The “One and Done” rule is a term that basketball fans should know very well. In 2005, the NBA, under former-commissioner David Stern, ratified a new rule requiring draftees to be at least 19 years old and one year removed from high school, to be eligible to play in the league. The common reasoning at the time, was that a lot of high schoolers just weren’t ready for the NBA. And by declaring early, and voiding their college basketball eligibility, it was hurting them in the long term. In 2005, Gerald Green: one of the last players of the high school draft era, said in a New York Times Article: “Everybody’s not LeBron James. I’m not LeBron James, Martell’s (Martell Webster) not LeBron James, there’s only one LeBron James. He came in ready and he dominated the league. There’s a lot of players that have to get developed. Me, I’ve got to get developed. But I guess that age limit, that one year of college experience, can get you more developed and I think that’s pretty good.” And while Green’s comments were fairly common at time, a lot has changed since 2005. David Stern has since retired, and under new league commissioner: Adam Silver, serious talks have begun about changing the league’s collective bargaining agreement, and allowing 18 year-olds to be drafted again.

The issue and stakes of this rule are multifaceted. Certainly more multifaceted than what Howard Beck: a writer for the New York Times, in 2005 described as: “the right of teenagers to get rich playing basketball.” In a lot of ways, this debate is very similar to the one concerning the U.S.’s legal drinking age. Both are predicated around the fundamental idea of whether we should allow 18 year-olds the freedom to make decisions that could ultimately hurt themselves. Affirmers of Adam Silver’s recent statements regarding NBA eligibility, would argue that it’s this same “freedom of choice” that is of primary concern in this debate. Take Zion Williamson, for instance. In the coming 2019 NBA Draft, he’s practically guaranteed to be the number one overall pick. At 6’7, 285lbs, and with the jumping ability of a human-kangaroo, he perfectly fits the phrase of “a man playing against boys”. For guaranteed prospects like him, why should he have to waste his time in college when he could be making millions of dollars in the NBA? He’s legally an adult. Shouldn’t he have the freedom to choose between the NBA and a year of college? On the flip-side of this argument, you have those who say that this about more than just money; it’s about development. According to a well known sports publication called “The Ringer”, Hall-of-Famer: Charles Barkley, had this to say: “When did we get to the point that all people care about is money?” Charles Barkley said last week on Inside the NBA about the possibility of Williamson shutting down his season to prepare for the draft. “I get so mad when people act like money’s the only thing that matters in the world.” By forcing prospects to wait a year before entering the league, defenders of the rule, like Barkley, argue that it allows them to not only mature physically, but mentally. College athletes get to train in top tier facilities, play against the best non-professional players at their age-level, and gain the experience that come with living on a college campus. It’s this balance between “freedom of choice” and “quality of development” that permeates this controversy. And it’s through the analysis of several articles, that I will attempt to give more insight into this debate.

I think the best place to start analyzing this controversy, is by understanding the perspective of someone who might have the most impact on its outcome: Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. According to a 2018 ESPN Article, NCAA president Mark Emmert asked former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to chair a special NCAA basketball commission. Her task was to make recommendations for the NCAA that would ultimately lead to “decisive action” on combating corruption. And after months of waiting, Rice’s commission finally delivered that recommendation. It was the opinion of the commission that “One-and-done has played a significant role in corrupting and destabilizing college basketball, restricting the freedom of choice of players, and undermining the relationship of college basketball to the mission of higher education.” Rice’s commission believed that in order for college basketball to be freed of corruption, the NBA needed to take action, and give athletes the freedom to enter the league out of high school.

It should be noted that the commission’s opinion is not without its critics. Jonathan Giovany, a writer for ESPN, argues that the commission’s statement is just an excuse for the NCAA to avoid taking responsibility, and start paying its athletes. In the same 2018 ESPN article, he claims that: “It’s preposterous to think that abolishing the one-and-done rule will fix all of college basketball’s problems. The much bigger issue is not allowing players to profit from their likeness, receive endorsement deals or be properly compensated by schools for the huge amount of money they generate — one the commission conveniently deflected, citing ongoing litigation and other issues.” Regardless of Giovany’s opinion, what’s uncanny about Rice’s argument for NBA eligibility, is how much it mirrors the debate we’re having about the U.S.’s legal drinking age right now.

According to an opinion article from the New York Times titled: “Return the Drinking Age to 18, and Enforce It”, Gabriel Glaser argues that: “Raising the drinking age to 21 hasn’t reduced drinking — it’s merely driven it underground, to the riskiest of settings”. Glaser’s opinion is identical to that of Condoleezza Rice’s commission. Just like how Glaser argues that the U.S’s legal drinking age has led to a drinking problem underground, Rice argues that the NBA’s eligibility age has led to a corruption problem in the NCAA. Instead of NBA prospects getting paid the contracts that they would receive in the professional game, they are preyed upon by corrupt agents, sponsors, and college officials, to make deals that ultimately get them into to trouble with the FBI and the NCAA. And while both of their arguments are legitimate; this topic leads us to a fundamental question that needs to be raised. A question that is supported by defenders of the “Stern Rule”. Should we give 18-year olds the freedom to make decisions that could lead them to harm? And I think the best way to approach this, is from a scientific angle.

It’s been well known for a while now, that our brains won’t reach full development until our mid-twenties. According to the website for the Stanford Children’s Hospital: “The rational part of a teen’s brain isn’t fully developed and won’t be until he or she is 25 years old or so.” The significance of this development is the effect it has on our decision making. The Stanford Children’s Hospital continues by saying: “Recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part, but teens process information with the amygdala, the emotional part. And it’s the prefrontal cortex that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences.” This would seem to support what defenders of Stern’s Rule, like Charles Barkley, are saying. If our long-term decision making is lacking until our brains have fully developed at 25, then is it a good idea to allow 18-year olds the freedom to make those same long-term decisions? Then again, what is considered long-term decision making? And if the answer to the previous question is no, then what? Should college basketball players have to wait until their 25 to be drafted? Just like any good debate, I don’t think there’s an easy answer.

What’s ultimately heartwarming about this issue, is that both sides are looking out for who really matters: the players. With Condoleezza Rice, it’s the right of players freedom of choice. Similarly to argument for lowering the legal drinking age, Rice and her commission argue that these players are legally adults and should be able to make their own decisions, in regards to their future. With Barkley, it’s about player development. He believes that an extra year or two in college goes a long way in player maturity and physical development. And without it, players are at risk of doing harm to themselves through poor decision making and a lack of experience. Regardless of their contradicting viewpoints, I think both sides can rest easy knowing that, at the end of the day, the concerns of the opposing side are at least made from the right place.

Work Cited:

Bontemps, Tim. “NBA and Players’ Union Agree: Age Limit’s Days Are Numbered.” Chicagotribune.com, 11 July 2018, http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/ct-spt-nba-age-limit-adam-silver-20180711-story.html.

Beck, Howard. “N.B.A. Draft Will Close Book on High School Stars.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 28 June 2005, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/sports/basketball/nba-draft-will-close-book-on-high-school-stars.html.

Borzello, Jeff, et al. “Tough Talk on Corruption, One-and-Done, but Commission Misses the Mark.” ESPN, ESPN Internet Ventures, 25 Apr. 2018, http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/23304802/condoleezza-rice-commission-recommendations-one-done-nba-draft-corruption-recruiting.

“Default – Stanford Children’s Health.” Understanding the Teen Brain, http://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=understanding-the-teen-brain-1-3051.

O’Connor, Kevin. “The Good, Bad, and Unintended Consequences of Abolishing the NBA’s One-and-Done Rule.” The Ringer, The Ringer, 25 Feb. 2019, http://www.theringer.com/nba/2019/2/25/18239529/nba-one-and-done-draft-zion-williamson.
Glaser, Gabriel. “You Must Be 21 to Drink?” The New York Times, The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/02/10/you-must-be-21-to-drink/return-the-drinking-age-to-18-and-enforce-it.