not good for the NBA, or for the individual NBA superstar wannabe, should not at all require NCAA schools to play along with the charade of the one-year player/one-semester student (as has been argued by others, Bob Knight among them, a player who knows their plans to go pro after one year has no incentive to show up at all during the spring semester for anything but practice and games).  That they do so (my own school, alas, among them).  Give me baseball's system any day.

Hmm, little sentence fragment action there...That they do so (my own school, alas, among them) is to their own grief and detriment, as Memphis is now being forcibly reminded.