The House of Blue

Funny that he says his rule doesn't require players to spend a year in college, and then he says it is interesting to see how players do against first class competition in the NCAA's. . . Yes it doesn't "require" that, but come on, are you serious???

nm

I don't think it is going to change anytime soon. One and done is working perfect for the players association and the owners.

It allows the Owners a chance to see the players against good competition for a year w/o taking the risk on an 18 year old. It allows the players the chance to build their own brand before they even set foot in the league. Pretty much a perfect scenario for the parties involved (except the actual players).

Zero chance a two year rule or a baseball-type rule ever gets put in place. Nothing really to gain from a business perspective from the league.

Does anyone think if they made it two and done that a lot more players would take a chance on going to Europe? I know Jeremy Tyler messed up but Brandon Jennings did pretty well for himself so it has to at least be possible, right?

Also the D-League seems to be getting players into the league quickly these days, a lot of call ups and a few good players coming up, are we going to see high schoolers going to the D League? Would that route lead to your second contract earlier?

Same. But 2 would be a good compromise. That way the people who say kids just show up in August and quit worrying about school in April will be pacified (even thought that's not really been the case at UK, with the exception of Orton).

Two years gives fans a chance to bond with players longer, gives players a chance to develop their skills further (see Jones, Lamb) and gives the pros an additional year to scout them and make better choices. It seems like a no-brainer (which is probably why it hasn't happened).

Brandon Jennings hated his time overseas though. Hopefully that story inspired some kids to do their work in high school so they could go play in college for a year.

Interesting point to consider. Maybe it would lead to more corruption. I don't know if you can make decisions based on fear of the worst-case scenario, though. There would be more positives than negatives.

Listened to Mike and Mike yesterday and neither of them think the NBA really wants to change the rule and they used Davis as an example. In one year he was able to showcase his talent, prove he was worthy of the #1 pick and also has developed his name and reputation which increases fan hype. All this was accomplished in one season and looking at it, it's a win for the NBA. Why would they want to change this model??

Again, the above was the crux of their discussion and I could argue for and against this point of view w/equal resolve. In the end, I still firmly believe that both the NBA and NCAA are better served by having a more mature and better vetted player entering in the draft than a bunch of one and done's. The end product for both entities are teams that have better players and a game that is better played. After the 1st pick (most of who could have made the jump directly) the path to the NBA is littered w/kids who thought they had what it took or received bad advice and flopped in the league after coming out early.