Should the One-and-Done Rule Be ‘Done’ Away With?
By Editorial Staff
All puns aside, the one-and-done rule presents an interesting conundrum that is only becoming a bigger and bigger concern as each year goes on. This rule came about because the NBA couldn’t get out of its own way. The NBA is the master of trying to sustain systems that don’t work, and then creating its own Frankenstein-type monsters that cannot be controlled. Currently they are dealing with the blowback of their current CBA that has allowed bench players in the NBA to make more than Tom Brady or Peyton Manning.
The next biggest issue after salary concerns is the fabled one-and-done rule which came into effect in 2006. Starting in that year the NBA required that each player that gets drafted must be one year removed from high school in order to be eligible. This was in reaction to the slew of high school players that were trying their hand at the draft, weren’t actually ready, and were hurting themselves and the teams that drafted them in the process. The success of players like Kobe Bryant (1996), Lebron James (2003), and Dwight Howard (2004) led players that weren’t ready to the conclusion that they could make the league (*cough* Sebastian Telfair *cough*).
There are certain players that come along and they are ready to make the jump out of HS like James and Howard, but seeing that success created this wave of buzz as to who the next high school phenom was going to be. Eventually this lead to the top players in the country all thinking they could make the jump to the NBA. What they didn’t realize was that the talent each year is relative. The best player in one year might be the 15th best player in another year. Because Lebron James was the biggest recruit in the country doesn’t mean that the biggest recruit in the country every year is Lebron James.
Teams in the NBA are no doubt tired of spending high draft picks based on potential and seeing that potential not pan out. Such is why it will be a big issue come CBA negotiation time for the NBA and NBAPA. This will be of special interest to KU as the Jayhawks have recruited a top 10 recruit that took the one and done route in each of the last two years.
You can count head coach Bill Self among those that think that the one-and-done rule should be done away with. According to Coach Self:
"I don’t like what is in place now. It’s not because we’ve had two one-and-dones the last two years. Some people have had more. I don’t think what we have is fair to the kid. We say, ‘Come here to get a degree and help us win, and in turn, when the time is right, we’ll support any decision you make.’ That’s what we’ll say whether it’s one year or two years. The mind-set some kids have coming in is they can be a one-and-done guy. I can understand that. It’s the landscape of where we live and what we do, but it’s not the way it should be."
Self makes a good point here. With the players that can make an impact in the NBA at 18, they can go ahead and go. However, the players who would be better off going to college should have to stay to truly develop their games.
Take Josh Selby for example. Selby most likely would have come to college either way, but coming to college for him was a means to an end. Having the one-and-done rule just makes it more desirable for a kid to go to school for only one year and then try his hand at the pros. A highly recruited kid who thinks that he’s good enough to go to the pros only looks at college like a stop along the way. However, a kid who thinks he’s good enough, has the opportunity to go, and then is told he shouldn’t might actually take the time to refine his game in college and stay as long as necessary, instead of the requisite one year.
I think ultimately this rule will be changed. Change to 2 years or 3 years I am not sure but it will definitely be changed. I think that 3 years would be best (works for baseball), but I think it will probably wind up at two years, which will be fine and would make Josh Selby a much more valuable commodity in the draft. Changing this rule also makes it easier on coaches as they don’t have to immediately start recruiting past someone because they know he will be gone after a year, even increasing it to two years gives the coaches more stability on their teams and with their recruitment.