Is the one-and-done rule bad?

[muskieman]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/8137 ... le-was-bad

[Mr. Neutral]

I think the problems with the rule are becoming more clear, but I still think it could be tweaked so as to work (possibly requiring more successfully-completed credit hours?).

[Wisexuowl]

(possibly requiring more successfully-completed credit hours?)

That makes no sense. Mid-way thru their second semester, or after their second quarter, they're done!

The NCAA cannot make a rule in opposition to an institution's rules. Such as .. they cannot tell a student athlete he has to carry15 hours (your more hours theory) where as the school says to be a full-time student you have to carry 12.

Actually, this is an NBA and Players Association rule. It is not an NCAA rule, other than the "one and done's" have to meet the same requirements for a grant-in-aid as anyone else.

They could, to keep kids in school, allow them to declare for the draft, and if they are (or are not) drafted make a choice to sign, or return to school. A lot of kids would find out that if they wait a year, they won't take the second round money, and the next year they could well be a first rounder with the guaranteed money.

What's the harm there?

[Mr. Neutral]

Wise, my specific issue was that the rule now only requires that the student-athlete pass six credit hours in their first semester. That really makes a mockery of the intended effect.

Using your parameters, require that the student-athlete successfully complete 12 hours each semester, or 20 hours total, or something like that.

And, as to your thought that "They could, to keep kids in school, allow them to declare for the draft, and if they are (or are not) drafted make a choice to sign, or return to school", that option exists now. The only way a player loses his eligibility is if he signs with an agent.

[Wisexuowl]

For 45-years I have pushed the 12-hour proposal. To be eligible, the student-athlete must pass with a C average 12 hours each semester, and all 12 hours must be in courses that lead to a degree.

That way, after his first four years he would have at least 72 hours of degree qualifying credit hours ... and the probability of even more hours ... and it would reduce the number of "factories" keeping athletes eligible with credit hours way past "elective" hours where athletes today are "stashed."

The NCAA makes a big deal about "core courses" in recruits, grade averages, and class standings .... but nothing once they start college. They say they leave that up to the institutions. Funny, Funny, Funny.

BTW .. are you sure about having to pass just six hours a semester to be eligible? Christ, Oden et al could have been eligible and never leave the athletic complex taking just "coaching" courses.

[Mr. Neutral]

I was trying to confirm the "6-hour" part on the one-and-done rule after hearing it brought up on Dan Patrick's radio show, and found a mention of it in the Toledo Blade. I haven't gone to the NCAA website.

[xcellent]

I think the thought is good, but the application is bad. I think that the experience of college and playing in college, even for one year, can help the players. How many players who came straight out of High School come in and dominate right away. Look at Dwight Howard, right out of High School, was an ok player his first 2 years, and in his forth year he is one of the best in the league. The rule isn't that great because you are making people go to school who don't really want to be there. I do think that some of them need that time to develop. I think there are a lot of people who try and leave early, even if it is there junior year, who need that last year as well. I guess the main question is who that rule is bad for. It is bad for college basketball, but I actually think its good for the NBA. It gets the players agaisnt tougher competition for a year. It also acts as free marketing, getting all these young names out there. More people know Beasley, Love, Mayo, and Gordon then if they would have gone straight to the NBA.

[_LH]

The rule is bad and only serves to protect the GM's (some of whom have been burned by drafting a high school kid that did not pan out). These GM's make big time money and simply need better scouting or evaluation tools and not rely on one year of college ball to decide if a kid is ready or not for the NBA.

Really how many each year out of high school are good enough to make the jump?

The idea that a player cannot get better once he is drafted is also a weak excuse.

The easiest solution would be to drop the rule and institute a farm system but the players union won't allow it.

I wish the NCAA would fire back and require a three year committment from those wanting to play college ball. Those that only want to play 1-2 years can either play over seas or let the shoe companies create an 18 year old pro league where these guys can play for a year or two before getting drafted.

[Mr. Neutral]

<<The easiest solution would be to drop the rule and institute a farm system but the players union won't allow it.>>

Technically, they've got that now with the NBDL, but that's really only for the guys who might eventually be the 12th man on some NBA roster. The NBA teams probably don't want the expenses that go with a legitimate baseball-type farm system, but that would probably be more legit than what we've got now.

[muskienick]

I don't care what rule is established by the NCAA as long as it is applied equally to all sports under its D-1 umbrella.

Historically, there doesn't seem to be any such rule that would affect Xavier's program as we have come to know it. Maybe someday, after our first 2-3 NCAA Tournament championships, the Muskies might agree to "rent" a player for a year or two. But we seem to be making some quite healthy strides toward the goal of NCAA superiority by attracting the type of player who is interested in Xavier as both a top basketball program and a source of a great education. I'd love it if my school could continue that tradition!