Bringing Down the "One and Done"

As much as Kentucky Head Coach John Calipari hates to hear it, there is a growing consensus among the college basketball community that something needs to be done to get rid of the "one and done". In fact, if the NCAA had the power to do anything about the matter, it would have been resolved long ago.

The problem is that its the NBA's decision. It is their policy change, the 2005 addition of a 19-year-old age limit, that led to the creation of the "One and Done". While on one hand this rule has brought an influx of talent into college basketball, it has had disastrous effects for the integrity of college basketball as a bastion of Amateur athletics. Look no further than Bruce Pearl, once a highly respected coach, and you should be free of any doubt that the "one and done" has tarnished the college game.

But ultimately its still the NBA's decision and there is no way they will follow in the NFL's footsteps and keep their future stars in college for at least three years. Just imagine this: If a three-year rule had been in place, Derrick Rose would have been a rookie, as would Kevin Love and OJ Mayo. Oh, and Lebron James would have just finished up his rookie contract. The financial consequences for the NBA of losing their young stars to the college game outweigh any potential benefits. But regardless, the players association would never allow such a rule to go through.

But the sensible solution is actually sitting right in front of our eyes: The NBDL. Now currently the NBDL allows 18 year olds to play. But the fact that the draft is only open to those 19 and up means that a high school player choosing that route would have to sign an NBDL contract, probably worth less than the food stipend afforded by a college scholarship. Its not a viable choice and the fact that it is used in defense of the current rule is unfair to the debate.

But the NBDL does have a role in this. Baseball, according to many, has the whole issue down as best as a professional organization can. Rather than going down the NFL path and putting in place a concrete three-year rule, high school players have a choice: Enter the draft if you are ready or go to college and stay three years. This rule would give the Lebron James' of the world the chance to go pro when they are clearly ready while at the same time ensuring that the Josh Selby's of the world dont spend a year corrupting the face of college basketball.

However, baseball is different. Not a single one of those high school players entering the draft is doing so with the expectation that they would be making their major league debut in the near future. Even the highly-touted Bryce Harper remains in Class A ball nearly a year after being picked. The reason baseball can effectively take in standout high school players is because they have a well-organized player development system. Turning pro is one route offered, but either way players are expected to spend a few years in development, paid or amateur. This isnt the case in the NBA. From Sebastian Telfair to Eddie Curry, the examples of high school standouts who simply couldnt adjust to the rigors of professional sport are everywhere in the NBA world.

This is where the NBDL comes in. If the NBA is going to ensure that high school players are ready when they hit the big leagues, they need to make the NBDL a viable option for high school players. So here's the solution I propose:

Introduce the same policy as baseball has in place: You can leave out of high school or choose to go to college and commit to three years.

However, there is a catch: You are not eligible for an NBA roster until the age of 19. That does not mean that you cannot be drafted and cannot sign an NBA contract out of high school, but you can not be on the active roster of an NBA team until your 19th birthday. This would allow high school stars to get the signing bonus they are looking for but still require them to work their way up. Plus, many players would turn 19 during the year, at which point they would be eligible to come off their NBDL club and be placed on the active NBA roster.

Even if their time in the NBDL is only a few weeks, the humbling nature of playing basketball basically for the pure love of the game would be an invaluable experience in player development both on and off the court. Experiencing the NBDL even for a brief period would greatly improve the transition from high school to the pros.

And at the same time this policy wouldnt prevent young stars from being put in the spotlight. For example, Lebron would only have had to spend two months in the NBDL before he would have been eligible for callup. He turned 19 on December 30th and under this rule, he and others could suit up that night.

But imagine the impact those two months could have. Instead of suddenly being thrust from poverty (excluding the escalade) into immense wealth, he would have been taken care of with a generous signing bonus and then sent packing for Erie, Pennsylvania for two months of playing in old, tight, empty arenas and traveling from city to city on buses. Instead of staying at the Four Seasons, he would spend his final weeks as an 18 year old moving from city to city staying at the local Motel 6. Instead of hitting the hottest clubs of New York City, he'd spend his free time looking for a 24-hour Perkins.

In short, guys like Lebron would get a taste of what life is like for the 90% of professional athletes without contracts in the NBA, NHL, MLB, or NFL.

This is what baseball provides for its draft picks, a taste of the real world. That is why baseball has it right. The problem with high school to the pros is that 18 year olds cannot skip the real world and go straight to wealth. There has to be a defined transition. We understand why formerly poor lottery winners struggle to manage their newfound wealth and yet we dont make accommodations for a similar situation when it comes to young athletes.

College is not always the right place to get this type of real world education. The way that college basketball has evolved, with the presence of coaches like Calipari and with AAU coaches willing to deal their players out to schools like pimps do for prostitutes, is not only damaging to the integrity of the college game, but also proof that college is not the place to learn how to be a professional athlete.

The best place to learn how to be a professional athlete is in a minor league. By giving these guys an appreciation of what it is like to struggle toward your dreams, they will enter the NBA on a much more level footing. Furthermore, the NBDL might actually give some of these players a chance to identify and correct their weaknesses (all of them have some, Lebron is still a terrible shooter) before they are subject to the scrutiny of NBA life.

As a fan of college basketball, I think it is pretty clear that any gains in terms of talent for the college game are more than cancelled out by the loss of integrity. There is nothing worse than watching a team like Kentucky or UCONN cut down the nets and go to a Final Four while knowing that in all likelihood at least one of them will have to tear the banner down just as soon as it goes up. NCAA violations used to be an anomaly and now they are unfortunately getting close to just everyday occurrences. The best and brightest programs have fallen down the tubes of infraction, from UCLA and USC to UCONN and Kentucky. Its not good for those schools to have to compete in the high stakes game of modern recruiting and it is certainly not fair to those schools who do things the right way to have to compete with those who clearly dont.

I would gladly take away the joys of watching Derrick Rose and OJ Mayo in college if I could have a game with integrity. That isnt to say those guys are responsible, just that they didnt belong in college. OJ Mayo is another story, but Derrick Rose has turned out to be a great player and more importantly a great person. Still, I would argue that he would have matured that much quicker (he wasnt exactly the best interview in his first year or two) had he spent 2007-2008 playing for the Iowa Energy as opposed to the Memphis Tigers.

This system would be better for the college game, for the NBA, and most importantly, for the players involved. Lets put aside the "status quo" and make the game of basketball better.

Stop it, now

So I know that it doesnt make sense for a simple college student to reprimand the leaders of a superpower like the United States, but they have more than necessitated this talking to.

Its been over two years since Barack Obama took office and in that time, Capitol Hill has done nothing but waste the nation's time, money, and attention with meaningless bickering, clearly the result of a (formerly) minority party intent on doing nothing that could potentially get in the way of their 2012 campaign hopes, no matter how much the nation might need it.

The non-stop campaign process has to end now. The actual presidential election is still nearly 600 days away but it feels like the campaign has been in full swing for the better part of the time since Obama took office. January 20, 2009 was about the new president. January 21st was about the next election.

What happened to governing? Isnt that what government is actually there for? I can guarantee you that the founding fathers, that mythical group of "democracy lovers" whom the GOP loves to point to in justifying the conservative "cause", did not create government for the purpose of holding elections. No, they created elections for the purpose of governing!

So what changed? When did our federal government suddenly dissolve into a forum for non-stoppolitical competition?

Simple answer: When the "professional politician" came about

Something the often poorly educated right overlooks is the fact that government was small during the forming stages of the United States not because the founding fathers didnt see a role for government, but rather because no one had the time to cement that role. The early American politicians didnt make their money from serving in Congress, the lack of lobbyists eliminated that possibility. Instead, they made their money in law practices, small businesses, and farms across the budding nation. Congress met for a portion of the year (not all year) and when they did, members had to sacrifice vital work time in the interest of the common good.

Now, politicians have put their livelihood in the hands of the voter. The early members of Congress didnt lose a vital income source if they lost an election. In fact, there is a good argument to be made that the loser was better off financially after an election than the winner. The first members of Congress didnt come to Washington to begin the re-election process, they came to govern.

Today, politicians need to stay in power in order to maintain an income stream. That is a dangerous situation when it comes to actually getting things done. Senators and Congressmen dont get paid by effectively governing, they get paid by winning elections and satisfying lobbyists.

So that brings us to health care, the "hot button" issue and oft-mentioned "failure" of the Obama administration.

Why was the opposition to health care reform so fierce? Simple: It was a disaster financially for any GOP politician.

Successful health care legislation would be a disaster for the party's reelection hopes. If the Democrats were able to show that national health care could work, they would in the process prove that the whole "limited government" schpeal was a pile of junk. First of all, incumbent Democrats be able to win easy re-election by pointing to the massive success of their legislative efforts. Want more of it? Re-elect me.

But perhaps more importantly, the legislation would have proven the foundational stance of the GOP to be utterly false. Government did have a role and could be efficient. No, it wouldn’t justify “socialism”. But it certainly would prove that the free market isn’t always the best way to go.

Then there are the lobbyists. Besides reelection, politicians of today earn a living by satisfying lobbyists. Sure, “kickbacks” are many times technically illegal. But do you seriously believe that? If you believe that there isn’t a politician today who is clear of lobbyist financial support, you are way too naïve.

So it is no surprise that the right was outraged that the Democrats would try to pass effective health care legislation. They didn’t mind the attempt to fix things, they just hoped it wouldn’t work and made it their primary cause to see that it wouldn’t.

The incentives today are all messed up. The development of the professional politician has led to an environment in which the minority party, whichever that might be, has a financial incentive to see it that the country doesn’t prosper under their opposition. The recipe for regaining power is simple: block every effort at progress and then spend a year on the campaign trail pointing out the opposition’s failure to live up to their promise.

Now to the lecture: You guys have to stop.

Now.

No, really, I mean it. You need to stop bickering about the election and start working.

You guys are all well off financially, you don’t need the job anyway. So in the meantime, could you please just put aside thoughts of re-election/election and just govern? Please?

If you spend as much time governing as you do campaigning. Not even more time (I’m not THAT greedy), just equal time, then maybe you will gain a little more respect from a nation that, while certainly full of its own bumbling idiots, is starting to appear far more intellectually adept that you guys, our supposed “best and brightest”.

Not only are you ruining our nation right now (both of you, so don’t start arguing about who it is, I’ve heard plenty of it already), but you are in the process discouraging all of us future leaders from getting into politics. You’ve taken politics away from its roots as a means for fighting for your beliefs and made it all about ensuring that those with whom you disagree don’t get their way. Its no longer fighting for a cause, just about fighting against the other person’s.

So stop. Now. Start governing. The election will be here before you know it. Just have some patience. Good Congress. Now run and go play with your friends.