One and Done: College Basketball's Problem?

I am a huge college basketball fan. I absolutely love watching game after game eve if my favorite teams aren't playing. There is a noticable difference between basketball at the college level and at the professional level. Yes, I know that NBA basketball is fun to watch and for the most part they put a great product on the floor night in and night out. But, there are certain things that are lacking in professional basketball that we do indeed have in the college game. For the vast majority of these kids this will be their last stop in their playing careers before they hopefully use their degrees to carry them the rest of their lives. But colegge basketball is different, a good different. Passion and intensity present throughout the game. Kids are playing for their school, their teammates and their coach, not their contract or playing really hard in a free agent season as many pros do. No, college basketball is much different. But, does that mean it's a perfect product. Not at all. Does college basketball have a major flaw?

UK Freshmen Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Marquis Teague and
Anthony Davis all left after one year. That year also
culminated with a national championship

Everyone associated with college basketball knows the term one-and-done. The NCAA set the rule in place to prevent high school kids fom jumping straight to the NBA out of high school. The rule forces them to attend a college for a year, play 1 season of basketball, then they can make the jump merely one year after they were told they couldn't go to the league yet. Does that one year in college make that much of a difference? I would say for some it does and for some it does not. There are definitely some kids that are NBA ready out of high school, maybe more so than physically than mentally and emotionally, but nonetheless ready. There are also some that just aren't ready yet no matter how much they think they are. Don't get me wrong, the NBA is no joke and you have to be very good at the game of basketball in order to be on a NBA team roster. The NFL requires that kids be out of high school for a minimum of 3 years before they can play professionally. One reason why I believe college football and the NFL are doing so well. Players go to college and they get better and prepare themselves for the NFL. The NFL then in turn is also getting more cultivated and talent ready players when they leave college. MLB is different, they allow players to be drafted out of high school but players who choose to attend a Division-I school have to wait three years. If they attend a junior college, then they can go into the draft after one year. So the question is, what's the best way to handle this situation?

Well I guess this is where I give my opinion on the matter. Am I a fan? No way. I like stability and continuity within a program. I like for the term upperclassmen to have more meaning than a true sophomore. I want to be able to watch a kid grow from his first year to his last, get to know him and his personality and watch him evolve through his years in school. I feel it creates more of a connection between the player(s) and the school's fan base. When a fan base can latch onto a kid and cheer for him, win and lose with him, go through the struggles and joys of a season with him I think it makes the player better and I believe wholeheartedly it makes the college basketball game better. It gets fans to cheer for the person more than the player and I hope that you understand what I mean by that. If a player is a full fledged one-and-done then there is no attachment with the fans, there can't be. Not after one single seaon. No matter how successful they are.

With all that being said, I am a realist and I understand how the game works. it's about two things: money and winning. We all know how it works in sports, just like it has for years and years. The team with the best players wins. That is why this is such a tough situation because if teams like Kentucky can continue to get the best players in the country then they will more than likely contiue to win which means more $$$. Even with the high roster turnover that schools like them see, fans don't seem to care when you're winning but when you're not the problem is glaring.

Tom Izzo sells kids on the college experience. He has two
national championship game appearances, winning one
along with six Final Fours and seven Big Ten titles

There are schools out there in college basketball that seem to still stay highly successful even with the rule in place. Schools such as Michigan State, Duke, Kansas, Indiana, Florida along with some others have done a great job of selling the 3-4 year college experience to top high quality high school kids and getting them to stay in their program for several years. This allows the kids to develop properly under very good coaching. It's hard to say any of the coaches at the aforementioned schools are not good coaches. This in turn has made these teams extremely fun to watch as their players stick together for 2-3 years and get better every season. Now don't get me wrong, most top tier college basketballs schools will have a player or two leave early here and there but it's not like the revolving door that takes place at some schools. Fans want and deserve some carryover from year to year. It makes for better basketball in the long run. But, hey, if you're winning consistently what do they care? There in lies the question, is the one and done rule for college basketball a good thing or a bad thing for the game? You tell me.