What is the “one-and-done” rule in college basketball ? The rule mandates players wait a year after high school before entering the NBA draft. This rule has been debated for a long time. Those in favor argue it fosters player development, while critics see it as detrimental to the college game of basketball. Let’s delve into the pros and cons of this controversial rule and have you form an opinion.
One benefit of the one and done rule is that the additional year in college allows young players to physically mature, refine their skills under experienced coaching, and gain valuable experience against quality competition. One can argue that this enhances the player development and can better prepare them for the rigors of the NBA. Critics may say that one year alone isn’t enough to make a significant impact.
It is no secret that top recruits typically generate excitement and media attention for their schools. The increased ticket sales, merchandise revenue, and overall program prestige is very appealing to any institution. Additionally, having many one-and-done talented athletes creates equality across college basketball. These top recruits can elevate lesser-known programs.
However to many the drawbacks of this rule outweigh the benefits, especially to the young athlete that is involved. One major critique is the academic concerns around this one and done rule. It puts basketball as the priority over academics knowing that the NBA is in their future relatively soon. If that is the case then what really is the educational value and college experience of such an athlete? Additionally, if a Coach is building a team around one-and-done stars, those teams can really struggle with chemistry and lack cohesion. The focus might shift from developing well-rounded players to showcasing the star’s talent, all of which will have lasting impacts on those players that remain behind. The ultimate critique, however, is that the schools benefit most while players receive minimal compensation (although that is starting to change with the new NCAA rules).
Is there a middle ground to be found? One solution is to raise the minimum age for the NBA Draft: This could allow players to mature more before entering the professional ranks and allows them to take advantage of the college experience and garner more value in the education they are pursuing. To protect the athlete a declare and return option should always be on the table. Players could declare for the draft while retaining college eligibility if not selected high enough. This sways some of the power back in the hands of the young athlete. The biggest change however would be the increased compensation for players that is granting them the right to profit from their name, image, and likeness which could address exploitation concerns and be incentive enough to keep them in college basketball for more years.
I believe that there has been thoughtful consideration and cross-functional perspectives from players, coaches, schools, and fans that is influencing positive change to a system that prioritizes both player development and the preservation of the integrity of college basketball.
