03-18-2020, 08:15 AM
The one-and-done thing is relevant and unique to MBB. First off, the NBA is the only major professional league that requires players to play at least a year in college and allows them to go professional after only one year. The result is that the very best basketball players play one year in college and then go pro. Moreover, in basketball, the presence of one superstar can make a very big difference in the quality of play because of the ability of such a player to score at will one-on-one. Moreover, unlike other sports, athleticism plays such a role in basketball that 18-year-olds can be stars. The tragectory as players mature is much flatter than in, say, football, where experience and size/weight are very important. One-and-done players will typically not pick Stanford, because what is the point of going to an elite college for one year and then going pro.
If the NBA allowed high school players to go pro (as it sounds like will happen in the near future), those players would bypass college entirely, and the players who come into college are most likely to stick around at least two years, if not four. Stanford's value proposition is much more attractive to such players, as we have shown in baseball and football (this past year excepted, though we continue to attract players who are expected to be attractive pro prospects).
The bottom line is that the one-and-done system is uniquely disadvantageous to Stanford.
BC
If the NBA allowed high school players to go pro (as it sounds like will happen in the near future), those players would bypass college entirely, and the players who come into college are most likely to stick around at least two years, if not four. Stanford's value proposition is much more attractive to such players, as we have shown in baseball and football (this past year excepted, though we continue to attract players who are expected to be attractive pro prospects).
The bottom line is that the one-and-done system is uniquely disadvantageous to Stanford.
BC