Many were up in arms when the NCAA and NBA announced new rules mandating all draft eligible players be 19 years of age in the draft's calendar year, thus effectively eliminating the straight from High School path many of today's NBA stars took.
Players and analysts, for years now, have argued both sides of the fence, complaining that the restriction is a financial burden and unfair ruling that could cost an athlete his career should he get hurt in his mandatory year at college. Others argued that this helps alleviate the financial risk, on the side of the NBA, from taking chances on high-upside high school players that ultimately fizzle out when they reach the pros. Remember, for every Lebron James there's a Sebastian Telfair.
Whether you agree or disagree with the rule is almost pointless at this stage of the game since NBA Commissioner David Stern (although stepping down from the role) has expressed interest in raising the requirement to age 20. His position is that the current trend of "one and done" players leaving their college teams as freshmen, has diluted the NBA and NCAA. And he's right...to a certain extent.
Here's the catch. Players that were going to go from high-school to the NBA and succeed are still just as likely to do so. The age requirement, however, does weed out some of the immature athletes like a Jeremy Tyler, who opted to skip college and play overseas. But, look at what it's done to the college landscape.
Recruiting for most teams around the country has drastically changed to accommodate the "one and done" rule. Before, coaches used to be able to visit with a young man and sell him on building a winning team for the next four years. Now all someone like John Calipari (who's mastered it) has to do is sit down and tell them, "We can win it this year if you sign with us." And that's the problem.
It's not a matter of competitive balance; any school has the right to recruit those high school stars they know will leave after one season, good or bad. The issue becomes too similar to what the NBA wanted to avoid: hitching your team to one guy, who if he fails, sets you back for the next couple of years.
Take Nerlens Noel as a prime example. Kentucky plucked the freak-athlete knowing he was a future top 3 pick in the draft. It's a strategy they're comfortable doing because they just won a National Championship taking the same risk with Anthony Davis. But, Noel got hurt. Regardless of how far you think the Wildcats would have gone in the tournament, their season is over because their wagon lost its wheel.
There's still plenty of teams like Jim Larranaga's Miami Hurricanes that believe in building quality depth with guys that will grow with a program, so it's not the end-all-be-all. Still, put yourself in the shoes of those young men who just watched a guy have the nightmare scenario agents and analysts warned about.
Other big name college stars looking at the "one and done" option, have to start asking themselves if they really want to be competing as hard as they can in the NCAA when they have a clear path worth millions to the NBA. Keep in mind, Noel's injury isn't going to necessarily hurt his draft stock. You'd like to see a young man play in March Madness to see how he rises to the occasion, but scouts will have do just a little more homework. Yet, consider those fringe first round guys. If they sustain the same kind of injury, their stock drops them to the second round, or potentially undrafted altogether because they were forced to play a year of college. Sure they have the option to go back, rehab, and prove themselves all over again, but that's not a guarantee it goes well. Agents, parents, and even pro teams will be in the kids ear telling him to come out, do the rehab professionally, and make a squad.
And that hurts the NBA. Look at a Jared Sullinger who was drafted by the Celtics. He battled injuries, stayed in school to get healthy, couldn't quite clear medical examinations, but Boston took the risk and is left with a guy you're worried about every time he touches the floor.
Then look at the international landscape where players oversees are becoming lotto picks because they perform well against inferior talent, but not against the best America has to offer, ultimately leading to disappointment.
Personally, I'm in favor of two options. Either increase the requirement to 2 years of college basketball so recruits can focus on the game and not where they're going to be drafted. Or get rid of the age restriction altogether and let it go back to putting the onus on the NBA to do their research and speak with their draft selections. If the NBA really wanted to be proactive and not have to deal with the financial risk of drafting high school phenoms, then collectively make it a point to go after the young men that play their hearts out every March Madness because you know what they bring to the table over multiple seasons.
That proposition is altruistic, it'll never happen, and things will have to worse before they get better. Plus, there's downside to any proposal on how to fix the draft situation. The NFL for example has a pretty good system of their own, but it isn't perfect; the best player in the nation is DE Jadeveon Clowney, but doesn't make eligibility. So for now, college hoops fans, enjoy the one you're with, because he's leaving sooner than you'd like, but don't worry, you'll have another one to swoon over next year.