NCAA Basketball: The best alternative to “One and Done” rule

NCAA Basketball has been affected by the one and done rule since it’s inception. Is there a better alternative for the sport?

The one and done rule is easily the most criticized rule surrounding NCAA Basketball. A big misconception, however, is that the rule is an NCAA rule; it is actually an NBA age eligibility rule. Under the current system, players are ineligible to declare for the NBA draft directly out of high school which has created a dilemma for many young NBA prospects looking to advance their careers.

Whenever there is a roadblock in life, it presents an opportunity to discover a new path and that is exactly what has been created since the inception of the one and done rule. There are a number of detours ranging from Lavar Ball wanting to start an elite juniors league in the United States to the more common path of prospects beginning their professional careers overseas for a year after high school. The destination is always the same though, the National Basketball Association. Now I am not going to debate the merit of the one and done rule, we know it is broken, or what the best option for potential prospects is, but rather present a different viewpoint on this issue.

We all know the names Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Dwight Howard and LeBron James. The commonality among them all is that they entered the NBA directly out of high school prior to the establishment of the one and done rule. But for every successful player who went to the league directly from high school, there is at least one player that this decision hindered their development and shortened a potentially successful NBA career.

Do you remember the names James Lang, DeAngelo Collins, Korleone Young or Ronnie Fields? Well, all were McDonald’s All-American players who were out of the league within a year of declaring for the NBA draft. That means these players were ranked in the top 25 of their respective high school graduating class and none lasted more than a year in the NBA. Is this a coincidence? I would argue that the Kobe’s and LeBron’s are the exception, not the rule, for the career path of prospects that enter the NBA draft directly from high school.

So what is the solution then? We can all agree the one and done rule is flawed. In its place, I would develop an NBA eligibility requirement very similar to that of the NCAA college football rule. College football players must be three years removed from high school in order to enter the NFL draft. The main reason why this rule is in place for football is because professional football players are much more developed physically and have a skill set that is in no way comparable to that of a high school prospect. It can be argued that a NCAA Basketball player is much more developed physically and skills-wise when compared to NBA players, but I think that is a weak argument. The point of an age requirement should not be solely based off of physical gifts and talent. These prospects we are talking about are young kids who need to develop off the court as well as on it.

Applicable life skills can be learned outside of a university and I am not claiming college is the right path for everyone. Yet, the experience from a college campus undoubtedly helps a person, which is what these prospects should be viewed as first, people. Additionally, remaining with one coach and the same teammates for multiple seasons would accelerate a player’s basketball development. It is not a coincidence that the rosters of many NCAA Championship teams are filled with upperclassman who have remained with a program for 2+ years. Under the one and done rule, these elite draft prospects hardly remain on a college campus for 7 months! I encourage everyone to watch the Ben Simmons documentary of his time at LSU to understand just how disengaged players can be on a college campus. A meaningful connection to a university and teammates cannot adequately be made in such a short amount of time.

Also, these prospects class schedules generally consist of easy or, in some cases, fake classes to maintain playing eligibility. The University of North Carolina was exposed for fake courses being taken by the majority of their basketball team over a decade ago, and I can all but guarantee this occurs in many major basketball programs across the country. This is a farce and these players should be held to a higher standard, rather than being taught the easiest way to avoid responsibility and just get by to make it to the NBA.

Amending the NBA age eligibility rule to three years removed from high school would not only benefit the prospects playing on the court, but also the NCAA and NBA. College basketball would become much more competitive and fan bases could connect more emotionally with a program knowing their favorite players would be on the team for at least three years. On the flip side of the coin, the NBA would receive much more physically and mentally developed players that would enhance the quality of the product they put on the court. For those prospects who do not want to attend college, they still have the opportunity to play overseas in Europe. This addresses the same issue of playing for a European team for 7-9 months in lieu of attending college. A connection to a city and a team can be created for those who choose that route.

In summation, the one and done rule is the worst of all the options available; its’ ripple effects have further reaching consequences than are visible on the surface. Requiring three years post high school, may seem to curb a player’s right to choose what to do with their future. However, think of all the outside influences currently surrounding a player’s decision on when to enter the NBA draft. I believe these outside voices and pressures can be more hazardous to a prospect’s future success than delaying draft eligibility for two years. Maybe the middle ground involves compensating the players in some way in order to make this work, but that is a conversation for another day.