How a single NBA rule change defined an era of basketball 

The older coaches like Bob Knight judged success based off not only winning at basketball, but helping to better prepare players for life. All the one and done coaches care about is winning a basketball game. You have to remember when Knight started coaching the average player career was shorter. Average salary in the NBA was $35,000 and it was harder for players to make it as a pro because there were half the roster spots (17 teams in NBA.)

I always thought the best way to do it would have been that you CAN come straight out of high school, but if you choose to go to college, you have to stay for at least two years. Like college baseball.

If Guys can go into the Military, AND off to War straight out of High School, why can't they go to the NBA, if Teams want to draft them. It's on the Teams and the people in charge of running them to do better as far as how they evaluate the Talent. If they can enter the Workforce straight out of High School, then they can go to the NBA.

Love the production style of your videos

Dude, great video. Real high quality stuff! u deserve alot more subs

Love the NBA videos,keep it up😄

Telfair was a beast but he ended up on a team that didn't have the patience to develop him.

My opinion is on paper the schools probably thought originally how they could negotiate a sophomore season out of them. Maybe by distorting their draft potential or trying to sell on a national title or maybe even a 2 year certificate program.

Tbh while there are issues with one and done I’d rather raise the draft age to 20. For those saying oh if an 18 year old can be drafted by the army they should play in the NBA it’s a weak argument. NBA needs to do whats best for the NBA personally. The NBA should be like MLB in some sense, you have to play 2 years of college if you go to college which is fair. If anything. If i could make the rules it would be - Player must be 20 by June 1st -North American players must have graduated high school and/or a GED - If a player commits to college they must spend 3 years in college or play a combined 150 games at the college or pro(not G league or NBA) level (national team games count) - For a pro player they are eligible at the age of 20 and have 150 games played - Any player who graduates university automatically gets their rookie contract increased by 100%, meaning if say the first overall pick was a four year student they get an extra 10 mil contract a year(that doesn’t count to the cap or spending to the cap) - Any pro player that has 150 pro level drafted to the NBA is also eligible for that double contract. And as a loophole any college player who decides to go pro but didnt graduate has to graduate before the end of their 2nd year in order to be eligible for their rookie contract. If the NFL and MLB have rules raising the draft age then so can the NBA(with support from the players association). Overall id want to get rid of one and done but at the same time having players polish their skills and provide teams with max scouting. Too many guys care about making the nba asap as opposed to taking the time to craft their skills. NCAA should try to make the rules as close to the NBA.

As a Kentucky fan, I hope the one and done rule stays. It makes Kentucky basketball way more fun to watch and it gives me a good reason to follow the nba and see the players I cheered for at UK

Hallelujah on the one and done rule is finally dying

Honestly they should keep the minimum age to 19. I like the 1 yesr rule of them playing in College. I doubt some of these players would be who they are if they had not attended college.

The NBA should have invested in the developmental league instead of having the ncaa do it for them bc kids weren't paid Players taking all the risk

Only the nba is to blame it should go back to straight out of hs n let these kids choose their own path but if they go to college need to commit for more than 1 yr whereas g-league or Europe they can just do the 1 yr n the salary’s or nil difference can dictate which they choose

The case study of Coach Bob Knight is a whole can of worms. I understand that in this case he is brought to bring the point of a college athlete accomplishing the ideal mission of "student athlete" in graduating, but having 30+ years sample size, we all know that that's not using the aim of the athlete or the school. It is a money making proposition. If an athlete has the talent to go pro, it is best for him to go on that track earlier rather than later. At least now with NIL, it takes the veil off NCAA as an altruistic education institution. The Bobby Knight piece I want to bring up is his track record of "hard coaching" some may say "abuse" of the youth in his program. If he or anyone else is going to stand on the hill of "developing student athletes for life" it's only right that we litigate the methods with which he does this. When all the cards are laid out of the table, who has most to gain? who has your best interests? Who has vested interest in your success?