http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/nba/charlotte-hornets/article157676324.html

Duke’s Coach K wants to change NBA one-and-done rule; maybe not what you’d expect

BY RICK BONNELL
rbonnell@charlotteobserver.com

Duke men’s basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski has had plenty of one-and-done players, who spent a single season in Durham before signing up for the NBA draft.

Krzyzewski believes the NBA should return to allowing kids to enter the draft straight out of high school. He’s dead-on right about that.


“I believe a kid should not be denied an opportunity if he’s good enough to pursue his dream right away,” Krzyzewski said on a pre-draft radio show on SiriusXM NBA radio. “You can do it in baseball, you can do it on Broadway (acting). I think guys (in basketball) should be given that opportunity.”

In coaching Team USA in the Olympic Games, Krzyzewski has coached a preps-to-pros success story in superstar Cleveland Cavaliers forward LeBron James. Under rules negotiated between the NBA and the players association, a U.S. player now can’t be draft-eligible until one year removed from his high school class’s graduation.

That means prodigies such as James and new Charlotte Hornets center Dwight Howard would have spent at least one season in college ball or playing overseas. Considering the average NBA career lasts less than five years, Krzyzewski thinks players deserve the option to turn pro right out of high school.

“They have a dog’s life in earnings. Hopefully it’s a long (career). If it’s a 12- or 15-year career, that’s it; they’re not doctors and lawyers,” Krzyzewski said. “So the sooner they get going in that, the better, and the NBA now has developed a G-League (developmental league). I’d say 75 to 80 percent of the league has these teams.

“Now the league has these two-way contracts between (the G-League) and their parent club. Like Major League Baseball, you have a minor-league team. If a kid wants to go out of high school, then he’ll play every day; he’ll be part of the (San Antonio) Spurs or the (New York) Knicks or whoever it is.”

Momentum for some sort of change in the draft-eligibility rule is growing. NBA commissioner Adam Silver recently said no stakeholder in that process is happy with the status quo.

Krzyzewski would also like to see a system where once a player commits to college basketball, he stays for at least two seasons.

“If they go to college, to legitimize the educational process, I think they should be there for two or more years,” Krzyzewski said. “They’d be halfway towards a degree and they probably needed that level of maturity” before turning pro.

and probably what will happen

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<---- 5....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dlgiritpmfo

=======================================

everybody is chasing, I think its interesting that their core guys that they drafted are all 3-4 year college players and they seem to almost exclusively target guys that have played at least 2 or more years of college ball in the draft.

I'm guessing he's tired of having to recruit players if they are going to be one-and-one and are just going through the motions in college due the rule. Can't say that I blame him if that's part of his reason for his stance. Would be frustrating for me if I was a coach to have to deal with that on a consistent basis with top level players that don't need development in college.

>Krzyzewski would also like to see a system where once a player
>commits to college basketball, he stays for at least two
>seasons.

This is how baseball does it too, so it's a pretty well-established dumb idea that I can't ding him on too much. But it's frustrating to see somebody get almost all the way toward understanding how this is supposed to work and then back off it in the name of teenagers honoring their commitment as though playing college basketball was like becoming a Franciscan or joining the military.

its kind of silly to make these kids pretend to go to class for 5-6 months and act like its really doing something for them. Also it makes a mockery of the kids who actually do try to get an education on an athletic scholarship.

... goes as far to "legitimize the educational process" as K does. Though I will pat myself on the back for the charity of accepting that he honestly believes that.

Because I'm just a really good person.

go to class for a few months then don't even return to campus once the season is over. I feel like forcing them to stay eligible for at full year and a half will at least legitimize the process moreso than it is.

It's the hot "least objectionable without actually letting kids leave when they want" option being floated around right now.

I wonder if college coaches who propose that inclusion are feeling pressure from the pros-- that the NBA wouldn't eliminate one-and-done without some sort of restrictions in place in a vain and laughable attempt to "protect" the chickenshit NBA GMs who instituted one-and-done in the first place because they were shitty at their jobs. Of course, the league gets younger and younger, and the GMs are still mostly shitty at their jobs, so it hasn't worked and was doomed to not work from the start... but their chickenshittiness remains.

Whether it's scared NBA GMs, scared NCAA execs, or greedy NCAA coaches, there's still no real and right reason to eliminate the players' option to leave at their discretion.

be surprising and they are collaborating on this.

In any professional sports league's amateur draft is a permanent obstacle to clearing college sports of exploitation. The only thing that unofficial relationship does is bind the labor of players to the colleges who profit.

>I wonder if college coaches who propose that inclusion are
>feeling pressure from the pros-- that the NBA wouldn't
>eliminate one-and-done without some sort of restrictions in
>place in a vain and laughable attempt to "protect" the
>chickenshit NBA GMs who instituted one-and-done in the first
>place because they were shitty at their jobs. Of course, the
>league gets younger and younger, and the GMs are still mostly
>shitty at their jobs, so it hasn't worked and was doomed to
>not work from the start... but their chickenshittiness
>remains.

Shit. I kind of forgot that was pretty much why that round of restrictions were adopted. The funny thing is that, if they were bold, the NBA could fashion a full minor league system like baseball's that could:

a)shake loose the weirdly informal-yet-inviolable relationship they have with the NCAA

b)hedge against the development problems that come freighted with teenage talent

c)profit off ticket sales/merch while players develop

d)ensure that players were maximally productive while on NBA rosters

It's like they were too scared to just accept the risk of drafting 18 year olds *and* too scared for a big, blunt solution to that problem.

>Whether it's scared NBA GMs, scared NCAA execs, or greedy NCAA
>coaches, there's still no real and right reason to eliminate
>the players' option to leave at their discretion.

So, there's always going to be an ebb and a flow in the amount of talent in the NCAA. And those ups-and-downs obviously have something to do with the draft rules. But I've always kind of figured that a lot of the enterprise of big money NCAA sports is actually supported by sentimentality. That people care about Ol' Miss because of the laundry and not because of the aggregate talent in x, y, or z college sports. And that means that NCAA basketball maybe doesn't need to be protected as zealously as it is. Does that make sense? I'm perfectly open to be told I'm wrong here.

this point primarily for financial reasons and most NBA teams figure why spend money on that to develop talent if they can get the NCAA to do it for them.

I also don't think its coincidence that most people think the 2 best front offices in the NBA right now are the Warriors and the Spurs and those 2 teams rarely draft "1 and done" players.

>this point primarily for financial reasons and most NBA teams
>figure why spend money on that to develop talent if they can
>get the NCAA to do it for them.

It'd take a tremendous project, and I think you're right that as long as they're getting basically what they want for free there's not a lot of incentive for them to undertake some huge change in the way things work.

>I also don't think its coincidence that most people think the
>2 best front offices in the NBA right now are the Warriors and
>the Spurs and those 2 teams rarely draft "1 and done"
>players.

Alright, but this is another opportunity for me to ask an actual NBA fan: The success those teams have enjoyed means they're routinely picking at the back of the draft. So is that an apples to apples comparison or are they just maximizing the impact of their lower draft position?

>Alright, but this is another opportunity for me to ask an
>actual NBA fan: The success those teams have enjoyed means
>they're routinely picking at the back of the draft. So is that
>an apples to apples comparison or are they just maximizing the
>impact of their lower draft position?

Not necessarily, even when those teams have had higher picks they still seem to target more experience players. Steph Curry, Klay Thompson and Kawhi Leonard were all lottery picks.

The younger kids have a higher bust factor because you simply haven't had as much opportunity to evaluate them against higher competition. Also some people get to caught up and "potential" and "floors and ceilings" and ignore basic stuff like "can this kid play? what is his work ethic like? how mature is he? how mentally tough is he? how is he going to act with 7-8 figures in his bank account living on his own?"

You can get a lot better feel for those things at 20-21 than you can at 17-18. Those first few years as an "adult" are a huge growth period mentally for most young people.

>The younger kids have a higher bust factor because you simply
>haven't had as much opportunity to evaluate them against
>higher competition. Also some people get to caught up and
>"potential" and "floors and ceilings" and ignore basic stuff
>like "can this kid play? what is his work ethic like? how
>mature is he? how mentally tough is he? how is he going to act
>with 7-8 figures in his bank account living on his own?"
>
>You can get a lot better feel for those things at 20-21 than
>you can at 17-18. Those first few years as an "adult" are a
>huge growth period mentally for most young people.

Good point. Though I guess as long as I'm down this road I may as well add that these points work even better as arguments for a real minor league. The difference between 17/18 year olds and 20/21 year olds with those maturity issues isn't just a 0/1 matter of are they mature enough - but they can be taught those things. I bet a lot of owners/GMs would like the certainty of teaching those things within the organization.

Or not. Part of a big driver for me is just remembering how fucking stupid I was when I was 18 but also knowing that stupid didn't just dissolve away on a set schedule.

>Good point. Though I guess as long as I'm down this road I may
>as well add that these points work even better as arguments
>for a real minor league. The difference between 17/18 year
>olds and 20/21 year olds with those maturity issues isn't just
>a 0/1 matter of are they mature enough - but they can be
>taught those things. I bet a lot of owners/GMs would like the
>certainty of teaching those things within the organization.
>
>Or not. Part of a big driver for me is just remembering how
>fucking stupid I was when I was 18 but also knowing that
>stupid didn't just dissolve away on a set schedule.


You're right, I don't think NBA owners are against having a real minor league system they're just cheap and don't want to pay for it when the NCAA has been doing it for them for years.

As for you other point you're also right, different people mature on different schedules but still overall its usually a pretty big jump from being in high school and living in your parents house with curfew and having the majority of your decisions made for you to being on a college campus for a few years where you have a significantly more amount of freedom and responsibility.

Then once they become pros that freedom and responsibility is multiplied exponentially.

"Should I blow off my 6am workouts because I want to keep making it rain on Diamond at the Player's Club?" can be SLIGHTLY easier decision at 21 as opposed to 19.

In the mid-90's when high schoolers first started coming into the NBA they were usually coming into teams with mostly older veteran players that would show them the ropes but now its like the league has collectively gotten younger and the "vets" on a lot of teams are 24-25 years and still figuring out some things themselves.

>"Should I blow off my 6am workouts because I want to keep
>making it rain on Diamond at the Player's Club?" can be
>SLIGHTLY easier decision at 21 as opposed to 19.

in 2 years broke with like 5 stripper baby mama's and a alcohol/drug problem.

Most people have no idea what kind of pressure these young dudes are under.

And I was 19 in the era before cell phone cameras/text messages/social media/IG "models" etc. Its WHOLE lot easier to fuck up now lol.

>>I also don't think its coincidence that most people think
>the
>>2 best front offices in the NBA right now are the Warriors
>and
>>the Spurs and those 2 teams rarely draft "1 and done"
>>players.

Out of the last five first round draft picks for the Spurs, two were one-and-dones and a third was a two-and-done. They were all end of the draft picks, as you pointed out. They have a great scouting department-- I actually just read a piece on NBA scouts in which everyone agrees that they work harder and collect more data than anyone else.

The Warriors are different for a variety of reasons, but their last three draft picks contained a one-and-done and a two-and-done. These players were also picked at the end of first/top of second, as you noted.

Even the best teams, the ones at the end of the first round, draft underclassmen, because they're the ones who tend to have the most raw talent.

>Alright, but this is another opportunity for me to ask an
>actual NBA fan: The success those teams have enjoyed means
>they're routinely picking at the back of the draft. So is that
>an apples to apples comparison or are they just maximizing the
>impact of their lower draft position?

They're maximizing to some extent, but neither the Warriors nor the Spurs are led by lower draft picks. The top three players for both the Spurs and Warriors last year were all Top 15 picks in their drafts.

I'd also argue that it's less about how well a team picks and more about how well a team develops its talent. The Spurs and Warriors don't magically pick the best NBA prospects every season. They turn talented prospects into pro caliber players who know their role and fit their culture. Guys like Kawhi Leonard and Draymond Green both took tremendous steps as players over their first three seasons as pros, doing things they didn't even do in college, really. Same with guys like Tony Parker, Danny Green, Patrick McCaw... shit, even Steph Curry, who started well, by Year 4 had topped anything even those who loved him in college expected him to do at the next level.

Whereas certain teams can have high draft picks that all "bust"-- does that mean they're shitty scouts or that those one-and-dones weren't ready for the pros? No, because every lottery pick bust was almost always a consensus lottery pick. Those teams just suck at player development and helping foster a culture of success.

Drafting is important enough, sure, but the player development that a team does is roughly a thousand times more important.

drafted are not one and done players.

"The younger kids have a higher bust factor because you simply haven't had as much opportunity to evaluate them against higher competition. Also some people get to caught up and "potential" and "floors and ceilings" and ignore basic stuff like "can this kid play? what is his work ethic like? how mature is he? how mentally tough is he? how is he going to act with 7-8 figures in his bank account living on his own?" You can get a lot better feel for those things at 20-21 than you can at 17-18."

I disagree with basically all of these comments from ThaTruth's above comment, as there's no proof that younger draft picks bust at a higher rate than older draft picks. He could cite anecdotal examples, and I could cite them back. There's no point. There's no obvious trend.

>Shit. I kind of forgot that was pretty much why that round of
>restrictions were adopted. The funny thing is that, if they
>were bold, the NBA could fashion a full minor league system
>like baseball's that could:
>
>a)shake loose the weirdly informal-yet-inviolable relationship
>they have with the NCAA
>
>b)hedge against the development problems that come freighted
>with teenage talent
>
>c)profit off ticket sales/merch while players develop
>
>d)ensure that players were maximally productive while on NBA
>rosters
>
>It's like they were too scared to just accept the risk of
>drafting 18 year olds *and* too scared for a big, blunt
>solution to that problem.

^^^ honestly, with Silver investing a lot more money into the D-League-- now called the G-League, thanks to a Gatorade sponsorship-- I'm wondering if this is the direction the NBA is considering going in. We're seeing more and more young second-round and undrafted talent end up in NBA uniforms because the league clearly values youth... so it makes sense that they want even *more* young players and/or marginally talented vets at their disposal by cranking up the worth of their minor league.

I also wonder if they're prepping themselves for a big turn of the tide. If the NBA thinks the NCAA's refusal to allow student-athletes to generate money will result in even more underclassmen declaring every year-- and the number has increased annually, setting a new record every year the last six or seven years, if memory serves-- then they need to brace themselves for when the NCAA pushes back so hard that 18 year olds just say "fuck it, this isn't worth it."

AND HERE'S MY FAVORITE LITTLE BIT OF TRIVIA THAT COULD MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE: right now, 18-year-olds ***are eligible to be drafted into the Developmental League.*** They just can't be called up to the pros until age 19. So if Silver is raising salaries and promoting this G-League more, maybe it's his way of attempting to lure some elite prospects to head to the G-League right away, start earning money, start developing relationships with people in the pros... while simultaneously meeting the chickenshit GMs halfway and not permitting those 18-year-olds to be called up for full rookie deals yet... while also simultaneously intensifying the spotlight on/improving the potential profitability of the G-League.

I've said for a few years now that, as student-athletes become more aware ("woke," one might say) of the exploitation of the NCAA, we'll see more and more look for alternate courses of action. We've seen a few kids play overseas in various places-- including Australia, so that the language gap isn't as intimidating for an 18-year-old. I think going straight to the "minors" is the logical next step for the kids who want to make some money and start their pro careers but who don't want to end up in Romania or what have you. The ones who will sacrifice the big payday for added comfort and the hopes of a soon-to-come payday.


>So, there's always going to be an ebb and a flow in the amount
>of talent in the NCAA. And those ups-and-downs obviously have
>something to do with the draft rules. But I've always kind of
>figured that a lot of the enterprise of big money NCAA sports
>is actually supported by sentimentality. That people care
>about Ol' Miss because of the laundry and not because of the
>aggregate talent in x, y, or z college sports. And that means
>that NCAA basketball maybe doesn't need to be protected as
>zealously as it is. Does that make sense? I'm perfectly open
>to be told I'm wrong here.

I think you're almost certainly right, if I understand your point correctly. I don't think there would be any significant fall-off regarding fan loyalty... or even, quite frankly, to the quality of the game. Duke fans will still tent months in advances for games regardless of the NBA talent level inside Cameron Indoor.

However, I do think-- especially in basketball more than football-- that ESPN/FOX/CBS/etc generate a lot of interest for the sport based on the premise of "look at these future NBA stars! they're doing special things!" This helps make casual fans sit and watch what they otherwise may dismiss as "inferior product." College football doesn't really have the reputation of being inferior product, because it's so offensively driven for the most part, fast-paced, tons of points on the board, etc. The rules benefit offense. College basketball, however, is still *really* defensively driven for the most part compared to the NBA. Lots of slow tempo, lots of grind-it-out defenses and zones, lots and lots of ugly games-- at the same time that the NBA is getting more offensively efficient and more uptempo than maybe ever before. The NCAA has tried to make the game more friendly to offenses with more freedom-of-movement rules in place, but this has mostly resulted in more foul calls and even slower and uglier games-- college defenders aren't fast enough to adjust against top offensive college players, and most offensive college players aren't skilled enough to know what to do with that freedom of movement other than drive into your opponent in hopes of getting free throws.

While this "the game is ugly" tide might be turning somewhat-- we saw a couple of next-level offenses last year-- the tide is turning WAY faster in the NBA, where offense's value rise well above defense's at an exponential rate. So I think colleges may be afraid that, without the Lonzo Balls, Luke Kennards, Lauri Markkanens, etc., the backlash against the game as being "ugly and slow" will continue to escalate, which would at least affect the total viewership, even if the collegiate fans will remain diehard. They won't lose their core, but they'd lose the casual basketball fans, and interest could eventually wane if college games end at 70-66 while NBA games are ending at 115-103. That's I'm sure what their fear is deep down, anyhow. I'm not sold it's as big a deal as others may think it is... but the game's reputation has definitely taken a hit the last couple of years.

(I also wonder if they're scared about TV revenue and its impact on their overhead as that entire landscape changes. I haven't thought through all of the effect that would have on the sport, though. It's just another monster looming on the horizon, and, like most corporations seeing volatility potentially coming down the pipeline, instead of taking a risk to try to adapt, they're holding firm and refusing to change anything until the spectre of bankruptcy forces them at gunpoint to do so.)

>^^^ honestly, with Silver investing a lot more money into the
>D-League-- now called the G-League, thanks to a Gatorade
>sponsorship--

I had no idea, and so laughed. Out loud, even.

>I'm wondering if this is the direction the NBA
>is considering going in. We're seeing more and more young
>second-round and undrafted talent end up in NBA uniforms
>because the league clearly values youth... so it makes sense
>that they want even *more* young players and/or marginally
>talented vets at their disposal by cranking up the worth of
>their minor league.

The affiliate system has been marvelous for baseball, for the reasons that I assumed (just for the sake of argument, not because I actually know) would also translate somewhat to the NBA. Though baseball turning to that project when it did (decades before there was a draft to evenly distribute talent) probably made the undertaking a bit easier.

>I also wonder if they're prepping themselves for a big turn of
>the tide. If the NBA thinks the NCAA's refusal to allow
>student-athletes to generate money will result in even more
>underclassmen declaring every year-- and the number has
>increased annually, setting a new record every year the last
>six or seven years, if memory serves-- then they need to brace
>themselves for when the NCAA pushes back so hard that 18 year
>olds just say "fuck it, this isn't worth it."
>
>AND HERE'S MY FAVORITE LITTLE BIT OF TRIVIA THAT COULD MAKE A
>HUGE DIFFERENCE: right now, 18-year-olds ***are eligible to be
>drafted into the Developmental League.*** They just can't be
>called up to the pros until age 19. So if Silver is raising
>salaries and promoting this G-League more, maybe it's his way
>of attempting to lure some elite prospects to head to the
>G-League right away, start earning money, start developing
>relationships with people in the pros... while simultaneously
>meeting the chickenshit GMs halfway and not permitting those
>18-year-olds to be called up for full rookie deals yet...
>while also simultaneously intensifying the spotlight
>on/improving the potential profitability of the G-League.

This is fascinating. I have nothing to add except that it was practical with exactly the right twist of conspiratorial. And it cushions the blow a bit if the NCAA is indeed regarded as a partner to some degree. The NBA can prepare for the system to warp and break but they don't have to fully fuck with their partner-organization's money.

>(I also wonder if they're scared about TV revenue and its
>impact on their overhead as that entire landscape changes. I
>haven't thought through all of the effect that would have on
>the sport, though. It's just another monster looming on the
>horizon, and, like most corporations seeing volatility
>potentially coming down the pipeline, instead of taking a risk
>to try to adapt, they're holding firm and refusing to change
>anything until the spectre of bankruptcy forces them at
>gunpoint to do so.)

So, I've got nothing to add on to much of what you wrote since I don't really know what I'm talking about. Which means all you really get is a genuine "thanks!" because that was extremely informative. But this part resonates particularly as a big caution against what I was trying to say. Fans will put up with a lot, but bad in-game aesthetics and competitive predictability are real landmines when these leagues are making such a huge amount of their money from TV.

Anyhow, thanks.

I dont' know what leverage the whole NBA gms suck thing gets ya. But I'd be willing to bet that NBA draft orders are more reflective of future player success than NFL, NHL, DEFINITELY MLB.

It's probably more than coincendental that 'what's best for the kids' also mysteriously aligns with Coach K's interests.

>I dont' know what leverage the whole NBA gms suck thing gets
>ya. But I'd be willing to bet that NBA draft orders are more
>reflective of future player success than NFL, NHL, DEFINITELY
>MLB.

It's an established fact that NBA GMs put one-and-done in the rules to "protect themselves" from having to draft young players. That's not me making something up. That's just reality.

As basketball has the smallest roster and the shortest draft, I would hope it'd have a higher success rate than the larger rosters and longer drafts. However, as "success" varies per expectation per pick etc, I'm sure one could fit data from various drafts endlessly to fit whatever argument they desire.

>It's probably more than coincendental that 'what's best for
>the kids' also mysteriously aligns with Coach K's interests.

Duke loses ten NBA draft picks since 2010 if one-and-done was no longer around, including the three key pieces to his 2015 title, so... no, OAD benefits Coach K considerably.

True on the smaller roster. Still don't see any evidence that would suggest NBA gms are worse than any other sport.

Second thought....it's irrelevant what K did under the current rules because it's relative to the what other teams do with same rules. He probably would prefer a format that emphasized more team-building. One-and-done doesn't favor the rich teams because it leaves more to chance. The longer the players would have to play...the more dominant the rich teams would be.

Seeing as how it's not like K would have a ton of four-year players in the format he supports-- he'd just have a bunch of less-talented two-and-dones instead of more-talented one-and-dones. I think assuming Duke and Kentucky would benefit from two-and-dones with less talent over the current system is empty conjecture.

And I also cede that you know alot more about college basketball than me so I'm just throwing this out there

Take it to a logical extreme....suppose that a player needs to play college ball for four years before being eligible for the draft. This would DEFINITELY help the rich teams and would hurt the poor teams. Just imagine what the starting lineups of teams like Kentucky and Duke would look like if they didn't lose players to the draft. They would probably be pretty close to NBA calibre.

The most significant advantage that rich teams have is attracting the most talented high school players. That advantage is only mitigated by the one-and-done rule. Poor teams might recruit a guy much less talented than someone like Wiggins....but they will have that player for the full 4 year stint. So even though the player is less talented...he ends up contributing WAY more to the program in the aggregate than the hugely talented guy who only plays for a season. I'd argue that this is really the only way the smaller schools can compete. They get less talented guys but for a longer period of time.

So again...the logical extreme is the rich school throws out the most talented team of first year players against a poorer school that has a roster of much less talented, yet more experienced 3rd or 4th year players. The only advantage the poor school has is experience and team-building (in the form of systems, strategy, familiarity that is enhanced by multiple years of playing together). If you take that away...the rich schools would dominate to a greater degree. Coach K is undoubtedly aware that even adding one year to the one-and-done rule would help his team immensely.

>I dont' know what leverage the whole NBA gms suck thing gets
>ya. But I'd be willing to bet that NBA draft orders are more
>reflective of future player success than NFL, NHL, DEFINITELY
>MLB.

the number of players in the NBA is fewer. the percentage of people in the general population playing basketball, compared to the other big five, is probably the highest in the United States.

so by the time the NBA draft rolls around, it's a very finite pool of actual draftees to consider, with the years of Spartan competition doing most of the work for the selectors. the NBA takes 60 players a year -- and it's generally understood that only 4-5 will be stars, and 12-15 will ever start or even get off the bench.

additionally, the skills it takes to be a NBA player are much more self-evident and less reliant on teammates.

Not only is it a fair compromise, it is a mutually beneficial one for all involved parties. There are some guys who are ready for the NBA at 18 and no one should stand in their way. Most of the guys ready at 19 were ready at 18. But look at the draft last night. How many of these kids were similarly built at present and similarly skilled? Lots of projection involved there. A lot of those kids could benefit from another year with a shorter schedule and competition among their peers. The ones that are men already, they'd already be gone. The skinny ass dudes that are just going to have a really expensive seat for their rookie season can go back to school.

Had he said that once you commit you need to go the full four years, I'd blast him. But this system--in basketball I can't really speak to baseball--is reasonable. It lets the very top and/or more physically mature players turn pro at 18. It gives some of these guys more opportunity to develop in all aspects, and it's only one more year. Obviously it gives the college more continuity, experience, etc.

Personally I oppose any sort of limitation, but if they are to have one, this seems pretty reasonable.

This is about forcing franchise players to stay in college longer than they should in order to play for free at the whims of millionaire coaches. This has jack shit to do about education. Where's the uproar about this in other sports? These coaches hate the fact that insert franchise superstar can leave their program any time he wants in order to secure a better future for their family.

When the coach leaves after one year on the job it's okay and totally not a mockery of education towards the player /s

Coach K is a fucking hypocrite... AGAIN.

one and dones and would rather not deal with them. But that's the rule now so to be competitive they have not choice but to recruit them.

IF THEY GO TO COLLEGE, TO LEGITIMIZE THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS, I THINK THEY SHOULD BE THERE FOR TWO OR MORE YEARS.
Mike Krzyzewski on one-and-done rule

Coach K wants to keep players in college longer so he can make deeper more consistent success every March.

This is not about the "educational process" or whatever bullshit he's talking about.

Let's see, right now, a guy can go to school, MAYBE stay eligible for a semester, play his college hoops season and then just bail on the rest of the school year. If he has to stay eligible for a second year, he has to at least go to three semesters of class and feign he is a student.

If he just cared about what you're saying, he would support raising the limit to two years (or more), period.

Having a little continuity is not a bad thing for anyone involved.

One thing I wish coaches would come out in favor are more measures to ensure kids can finish school and graduate if they want to even after their eligibility is up. That's not at issue here though. So you went for the big slam here and missed. Nothing unusual for you.

____________

Dallas Cavericks LETS GO!!

ZOMG FAIL!