Is a One and Done player worth it?

[muskieman]

One player that is a one and done might not be bad for a program to have but many times it leads to bad chemistry or worse, players that can not jump but think they can because of a team's success.

If we didn't have Sean and Mike I might worry where the direction of the program was going if suddenly we saw a ***** of one and done players like some programs.

[finalfourorbust]

I would prefer that Xavier never recruit one and done players because that is not what X is about. I would prefer that they go after three and four star players that will stay at least three years and hopefully four.

[Charlesbt4]

For reference, Stern is still trying to push the ban back another year (2 years total).

Also, I hate to comment on the race issue, because frankly, I think the argument is without merit. However, I will say this- the reason for the ban in the NFL, at least the claimed reason, has to do with size. Please, show me a 16-19 year old that is big enough to play in the NFL without getting killed? Seriously, lets not just color everything here black and white. And you can say all you want about the NBA ban, but in large part it is protecting younger players from making very uneducated decisions about their life plans.

[passthepuck?]

I agree with respect to the physical limitations that would prevent underclassmen jumping into the NFL. However, you can’t tell me the Maurice Clarett was not physically ready after his only year playing semi-pro ball at OSU. His emotional problems and legal peccadilloes notwithstanding, he was ready. One hates to play the race card, but why aren’t we paternalistic about an underage farm boy from Canada? Jennifer Capriati certainly showed the dangers of too much too soon too young in tennis.
With all due respect to the excellent prior post, I think it is disingenuous to say this rule exists to protect the young men. This rule directly benefits the NCAA cash cow. How does this rule protect the young men? One season (not year, season) of college basketball and they suddenly become Alan Greenspan?
Aside from the above, I just think college basketball should be college basketball. I just don’t think it is good for the game for a select number of teams to have one or two year players (of which there are truly very few). It creates an unequal playing field.
By the way I think Kevin Love is making an extremely profitable mistake. The way Derek Brown blew by him in the first half of the Elite 8 game made me ponder.

[xcellent]

If I remember correctly Clarett got injured his freshman year, taking lumps from college players. Most 18 year olds aren't mature enough to make the right decisions when it comes to their sports future. I think Clarett's other problems showed his immaturity. Besides, how many others needed to take their small lumps in college, so they could be more productive pros. How many basketball players came in from High School and were super productive right away? Most took 2 or three years to develop, and some could have used college to develop but ended up as busts because they weren't ready. How can you really tell how good a senior in High School is when he is only playing a few people who are even going to play college ball, much less in the NBA. At least going to college can help some people learn how to be adults and hopefully get some good advice.

[Mr. Neutral]

<<One hates to play the race card, but why aren’t we paternalistic about an underage farm boy from Canada?>.

The NHL can take advantage of the extensive "junior" programs, and, of course, its minor league system. And for whatever reason, you don't see a Patrick Kane getting into the same kinds of trouble that 18-19 year-old NBA players do.

I think we'd all like to see a return to the college/NBA system we grew up, which was 4 years of college and then a shot at the pros. But that's a thing of the past, and I give the NBA and the NCAA credit for at least trying to strike some balance between preserving their particular games, and still not preventing these kids from becoming instant millionaires.

Maybe there's other solutions, but they'd be imperfect as well, with their own plusses and minuses.

[passthepuck?]

Mr. N: This sure is a great discussion, thoughtful, fun and pointless. Perfect for a Friday when I don’t feel like working.

[Mr. Neutral]

I think we've found common ground at last.

[MarionHall4ever]

To: Mr. N and passthepuck

I've been reading this thread for the past couple days, debating whether or not to join in the fray. Against my better instincts, I've decided to do so anyway.

By chance, I happened to have been watching ESPN on Monday afternoon when Beasley had his press conference in which he announced his decision to go pro. He was accompanied at the press conference by his Coach, a guy whose name I believe is Frank Martin (but I could be mistaken about that). Whatever his name is, he is the guy who was lucky enough to inherit Beasley after Huggins bolted K State for WVA.

Martin was asked how Beasley's departure would affect his program at K State.

The first thing he said was that the K State program is already better for Beasley having played there at all and that while Beasley certainly won't be easily replaced that he expects that he will now be able to recruit kids to K State who would never have even considered going to K State before Beasely played there. [I guess we will have to give him a little time to see if that turns out to be the case.] So, in so many words, he seems to be saying that he believes that this "one-and-done" player was worth it.

He also said that -- having grown up impoverished himself -- that he completely understands the motivation of the player and that he would never hold it against the player who felt that the lure of the money (and security for the player's family) was too much to pass up.

Interestingly, though, he said that as a Coach that he did not like the NBA rule. To his credit, he came right out and said that if it was not for the rule that the press conference would not be taking place because he was of the opinion that Beasely would probably have been drafted out of high school and would have been playing in the NBA this year.

He also said -- and I found this to be the most interesting comment -- that he thought that basketball should adopt the policy that baseball uses. In that process a high school kid can be drafted out of high school. However, that same kid can opt to go to college instead. If the player makes the choice to go to college, he is locked down through his junior year, at which point he can be drafted again (and again his senior year if he decides to play four years of college ball). He said that if it works in baseball that he can't see why it wouldn't work in basketball.

Interesting. That was the perspective of a Coach who just said goodbye to a stud "one-and-done" player. I kept thinking about that as I read this thread.

Mr. N and PTP both raise legitimate points. I cringed when I read the "race" comments. No getting away from it I suppose and no denying that it comes to play in some decisions. I just don't believe that it's the reason for this particular rule.

Think back to when high shool kids first jumped from high school to pro basketball. Moses Malone went from high school to the ABA. He was a flat out stud and he was absolutely ready to make the jump. But who was the next high school kid who proved to be that ready? Kobe? KG? Lebron? Yeah to all of the above, but I can't think of anybody else that I'd put in that category with them.

Truth be told, the NBA is all about money. That's not exactly a revelation, but I think it is the explanation for the current one-year rule.

If even 25% of the high school kids who made the jump to the NBA had proved to be "game ready" (i.e., ready to really contribute -- possibly start -- in their first year) when they got there, then I don't think that the "one-year-in-college" rule would exist. But that has not been the case. More often than not teams were finding that they had drafted incredible athletes with lots of "potential" but little in the way of fundamentals.

The real problem was that the team owners and GMs could not bring themselves to exercise the self-discipline on draft day to pass on the "potential" of the high school players because they were afraid that their fellow team owners and GMs would draft these players anyway. They enacted the rule to protect themselves against themselves. (Kind of the same logic that has given pro sports "salary caps".)

With a one-year rule the NBA keeps its equivalent to baseball's farm system. In theory, at least, a player should be more "game-ready" and , thus a better financial risk.

For what it's worth, both Beasley and his Coach acknowledged during the press conference that Beasley, himself, benefitted from having spent at year at K State (in terms of living independently, socialization aspects and, not incidentally, packing on about 30 pounds of muscle during that time).

Is a "one-year-and done player" worth it to a college program? If he delivers an NCAA championship he is. If he gets you to at least the final four, he probably is. But, I think that you have to ask yourself if you are the kind of program that is looking for a quick fix. If you have a veteran roster returning and you need just one piece to play with the ACC-types, then maybe so.

Personally, I don't think that's going to work here at Dana and Victory Parkway. I think we have built a reputation that we graduate our players and compete for the big prize. A "one-and-done" player is not going to really fit in such a program.

[Mr. Neutral]

All good points, Marion, and I think they support our conclusion that there probably is no "right" answer; there's just solutions which are varying degrees of "right" and "wrong".