Next month, college basketball will return and some of the players will be freshmen who know they’re NBA material, but have to play one year in college before they’re eligible for the pro draft. Shining performance on court is their objective; learning the material taught in their classes is way down their list of priorities.
Most, if not all, of them would rather not spend a year as a “student-athlete” but the NBA requires that they play a year of college ball before they can go pro. Does that rule make sense? In today’s Martin Center piece, sports writer Josh Edwards looks at the issues involved.
He points out that this is entirely the NBA’s decision. The NBA put the one year of college rule in place and the league’s commissioner has said that it is being reconsidered. Edwards makes a strong case that it should be dropped.
He writes, “The majority of one-and-done athletes would not pursue higher education if they could go straight to the professional level. Those who are now forced to attend college for a year take weak classes as part of a watered-down study program that ensures they qualify to play basketball, weakening the academic integrity of those universities. One-and-done players also take scholarships away from others who might want to play basketball while earning a quality education.”
While the college experience might prove beneficial for a few of these star kids, the educational equivalent of a “you must eat your broccoli” rule is unlikely to have a beneficial impact on high school seniors who have developed great basketball talent.
Edwards concludes, “If the one-and-done rule is eliminated as expected, it will be the NBA’s decision—it will not be made with academic integrity in mind. However, the effect on campus would be to keep predatory opportunists and non-academically minded players away. Though elite programs will still focus on championships and athletic scandals won’t disappear, it would be a small victory for campus academics.”
I think he’s right.