The Bonus and The Bull Of The NBAs New Draft Rule

Seemingly theres a new trend in selecting players in the NBA draft.  Never before have there been so many projects with "potential" entering the league. Players want the quickest route and teams are afraid of allowing the next big thing to slip through their fingers.

The college ranks have suffered as well. Mens NCAA basketball has failed to maintain my attention in recent years.  But there once was a time when their gutsy and enthusiastic play rivaled the excitement generated by the professionals. Those guys had to play their buts off.  They all had something at stake.  Just following a special player's growth through the years was enough to keep you coming back  It was a rare occurrence in that day to see a kid in highschool make a jump straight to the pros.  The earliest in my memory is Moses Malone.  A lot of great players, HOF players, built and expanded upon their game in the college system; some for as many as three years.  Jordan, Magic, Bird, Duncan, G. Hill, and most recently Chris Paul have all benefited from that transitional period.  Of those aforementioned guys currently active in the NBA, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the league more fundamentally sound and poised. 

Instead now you have these unpolished, pre-paid, and raw players arriving in the league- ill-equipped, mentally, physically, fundamentally, while lacking the maturity and life experiences needed to adequately adapt and contribute to a professional team.

Of course you have your exceptions. In my memory I can only recall three highschool kids who were able to contribute immediately to their perspective teams; Malone, Kevin Garnett and LBJ.  You still have other success stories. Some requiring a little more time to find their niche like Kobe and Jermaine O'Neal (before he became so fragile).

Bottom line, if its gonna take a year or two to contribute, why not polish your skills in college and hopefully receive some education in life as well as in the books in the meantime?

So I cant say that the NBA, namely David Stern and co. had a bad idea with limiting some of these babies jumping into the pros.  Seriously, it was getting out of hand and the quality of the league was suffering.  You bring in a lot of youngsters who have not accomplished much in life yet, and reward them based on what you believe they can and will do.  What does any person opposed to this new rule believe is going to eventually happen with this league?

However, although I agree with Sterns call to action, I do question his methods as well as motives.  The main problem was evident this year.  This whole Ricky Rubio fiasco hopefully exposed the inconsistency and unfairness of this rule.  How is it possible to place a requirement on American players playing in America without imposing the same rule on Europeans?   Rubio's like twelve years old, however Brandon Jennings (by the way, thats not the best route for all players) has to leave the country in order to play in his country. 

The forced one year college requirement exposed to some flaws as well.  In particular, the Derrick Rose/Memphis scandal brought to light some of the shady practices that may have and may continue to take place in order to fulfill a players requirements for NBA eligibility.  The NBA is currently considering adding additional wait periods for draftees to undergo before they are allowed to play.

While forcing players into college may add some excitement to the NCAA game, the lack of continuity and commitment to a college program negates the initial benefit. Now there will either be a two year college requirement or a minimum age of 20 to be set.  Cant say that I'm against that. Fans are tiring of the lack of professionalism and maturity of some of these players. What is there to gain from a league full of potential that may or may not be realized.....one day....maybe