Carmelo Anthony, Chris Bosh, Kevin Durant, Greg Oden, Derrick Rose, Michael Beasley, O.J. Mayo. 

Any of these names sound familiar?

They should.

Each one was drafted in the top four of the NBA draft, each one became a household name bordering on superstardom and each one went to college…for just one year. 

This was because a 2006 rule by the NBA required players  to be at least 19 years old and at least one year removed from college to be eligible for the NBA draft. 

Many argued this new rule would help the NBA and NCAA, because people would get excited about college basketball again and players would have one more year to mature their game. 

But does this really help the NCAA?

Coaches spend years trying to recruit a star player, someone who could bring a championship to their team. 

All this work ultimately leads to having the player on campus for one year, and one year only. 

It is a waste of resources and time for these colleges to recruit a player for one season. 

This is what would be referred to as a “hired gun” or a “rent-a-player.” 

So what are they supposed to do? 

Pass on a chance to bring in a star player and concentrate on players who would stay for more than one year? 

How can they predict who will leave early? 

The Purdue Boilermakers passed on a chance to recruit hometown phenom Greg Oden, who ended up signing with Ohio State, in order to concentrate on adding players who would stay for more than a year. 

What happened? 

Purdue lost in the second round of the NCAA tournament, while Ohio State made it all the way to the finals before ultimately losing to Florida. 

What about when Greg Oden left after one year?

Again Purdue lost in the second round, while Ohio State didn’t even make the tournament. 

All that work recruiting Oden to Ohio State, and it bought them one second-place finish. Meanwhile, not recruiting Oden brought Purdue stability. 

This is why the age rule is ridiculous.

Netting the top-rated prospect brings you one good year, but it weakens your program for years to come.  Clearly, the short-term gain doesn’t outweigh the long-term harm. 

The age rule seems like it helps both the NCAA and NBA, but really it only helps the NBA, and that’s it. 

But it also hurts the NBA in that if there is a truly gifted prospect, he can’t join the NBA and get all that exposure. He has to go to college. 

So what’s the solution?

The best course of action would be to look at the rules for other sports. 

The National Football League has a similar rule to the NBA, but it differs on the number of years in college; the player has to be out of high school for three years before he can enter the draft. 

Many argue this is unfair to the players, and it was even challenged in court by Maurice Clarett in 2004. 

The National Hockey League doesn’t have a rule prohibiting players of a certain age to enter its draft. 

But then it also has a minor league where players can mature before stepping into the league. 

Neither the NFL nor NHL rules would work for the NBA.

First, there are players who can make an impact straight out of high school or after one or two years of college (see Lebron James, Chris Paul, Kevin Durant, etc.). 

Second, most of the players need a couple years to mature and reach their potential, and college is the perfect place to do that (see Tyson Chandler, Darius Miles, Kwame Brown, Eddy Curry, etc.). 

So how is it possible to appease both parties?

Let’s look at the MLB.

The eligibility rule allows a player to declare for the draft right out of high school. But should he choose not to do that, he must go to college and stay there for three years before entering the draft. 

Genius. 

It pleases those players who want to jump from high school to the NBA, and it also helps the NCAA by eliminating the time it takes to recruit someone who leaves after one year. 

It’s a win-win situation that’s doable (current age restrictions will be reviewed in the coming years), and it’s logical. 
Too bad logic and the NBA don’t usually mix.