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.