How O.J. Mayo is Only Emphasizing the Negatives of the One-Year Rule

Going pro straight out of high school is only a few years removed from the NCAA men's basketball system. The last class to do so is arguably still in its prime.

And although it has only been a few years, one would think that the intended changes in the culture should start becoming evident—higher graduation rates, greater parity in the college game, etc.

In a way, they are. But not necessarily in the ways intended. Instead, it appears what we're seeing more of are the loopholes in the system. The scheming, dirty coaches and organizations working around the rule.

Sure, the media can be partially to blame. We all know the dirtier it is, the more coverage it will get.

Although the media can definitely go overboard with it sometimes, this coverage also helps show the dark side of the rule—a side that, I'm sure, the NCAA would prefer not be exposed.

This O.J. Mayo debacle is only the latest issue in "amateur" sports. Reggie Bush isn't entirely out of the picture; Kelvin Sampson will apparently do anything to get that blue chip recruit.

I ask you, Myles Brand: is this what you intended with your rule?

The one-year rule is a good one. In a romanticized, optimistic, slightly delusional way.

A college education is an amazing thing to have, and in an ideal world every athlete would leave school with one. That career-ending injury can come any day. A degree could help these former-athletes stay a part of the work force. 

But is this ever really an issue for the Mayo's, Michael Beasley's and Derrick Rose's of the world?  If by the age of 16 (and sometimes younger) you are being promised a lifetime of fame and money, what is the appeal of four more years of school?

Sure, those 1-4 years can really help the borderline players refine their skills. But that's not with college ball is supposed to be about. It's about the name, the tradition and the InsertNameHere University family.

Not to mention, there aren't many skills that these marquee players need to refine.

With so much emphasis on the professional league, has the NCAA simply become the NBDL 2.0?

When athletes are being required to attend schools rather than choosing to on their own accord, they may be choosing them for the wrong reasons.

They may be choosing them because of the coaches' attention (Sampson) or because of monitary promises (Bush.)

Not only is this putting pressure on the athletes to pick a school for the right reasons, but it has also left coaches scrambling to figure out what those "right reasons" are and how they can hide these "reasons" in the athletic department's accounting sheets.

It doesn't appear the NCAA thought much beyond the romantic vision they had for the one-year rule.  As usual, rather than be proactive, the NCAA is stuck in a position of being reactive—if they even react at all.

Brand and Co. will be forced to address these issues eventually, in addition to other hefty issues.

Once again, the topic of true amateurism has been touched upon, and the question of paying athletes (who could be living in mansions rather than dorms if the rule didn't exist) will become a topic of debate for weeks to come.

NCAA violations are hardly a new phenomenon and are in no way correlated with the one-year rule. The blame should never fall on a rule; it should fall on those who created it and let it run amok.