NBA Lockout 2011: Would Changing the Age Limit Clean Up the NCAA?

A major point of contention between players and owners in the NBA lockout is the "age rule," which disallows players to opt for the draft until they are 19 and one year out of high school.

David Stern likes the rule because it allows for players to mature a bit before making the choice to turn pro. Players hate it because it limits their earning power, and in a larger sense, is an infringement on their freedom to pick a career.

The biggest loser in all of this is the NCAA.

Coaches like Bruce Pearl and Kelvin Sampson are tainted by their association with recruiting scandals. Universities like USC are hampered by sanctions.

Teams are also seeing a flush of "one and done" players (except for this year with the lockout). It forces coaches to spend more time recruiting instead of developing players so they can keep booster clubs happy.

And basketball player graduation rates are abysmal.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan called the age rule "a farce" and is furious at colleges for not trying to graduate more players.

Duke carries the most respectable college graduation rate at 92 percent, while Maryland hovers around eight percent.

John Wooden must be rolling in his grave.

Here is a solution to the problem. Allow players to be drafted when they are 18, but take a page from the MLB and make them stay in school for at least three years before being eligible again if they are not picked. Also, allow the players to retain their amateur status even if they declare for the draft (this prevents major screw ups).

If players do not want to wait three years to be able to play, they can head to Europe. An increasing amount of players are choosing that option to develop their careers. 

Here is the one caveat: pay the players while they are in school. Critics will contest that star players are already spoiled with scholarships, free gear, tutors and a lot of hand holding, but they forget that they are making a lot of money for the school. 

The University of Louisville made a cool $25.4 million from their basketball team last year. It's a fact that teams are profiting from these kids. Check out more figures here.

These kids indirectly sell tickets, merchandise and video games. All which profit the school and not the individual. Players don't need to be paid a lot of money, just enough to show that they are compensated for their hard work.

This rule change would benefit fans, college boosters and players.

Fans would be able to see young stars in the pro game right away. They wouldn't have to sit on their thumbs while the Derrick Rose's and John Wall's of the work make a mockery of college competition. And if the draft doesn't work out the first time, college fans will get to see some good title runs by talented teams.

College coaches will really be able to focus on developing players again. If a coach knows he has a point guard for at least three years, he can spend that time developing him and not worry about recruiting a new one. It's a chance for the college game to redeem itself.

Players gain the freedom to chose how they want to develop professionally, without making a mockery of the NBA.

And finally, David Stern can say he is helping boost college basketball player graduation rates with a straight face.

Changing the age rule is a win-win-win-win situation for the NCAA, David Stern, players, and most importantly, the fans.