First of all, let’s acknowledge that the vast majority of NCAA athletes benefit from the nature of college sports. The average shooting guard at Northern Arizona isn’t going to sniff the NBA or pro basketball, so the idea of getting a free education is a good deal on both sides. For that reason, I don’t see a huge need to compensate college players for their services; that average guard isn’t making money as a basketball player anywhere else.
However, we’re talking about the relationship in regards to the select few (less than 1%) who actually have the ability to generate money off their athletic talents. For them, the future pro athletes, the relationship has become unfair and farcical, as illustrated by the recent scandal that may bring down Sean Miller (Arizona) and other top coaches.
With that in mind, here are some ideas that may make it mutually beneficial:
(1) allow 18-year-olds to become eligible for the NBA Draft
I know that NBA teams may grumble at the idea of drafting high school kids who are WAY in over their head and unable to contribute, but at some point, ethics needs to rule the day. If an 18-year-old can join the army, he can join the NBA. If we let kids drop out of college in pursuit of a musical career or an acting career, we can do the same with an athletic career.
For supreme athletes (who are surefire NBA talents), the one year stint in college may actually be counter-productive. Sure, you’re developing your skills, but you’d develop them far better in a professional environment. In the pros, you’d be able to work on your craft and your body 24-7 as opposed to the strict time limits set at the NCAA level.
Certainly, allowing younger kids to enter the NBA would accelerate the need for a strong G-League to help develop them, but that’s a trend that the league appears to be (rightfully) embracing.
(2) make eligible players APPLY to the NBA Draft
Right now, eligible college prospects declare for the NBA Draft and take their chances upon being selected. For many of those, it’s the right decision. For others, it’s not. Perhaps they misjudged their own talents or had the wrong agent buzzing in their ear, but either way, they end up bombing out of the draft process and unable to head back to school.
To counter that: I propose putting their eligibility and viability in the hands of the NBA league offices.
Here’s how it would work… As an 18-year-old super recruit, you apply to the NBA. Allow the league and the teams to determine if you’re generally ready for the league (be it in the actual NBA or the G-League). If the NBA wants to be cautious and conservative, perhaps they only “accept” 2-3 high school kids per year. Perhaps it’s as many as 5-10. But either way, these kids would get the seal of approval that their decision makes sense.
For those kids who don’t get “accepted” into the draft process, it allows them to pursue college basketball (or international basketball) with a clearer vision.
In fact, I’d even extend the idea past freshman years. Make rising sophomores apply for the NBA as well. Perhaps you’d be even more lenient here and accept more freshman college players, but even vetting those who declare would help them determine their best path forward.
I like this “application” concept better than the proposal that would give the kids an MLB-style choice between immediately jumping to the NBA, or giving a 2 or 3-year commitment to their college teams. Why? Because there’s really no enforcement for making a kid stay in college. If a freshman at Kentucky finds out his mom suddenly needs heart surgery and he desperately needs money, who’s going to stop him from declaring for the draft? Similarly, if a promising center at Duke ends up developing faster than expected and puts up 25-15 as a freshman, why should he wait for another year? Allow them, as per my rule, “apply” for the NBA whenever they want. Whether or not they get accepted will be a different story.
(3) Force the NCAA to extend their three-point line
If the NCAA wants to house superstar basketball players, then they need to do a better job developing them for the NBA. One of the big problems here is that the college basketball three-point line is so short that it stunts their growth.
We can see it clearly with the recent superstar prospects. Brandon Ingram, Lonzo Ball, and Markelle Fultz all shot over 41.0% from three in college. As rookies in the NBA, they shot 29.4%, 31.9%, and 0/0 respectively.
The struggle to transition to the pros makes sense because it’s an entirely different shot. In college, the three-point line is 20’7″. In the NBA, it ranges between 22′ and 23’7″. That can be nearly 3 feet of difference.
If the three-point arc was longer in college, it would make more sense for prospects to stick around and “develop” there. Otherwise, they should be working on their NBA game in the actual NBA.
