Busting Brackets

Larry Scott Hates the One and Done Rule


March 15, 2013; Las Vegas, NV, USA; Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott addresses the media in a press conference before the semifinal round of the Pac 12 tournament at the MGM Grand Garden Arena. Mandatory Credit: Kyle Terada-USA TODAY Sports

The idea of the one and done has had its opposition ever since the rule was created in 2006. Its name originates from the NBA’s age restriction clause in their CBA that rules that a player must be one year removed from his high school graduation to be eligible for the NBA draft. Because of it, it has created a lot of situations where highly talented basketball players found themselves forced to attend university and play in the NCAA while waiting to become able to enter the NBA draft. Because most of them leave after only one year at school, they have become known as one and done players and the age restriction itself, is mostly referred to as the one and done rule.

As mentioned above, it has been debated time and time again, and this site is no exception. The reason it comes up again today is that, according to AZCentral.com, Larry Scott, the commissioner of the Pac 12, has come out in strong opposition as the rule.

"“Anyone that’s serious about the collegiate model and the words ‘student-athlete’ can’t feel very good about what’s happening in basketball with one-and-done student athletes,’’ Scott told a small group of reporters at last week’s Pac-12 football media day. “It’s crazy what’s going on,” Scott said. “We’ve managed with the NFL and football to have a reasonable policy that allows kids to go pro at the appropriate time. We’ve managed to do it in baseball. Basketball’s the only sport where we haven’t managed to come up with a responsible policy and the blame is with the NBA, the NBA Players Association and the NCAA, so now’s the time to take ownership of it. We’ve got time. We’ve made major changes in football. Now there’s time to make major changes in basketball.”"

The point Scott raises is a valid one and one that has been brought up in every single argument about the rule in question. Calling these players student athletes is as much of a stretch as saying that Bill Cartwright was the catalyst for the Bulls’ NBA championships. It makes a mockery of the system and makes it seem like the NCAA is only interested in monetization of the players’ abilities.

While it is a worthwhile debate, the biggest issue with solving the problem is that no solution seems acceptable to all the sides. The NBA does not want to force young players to play three years in college because it is money that they are missing out on. The NCAA does not want to allow high school players back in the draft because they would then be drawing the short stick. Imagine if they were to miss Andrew Wiggins this season who certainly would have jumped right to the NBA from high school, it would mean so much to their bottom line.

The fact that this is a financial issue is entirely disappointing. What the NBA and the NCAA should be looking at is what is best for the players. While this will likely never happen, it would certainly be a great day if they could come up with a compromise that would make everybody happy and allow the rest of us to focus on the fun part of college basketball, the competition.