The One and Done Rule: NBA Essay Example

when you can be 18 and go to war for our country and die.

It’s ridiculous. " Jerryd Bayless said "It’s not fair at all. If a tennis player can go pro at 13, I don’t understand why a basketball player can’t go pro at 18 (Bodenburg, Canner-O'mealy, Mahoney, and Sylvan, 2005). However, what the players didn't understand was it was in best the best judgment of the NBA to create this policy. Too many player high school players were taken in the NBA draft from high school were not ready for the NBA, especially physically, emotionally, and even their overall skills level. Many of these high school players looked toward LeBron James, Kobe

Bryant, Tracy McGrady, and Kevin Garnet and see the success which they were able obtain; pointing to these players successes for the reasons why high school players should be able to be drafted straight out of high school. However, with every success story there are also those who did not succeed, but became major busts within the NBA, such as Kwame Brown (selected 1st overall 2001), Eddy Curry (4th overall), Sebastian Telfair, and Shaun Livingston. The teams who selected these players spent millions of dollars on players who did not have the overall skill to compete in the NBA, and because of this, the 2005 rule was implemented.

The financial stress of "hitting on a player" within the top 5 picks of the NBA draft was not worth drafting the unknown player, especially since their skills had not been tested against high competition. The phrase "steel sharpens steel" is very representational of the reasons behind this rule, the

NBA felt that to create a better league, and allow for success, the potential players must have have more professional and personal experience. This is very evident when David Stern the commissioner of the NBA, say's "For our business purposes, the longer we can get to look at young men playing against first-rate competition, that's a good thing.

Because draft picks are very valuable things" (Cherner, 2012). Often the "one and done rule" is often confused with the idea that players must at a university and play Division I Basketball in NCAA. This is not the case. What the policy does say, however, a player must be at least the age of 19 when entering the draft, and one year out of high school. What many do not understand is the NBA rules stipulate that players do not have to play in the NCAA, but they have other options.

This is stated clearly by David Stern, when he says, "they (the players) won't be eligible for the draft until they're 19. They can play in Europe, they can play in the D-League, they can go to college. This is a not a social program, this is a business rule for us" (Harrigan, 2012). http://blog. syracuse. com/sports/2012/04/are_one-and-done_players_bad_f. html. However, many choose to not play overseas, or within the D-League because the NCAA is a much better way for players to promote their skills to NBA teams and executives.

Even though the "one and done rule" is not a NCAA, policy it has an enormous effect on the NCAA today. Due to the "one and done rule," there are more players leaving the NCAA

Basketball programs than ever before, which is directly affecting the organization's mission, goals, and objectives. Through the NBA's rule, the NCAA has no say over when a player can leave, which directly contradicts the organization's mission of creating an educated athlete that will allow for success within the future.

The primary mission of the NCAA is located on page 1 of the 2011-12 Division I Manual states: The competitive athletics programs of member institutions are designed to be a vital part of the educational system. A basic purpose of this Association is to maintain intercollegiate athletics as an integral part of the educational program and the athlete as an integral part of the student body and, by so doing, retain a clear line of demarcation between intercollegiate athletics and professional sports (NCAA, 2011).

With players having the option of leaving the NCAA, after one season they are not forced on enhancing their education but only their athletic ability. This directly opposes the NCAA's core values and goals, which include, creating a balance between academic social and athletic experiences, sportsmanship, the pursuit of excellence in both academics and athletics, an inclusive culture, and respect (NCAA, 2010). By the NBA creating the "one and done rule," NCAA Men's Basketball athletes are allowed to leave early from their respective programs.

Causing the mission and goals of the NCAA, the goals are displaced; the NCAA is not able to fulfill their core values and purpose creating a discrepancy in their overall product and representation of the Division I Basketball. According to University of Arizona's Athletic Director Jim Livengood, a player become "extremely disruptive" if a player

chooses to leave the university after one year. He goes onto say, "It becomes disruptive for the team. And the biggest thing, in my opinion, is it really becomes disruptive for the institution, for your faculty, for your administration ...

We're really doing a disservice to our institutions, to our programs and to the young person. I'm not smart enough to figure it out, but there's got to be a better way" (Brady, Wiegberg, 2008). The "one and done" rule creates difficulties for the NCAA, by creating lesser product with many of the best players leaving the NCAA after one year. The NCAA's mission and goals have been directly affected, and the effects of the policy over the past few years reverberated creating significant problems.

Through the one and done policy there has been many scandal's within the NCAA, the maturity of players have student who is leaving been called into question, and many believe the student suffers. NCAA Decision-Making Process The NCAA decision making process can be long and confusing but extremely necessary to understand if one would propose a new rule or policy. The NCAA Board of Directors finalizes the rules and policies of the NCAA with the help from several branches to help assist decision making. This authoritative board consists of chancellors, presidents and athletic directors from throughout all Division I schools.

It is important to appoint the correct and appropriate members for this board because they are responsible for making long lasting decisions that affect all collegiate schools and athletes. Members of the Board of Directors are elected by its fellow committees and current board members. There are

18 members and they all serve a four year term. Often, the majority of the four year terms run through different durations. This allows for limited opportunities for members to be replaced each year or so. Also, each member becomes ineligible for reappointment on the board once their term is up. The Division I Board of Directors last week elected four new members whom terms began at the end of the April 28 Board meeting and will expire in April 2015” (NCAA. org, 2011)].

It is important to understand that the Board of Directors does not create and come up with every policy or ruling. Rather the several committees and legislative branches ranked below the Board, who consists of at least 15 different committees, create them. There is a strict schedule and timeline for decision making and actions in which the NCAA keeps intact. The Board of Directors has regular meetings bout twice a year. For the 2011-2012 year they met on October 27, 2011; January 14, 2012 and finally they will meet on April 26, 2012 (NCAA, 2011).

At this final meeting of the year is our best opportunity for the Board of Directors to hear our proposal and make the necessary changes. Also, there is a sixty day override following each Board of Directors meeting allowing for any revision, addition of opinions and facts that can hurt or harm each decision. This may seem like a very long process but with important and long lasting decisions such as these, a long time is necessary.

These members often meet for days, even weeks, at specific times every year to decide on

the future policies and regulations of the NCAA. The final decision that they make may take months to take effect. In fact, it is rare to see a new policy or decision take effect within a few weeks of when the decision was made. To explain, “after a two-day retreat, NCAA committee voted to ban Division I teams with a four-year academic progress rate (APR) below 930 from participating in the postseason, including all NCAA tournaments and football bowl games” (O’Neil, 2011).

This number was decreased from the original 950 APR points to help make sure schools are keeping their priorities straight by helping their student athletes progress academically. After all is said and done with the three main committees, authority is still passed down to other councils and cabinets. There are only two other divisions that report directly to the Board of Directors and they include the Leadership Council and Legislative Council. These councils basically take the final action on matters delegated to the Board of Directors (NCAA Legislature, 2010).

Besides having a few more committees report directly to these two councils, six other cabinets also report only to them. The six cabinets themselves include a few more committees and each cabinet carries 21 members except the Championships/Sports Management Cabinet which carries 31 members (NCAA Legislature, 2010). Now that the format of the decision making process comes to an end, this is our chance to propose our new policy. We would bring the proposal itself for this new and revised policy and would start with a cabinet, committee or legislative council.

From there it is passed down to the legislative council’s

initial consideration for the proposal which it can either be adopted or defeated. A sixty day period of commenting and analysis then comes upon and if the legislative council’s consideration if finalized it is then passed onto the consideration of the Board of Directors (NCAA, 2011). The Board then has a choice to ratify it and if so another sixty day period comes along to override the decision. The action then becomes final if it is not chosen to be overridden.

If it is overridden a few more steps occur but eventually has to go back through the sixty day period to override if it wants to be finalized. Through the committees is where decisions are analyzed and different cases are brought upon attention. The first and most relevant committees include Committee on Infractions, Infractions Appeals Committee and the Committee on Academic Performance. This is made of around 15 Association-wide general committees (NCAA, 2011). Within these general committees there are members of ten citizens.

Of these ten members seven of them are from member schools and universities while the other three are from the independent public. Allowing a public view of eye brings in a fresh and new voice. Also, at least two of those ten members must be females (NCAA. org, 2011). There are different committees for different issues, for example the Infractions Committee overlooks and decides on issues regarding violations. Having such a diverse group represent a committee allows for creativity and different opinions and perspectives. By doing so, it helps benefit the group to making a final decision that is most efficient to all.

Since each committee contains ten

members, those members are constantly switched and replaced. Even though duration of terms may vary, this allows for new and innovative ideas to come in and help collegiate sports allowing for successful decision making. For instance, Michigan State Athletic Director Mark Hollis was named to the NCAA basketball committee and his five year term began in September (Staudt, 2012). The NCAA Board of Directors appoints these members with the confidence they will assist the NCAA decision making process, while also supporting the NCAA’s mission statement and direction.

As the duration of the committee membership varies and fails to last forever, the decision of whom the members will be also varies throughout the nation. Most of the seven members come from colleges and universities. These members include university presidents, athletic directors and other top authoritative figures that represent their school. The NCAA Board of Directors does not just choose any university president or athletic director. They have to be well qualified and obtain the reputation of greatly benefitting their school and achieving an overall success.

For instance, Sidney McPhee, who is President of Middle Tennessee, was selected to the NCAA committee a couple of years ago and was well qualified for it. “Dr. McPhee was chosen to represent the Sun Belt Conference because of his outstanding leadership both within the league and on a national level. His previous experience on the Board of Directors will ensure that we have a veteran leader who understands not only the structure and organization of the NCAA, but the relevant issues as well” said Sun Belt Conference Commissioner Wright Waters (goblueraiders. com, 2010).

As discussed in class,

it takes the right leader to make the decision and to put the right person in the right seat of the bus. Then comes along the actual time frame and style of the decision making process. Reasons for the Removal of “One-and-Done” Rule One of the main reasons for having this rule redacted is the simple fact that players fail to be mature enough to enter the league straight from high school. In a 2011 November magazine, ESPN released an article interviewing the previous 39 one-and-done players to take their talents to the league, and if today they had any regrets doing so.

Surprisingly during these interviews, they all spoke about struggles in one specific area; that area being the real world. No longer did they have their parents or athletic scholarships to take care of all the financial issues. No longer did they have their parents or school cafeteria’s to prepare meals for them. These young men have just become adults, and that cold reality itself hit home to almost all of them. Every one of these athletes loved playing at the college level, but say if they would have stayed it would have not been to better their game, it would have been to grow older and wiser (Ain, Clemmons, Knight & Matz, 2011).

At the same time however, a majority of their decisions were based on the money that would soon be guaranteed to them. The accomplishment of graduation for a collegiate student is a tremendous feat. This triumph is the proof of hard work, character and dedication. These student-athletes, who leave in their first year, do not understand the

feeling of such accomplishment. However, many coaches have been accused for recruiting players with the promise of minimal academic integrity needed. For instance, John Calipari, Head Coach of the Kentucky Wildcats, has seen the most amounts of one-and-done student-athletes and his program.

Kentucky, who consistently fails to meet the national average for Men’s basketball graduation rates, is the current employer of John Calipari and has had five one and done players in the last two NBA drafts. According to the research conducted by Dr. Richard Lapchick at University of Central Florida, only five teams who had a one and done player have exceeded the national average graduation rate for Men’s basketball, none of which have been a Calipari led team. For addition statistics, refer to the tables provided at the end of the report.

Additionally, Men’s basketball has never met the graduation rate of student-athletes competing in other sports. The last thing this troubled sport needs, is aiding the already outrageous dropout rate. Most of these players, if not all, are unaware of the long term effects and correct decisions they should make when dealing with such a large amount of money. You are a 19 year old who just completed your first year of college hoops. A multimillion dollar contract is waiting at the NBA and it has your name on it. Do you take the money and run, or stick around and better your education?

The way our society has developed today, it is fair to say the majority of us would happily run to the money. Money is the leading factor when it comes to over 85% of athletes

today (Brown, Rascher, Nagal & McEvoy, 2010). We are experiencing a financial problem in sports today damaging the image of what we love. It is never a bad idea to take advice from some older players that have been around the block once or twice. If one is looking to build character, where might they look? Many scholarly journals, such as The Sport Digest, claim athletics in general are one of the better ways to help develop character.

After researching and studying the positive and negative effects of participation in sports, findings have come to show that more traits of positive development have been found then that of negative; especially when it comes to finding success. The Sport Digest has found that the everyday struggles found while competing to be the best play and team has given athletes the ability to overcome these struggles in determination for success (Farley, 2010). Although a freshman might feel his game is good enough to go to the NBA level, there are always more reasons to stay in school then to depart for the league.

Unfortunately, this is where the business side of the spectrum kicks in and money drives the decision for these athletes. When you are looking from advice from one of the most respected coaches to ever coach the game, no one comes better then Duke Universitiy’s head Coach Mike Krzyzewski, better known as Coach K. Krzyzewski in an interview with radio talk host Dan Patrick strongly opposed the system in place, claiming “a school can’t be an extended hotel visit” (Dan Patrick Show). Coach K knows a lot about building character and winning

games.

He has the single most wins as a college coach ever, and has a huge reputation for keeping his athletes in college and building them not only into great players but great humans. This is not to say a player who declares for the draft as a senior is a better person then one who declares after freshman year; however the argument can be made that extra time to mature mentally and physically can lead to greater potential on and off the basketball court. The NCAA holds this rule to benefit and prepare these athletes for a sustainable career after their playing days are long over.

They spend a year working towards their academic degree to sustain a quality life for the future. One year is simply not enough though as two years would be much more beneficial for the athlete. An athlete is one awkward landing away from having their entire career done with. Younger athletes who have not had time or knowledge to be able to save up money for retirement will begin to develop financial struggles. A study conducted by the US News shows that on average, those with a degree earn about $800,000 dollars more than those ithout (Kim, 2011). Not only do those with degrees earn a greater amount of money over a lifetime period, many upper level careers require a degree in order to even qualify for the position.

Career ending injuries are very rare, yet do happen. Instead of earning that degree on scholarship, money will have to come straight out of pocket if this is the desired route. Having these players staying for

only a single year can be very detrimental to universities and the entire outlook on college basketball as a whole. In 2007, freshman guard O. J. Mayo received cash, flat-screen televisions, clothes and other gifts equaling a total of about $30,000 dollars from a person closely related to a professional sports agency (Naqi, 2008). This NCAA violation would later stick with the University of Southern California and the consequences would harm the school for years to come. It is arguable that this scandal, and others that are similar, would be avoided if these star players were forced to stay in school longer than just a year. The mental perspective and overall attitude of these “one and done” players are extremely poor and fail to show any concern for their representing schools.

They simply do not show care or concern if their school potentially suffers from their own personal violations as they shrug it off and begin to make millions of dollars in the NBA. This scandal is not the only one of its kind to be reported throughout the collegiate level. A number of other cases have erupted in the past such as the Derrick Rose scandal in 2008. A reported student allegedly took the SAT test for Rose so he could attend Memphis University (Walker, 2009). Rose too only stayed for his freshmen year and later left to the big leagues without any serious regard to the consequences that Memphis was soon to face.

Rose led his team that year to 2nd place in the NCAA tournament and that would later be revoked due to the violations of Rose. Again, this and most

other violations could easily be avoided if these players were to stay for an entire year longer. It would decrease the violations as well as save the image and integrity of these universities. By this point one might be wondering what effect the one-and-done rule has on the NCAA, NBA, and universities. For the NCAA it is a matter of morals and what they believe in.

One-and-done players are using scholarship money from these universities to play basketball and have their name get recognition. Does the NCAA really care about the meaning of student-athlete, or only the revenues the athlete produces? For the NBA, the lack of playing ability has been down over the past years, and many tie it back to young players leaving early when they necessarily are not ready for the big time yet. The real effect lies on the universities. In a recent study conducted by CNN, only around one-third of college men’s basketball teams make profit (Isidore, 2010).

Athletes receive scholarships to compete for their university. If their university is a top team or drawing a lot of attention, money is coming in through ticket sales and television revenues. If big name players leave these universities early, attention gets taken away from these teams, which results in profits being lost. College basketball is sending the wrong message when its star basketball players leave after one year. No matter how successful that team is, even if it is only for a year, college basketball programs suffer a major “hangover” once these stars leave for the NBA.

Having a top recruiting class come in and then leave after one

year is going to hurt any program, no matter how good those players are. Coaches have found this rule to be very hurtful to their programs and believe one year is a horrible length of time. They rather have these players stay for at least two years or be able to leave from high school, but one year is the most difficult length of time. Possible Solutions to "One and Done Rule" Both the NBA and the NCAA have spoken out against the "one and done rule," and mutually agreed there need s to be a change of the policies.

They believe different changes, will allow for both organizations to grow, unite, and become stronger. Many ideas have been tossed around metaphorically, of course, saying that both parties need to find a solution to this "problem. " One group's opinion has not waivered since the creation of the policy; the NBA Players Association believes the rule only hurts those athletes who are ready to play basketball in the NBA. They believe the current "one and done rule" has to be reversed and changed back to the policy prior to 2005.

The NBAPA wants an 18 year old requirement of age, allowing for the High School players to once again be allowed to enter the draft. They have stayed firm on this issues, even during the last collective bargaining agreement. This is understood when, David Stern say's "We would love to ad a year, but this is not something the players association (NBAPA) has been willing to agree too" (ESPN, 2012). http://www. youtube. com/watch? v=o9cdAPaKgF4 Many current one and done players, believe a player

should be able to choose his own path in life.

If NBA executives and scouts believe he is good enough to play in the NBA, he should at least have the opportunity to go make a living for himself and his family. Each player has a specific reason for wanting to leave early and go straight to the NBA, many of them being financially and creating a better life for his family and friends. DeMarcus Cousins, NBA player who plays for the Sacramento Kings, allows for one to understand that it usually a financial decisions, "I was looking for college that I only had to go for one year because, I was one of those players that had to help my family and make their situation better...

I believe you be able to make your own path (come out of high school), because you never know what's your situation may be at home or if it will make their families way of living better" (Matz, 2011). Through this statement, one can ascertain that his family was in dire need of him going to the NBA, they needed the financial stability which their sons contract would bring. BJ Mullen of the Charlotte Bobcats says this on the rule change, "It's taking kids years away from playing in the NBA.

If a kid is good at the age of 17, let him go play. The ball will not bounce forever. Each year you take out of playing in the NCAA, is taking out a year of you (earning money) going pro" (Matz, 2011). DeMar DeRozan, 9th overall draft pick in 2009 agrees with Mullen's

and say's "You never know of a guy's situation going into college. Maybe he needs the means to take care of his family" (Matz, 2011`).