NCAA, NBA need to look at academic, playing requisites

The allegations that O.J. Mayo may have accepted gifts and money from an agent’s runner as early as his sophomore year in high school has rekindled a long-standing debate: should high school basketball players be allowed to go straight to the NBA? Should they be mandated to play in college for a year? Two? Three?

Let me first make two things clear: 1) I have no idea what O.J. Mayo has or has not accepted 2) I don’t know that there is a right answer to this question.

The idea of “forcing” student-athletes to live up to the former part of that moniker for a year or two in college is often countered by the argument that players should be allowed to earn a living if they have the ability – it is their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Let’s be honest - money isn’t everything, but a cool 20 million in the bank account sure helps the whole happiness aspect.

Then, of course, there are the athletes that truly need the money. Some of the nation’s best players come from extremely poor areas of the country, and who’s to say they are not allowed to start their professional career in order to help their parents or guardians put food on the table or clothes on their back?

Those that think basketball should keep the current rule of demanding one year of collegiate participation for their players, up the ante to two full seasons, or even adopt the policy of football that requires three seasons from its athletes, have their own reasons.

Some will say that time spent in college is time spent maturing both physically and mentally, allowing NBA teams to get players that are more polished product than potential project. They opine that the very same new-found maturity will also help them cope with life in the fast lane, a suddenly bulging wallet and the demands that playing professional sports require of your body and mind.

Moreover, they argue, it allows college coaches, particularly those at top tier institutions, to know what they are getting in terms of recruiting. Even if it’s just one guaranteed year of security, coaches can target any player without worrying about being left at the alter – a commit that turns pro at the last second often means a gaping hole on a roster that cannot be adequately filled with the uncommitted players remaining on the board.

What the O.J. Mayo situation has done is introduce other variables that until this point undoubtedly existed but had yet to be defined: agents meddling with athletes that know they are only at school because they have to be, and the possibility of students treating their last few months on campus acting as though they are allergic to their classrooms.

An O.J. Mayo, a Michael Beasley, a Derrick Rose and a Kevin Durant know they are “one and done” players. They may say all the right things about going through the process and considering a return to their schools – but for the most part they are only enrolled because Mr. Stern requires them to be.

At that point, a dangerous situation can develop – one where a player is a student-athlete first semester, in order to maintain their eligibility, and simply an athlete after Christmas. The second half of their freshman year is the athletic equivalent of a presidential lame duck.

The way the eligibility requirements are currently structured, students can easily blow off class and never suffer the consequences, while their schools are left with a lower APR score because their superstar left in less than stellar academic standing.

The NCAA needs to make some revisions to their policy to ensure the athletes are more accountable.

Certainly not all athletes can be lumped into the same category, but there is no denying the opportunity is there for these players to pack it in once the fall semester is in the rearview mirror.

Most concerning perhaps, is the fact that if the players know they’re only staying one year, then the agents do too. With millions of dollars of commission at stake, the arms race to sign these players is more competitive now than it ever has been. Signing franchise players and lottery picks can often make a career, easily outweighing the risk of trying to work out deals with these players while they are still amateurs.

I don’t know what the answer is, and I know I’m not the only one.

Personally, I think players should have to go to college for at least two years because in the end it helps both the college and professional game, and provides the athletes with the start of an education that can help them in the event of a career-ending injury.

The college game is much more fun to watch when the best players are playing, and the NBA could do without another Kwame Brown.

For those players that truly need the money, they can go overseas and play professionally, make their money, and then play in the league when they are eligible two years later.

It’s not as though there wouldn’t be other options for high school graduates to make money playing ball, they just might be less glamorous…and if you truly need the money, glamour shouldn’t be the driving force behind your choice anyway.

The lame duck situation is a problem that’s never going away, so you may as well try and address the other issues. If players are required to go to college for two years in the future, all it means is that the second semester of their sophomore year will be just like that of the current players’ freshman campaigns.

College is not a stepping stone or an NBA training camp; it is a place where boys transform into men.

Something needs to happen, and whatever the NBA and NCAA decide to do with the playing commitment and academic requirements, they need to make sure that the credibility of the game and its players are the driving force behind the revisions and not the league’s and agents’ bottom line.