Originally Posted by
Rich
You may favor it, but the NBA doesn't. Why should they? They have the best of both worlds. If they get rid of the one year rule then they have a bunch of unknowns coming out of high school with zero marketability (except for the occasional freak phenom such as Lebron James). Would anyone but the diehard recruiting geek know anything about Anthony Davis or Kidd-Gilchrest last year? No. So they enter the NBA out of HS as unknowns.
However, now that they've played collegiate ball for one year in a D1 program and have been all over ESPN, and in the NCAA Tourney, which was watched by millions of people, and have received tons of press for their accomplishments, they enter the NBA as lucrative commodities from a marketing standpoint. The NBA is all about marketing its players. So by having the one year rule, the NBA is optimizing its product from a marketing standpoint, regardless of what's better for the NCAA, collegiate athletes, or the schools. That's not the NBA's concern nor, as a business, should it be. The NBA doesn't need to force the kids to stay 2 or 3 years for its marketing success, but having them play college for one year sure does help and makes sense from a business/marketing perspective.
I agree with you that I would prefer to see kids go straight from HS or unpack their bags and play college for 2-3 years. I hate the one year rule. But it's the NBA's rule and they have no incentive to change it.