I have a paper to do for my English Finals and my topic is the one and done rule. Can anyone help me with some pros and cons on the topic? I've kind of ran into a brick wall on what i want to talk about. Thanks!
pros: Injuries - it doesnt happen to often, but there are some college football players who's draft stock is sky high, fall dramatically because of a significant injury suffered in college. Injuries can happen to anyone at any point in time but this factors into a players decision to enter the draft or stay another year. A current example would be Marcus Lattimore, would have easily been the 1st RB taken in the draft.
Length of career - by coming out a few years earlier, you can in a sense "prolong" the average professional sports career by coming out a year or 2 earlier
cons: Inexperience - playing only 1 year in college does not let most players fully develop their skills before pushing them into the nba talent pool. There have been numerous occasions where someone has all the talent in the world but just flopped in the nba. A lot believe staying and further learning the basics in college could have helped some of those players.
the message - it lets 18 and 19 year old kids believe that as long as they excel in a sport, it is ok to give up on their education. Now some players go back to college after being drafted and finish school or get some kind of degree, and i applaud those guys. But let's face it, for most nba players this is not the case.
There are many more pros and cons but hopefully this will help you out a little.
You might look to contrast it to Baseball's rule where you either come out immediately or you have to stay in college 3 years. That seems to be the best of both worlds to me. Guys that are obviously ready like LeBron can come out and everyone else has enough game tape to reduce the amount of busts. On top of that you strengthen college Basketball which means many these guys will come into the league with an established brand to help team marketing.
There's been alot of talk lately about players going bankrupt (ESPN even just did a 30 for 30 documentary on it). An interesting study, IMO, would be the % likelihood of being bankrupt if you never set foot on a college campus vs. one and done vs. 4 year graduate.
Many ways to slice this up, but there have to be figures that set out to prove that the longer you stay in college, the better it is not only for the league, but the better for the players once they have retired.
* 60% of NBA players go bankrupt only 5 years after retiring.
pro for ownership of having the rule in place is they get a better look at their investments. (big)
con for ownership of having the rule in place is they get less out of the top prospects in the long run. (small)
"Aime la vérité, mais pardonne à l'erreur." - François-Marie Arouet (Voltaire)
You could talk about how the rule has not had a true effect on the players except to force them to wait an extra year before they can start making money for their families.
There is no direct correlation between athletic performance and financial responsibility in respect to the level of education one receives.
The two most successful players both on the court and financially, LeBron James and Kobe Bryant, both did not go to college. Had the one and done rule been implemented when they were in high school, would that extra year make them even more successful? Highly unlikely. What is a guarantee though is that these players would have had to wait an additional year until they have the opportunity to make money. Additionally, what if they get hurt in college? If a player that were to leave after high school is forced to go to college for a year and then gets hurt in college, he is going to lose money. The NBA's attempt to bring a "better" image has now hurt someone's financial situation. This could have been prevented easily, and only ends up hurting the player. It's a battle between the players' interests and the interest of the NBA.
So what you should have gotten from all these responses is that your paper should be at least 50 pages
Also, the opponent would be arguing that because the NBA doesn't care, that what's best for the players doesn't matter? If someone could prove that going to school is best for the NBA(with another study) + best for the players, then I'd think that's a pretty interesting argument. It may not be in the best interest of LeBron and Kobe, but if 95% of the bankrupt players were indeed straight to the NBA or 'one and done' players, then that's something the NBA should look at. And the NBA not caring about the players after they retire would be a way to argue that the NBA wants this rule in place for an alternate reason; that's not an argument against the study of the backgrounds of the bankrupt players.
P.S. 95% of the bankrupt being one and done or no college at all wouldn't really prove that going to school is better. I just threw that in there because at the time I thought it would prove it, but you'd have to run the #s against add'l things to prove it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)