My Letter to the NBA

To whom it may concern,

As an avid basketball fan and frequent viewer of the game, it has become clear to me that maybe the "points of emphasis" that the officials go over each year are not the only rules that need changing or require a closer look. The rule that is in place now in terms of players entering the draft is that they must be 19 years of age before or during the calender year in which the draft is held. I would like to respectfully disagree with the implementation of this rule due to the effect it has on both the college and professional game, as well as the young men that venture into the draft prematurely.

Carter-Williams is among the few good rookies in the NBA

By now every basketball fan knows of the strength and potential of this year's freshman class. Names like Jabari Parker, Andrew Wiggins, Julius Randle, and Aaron Gordon have filled headlines and news segments on various TV networks and their talent has many people believing that they will enjoy immediate success in the NBA. However, those four young men will only be four of the sixty draft picks in June (should they leave school early) that appear to be NBA ready. Are there other freshman that are capable? Possibly. But the fact of the matter is that the professional level is not easy to stand out in by any means.

Take a look at last year's draft class. The only players we have heard about all year are Victor Oladipo from Indiana and Michael Carter-Williams from Syracuse. Names like Cody Zeller, Ben McLemore, and Anthony Bennett have, by no means, been standouts in the NBA like they were in college. Is it the kid's fault for leaving early? Most likely. But take into consideration the fact that the media does nothing but build these kids up and, in some ways, give them a little false hope. While a kid like Zeller was a good college player, it was clear he still had some toughness to gain and his strength was not at the necessary level to compete with the dominant big men the NBA has to offer. Right now Zeller is averaging a measly five points and four rebounds while shooting 37% from the floor. Not exactly the numbers we're used to seeing him put up. Why? Because he's not NBA-ready.

But ESPN and other members of the media don't care about that. They only care about what they can gossip about and what kind of drama they can build up through their "draft predictions" and allowing these kids (yes, kids) to enter the draft as teenagers does not help their cause. Look at college football. College football has a rule in place that the players may not leave school until after their junior year. Because of that, we have had the privilege to watch players like Johnny Manziel and Tim Tebow come back and play again following Heisman-winning seasons. We will also have the chance to see this year's Heisman winner, Jameis Winston, come back for his sophomore campaign. This rule not only benefits the players in terms of experience, but it makes games and conferences so much more competitive and so much more relevant in terms of a long-term approach.

The newest UK Freshman have not lived up to expectations

Shifting back to basketball, look at how your draft eligibility rule affects the University of Kentucky. Head coach John Calipari has established a false bravado that he can win championships with nothing but freshman. Each year Kentucky brings in a top five recruiting class and each year the freshman are believed to be "the best freshman class ever". It's annoying and inaccurate and to those who are wanting to say that Calipari CAN win with all freshman and are looking at the 2012 national championship team as proof, you're dead wrong. That starting five consisted of only two freshman in Marquis Teague and Anthony Davis.

While we're on the subject of Teague, take a look at what that kid has amounted to in the NBA. Nothing. Teague was basically a victim of being the point guard on the national championship team with an insane amount of hype surrounding them. Teague bolted for the draft and now flirts with being sent to the D-League on a daily basis. Teague's success in college was a direct result of who his teammates were and we now see that he was and is nowhere near NBA-ready. If the rules of the draft were different, Teague would have gained another year or two of experience in college and potentially been a better pick-up for a team down the road.

I am not saying kids should be required to attend four years of college. Would that be ideal? Yes. It benefits the players, fans, and NBA organizations if kids gain more experience at the college level. It also makes for better basketball for both the NCAA and the NBA. Could you imagine if Jabari Parker was required to stay another year or two and teamed up with Jahlil Okafor and Tyus Jones next year? I'm not a Duke fan by any means but I would watch every single game I could if those three were to be on the court at the same time, especially after living near Chicago and watching Parker and Okafor play in high school. You could also make the argument that Kyrie Irving and Austin Rivers would STILL be at Duke. Just let that sink in.

Need more examples? Think of Ben McLemore and Andrew Wiggins manning the wings for Kansas. Think of Cody Zeller being on the same front court as Noah Vonleh. What if Bradley Beal was still in Final Four-contender Florida's back court? The list goes on and it's proof that the college game would be so much better and so much more competitive if players were told they had to stay put for more than one year. For school's like Kentucky that just bring freshman in and then ship them out a year later it's not fair to the kids or the fans. Are those Kentucky kids ever part of the program? Are they ever a part of the tradition that school has? Or are they just an experiment to see if Calipari can win with freshman only to be told "Sorry, you didn't live up to expectations. On to the next one."?

Oden has worn a suit more than he's worn an NBA uniform

Also, think of what kind of message you as a professional league are promoting to these kids. You are telling these kids that they can basically go to one year of schooling and then go to the NBA and get paid. That's not how it works. Take Greg Oden for example: the poor guy left after his freshman year of college only to be absolutely demolished by knee injuries. To this day he has still not played a full season and has been out of college for six years. Now, was he capable of playing in the NBA after his freshman year? Yes. BUT now he is likely to not have much of a future in basketball. What does he have to fall back on? It's not easy to get a job in the real world with only one year of college. It's unfortunate that Oden has had such misfortune, but he would be better equipped for the situation if he had to go to school more than one year. These athletes are called STUDENT-athletes for a reason and that's because school should always come first. This "one and done" rule promotes nothing about educational value rather it allows kids to think that they are guaranteed a future in basketball if they are selected in the draft at 19 years of age.

There are plenty of other reasons that would support why kids should be made to stay in college more than just one year. However, I would hope that you would take all of this into consideration and realize that promoting the "one and done" system is not only hurting these kids, but it is watering down your league as well. Kids are not as prepared or ready to compete at such a high level unless they are one-of-a-kind or once-in-a-generation players like Parker, Wiggins, Randle, and Gordon. The rule must be changed and the age must be raised if both the NCAA and NBA wish to present the world with as high-caliber basketball as possible. Your move, NBA.

Happy Holidays,
Nathan A. Wadley