Money Players

In Brand's world, this is not about the money, but about the kids who would otherwise blow off their educational opportunities if they had the freedom to go straight to the NBA. Brand views the NBA's rule as a net positive. He says the real benefits of one and done are "not often recognized." Come on media, do your job!

See if you agree with Brand's logic: "So in the old view, you have hundreds of kids blowing off high school, thinking they're going to be one of the 10 kids who is going directly from high school to college. Now, believe it or not, not everyone is Lebron James and not everyone is going to be able to play at that level. So you have hundreds of kids who get disappointed and they blew off high school and they're not going to graduate from high school, they're not prepared for college and once they don't get into the NBA, what are they going to do? Flip hamburgers at best?"

Let's put Dr. Brand's theory to the test. Brand believes that by denying the ten or so players the right to go straight to the NBA, we are saving hundreds of kids who will undoubtedly see their hoop dream become a nightmare. Brand's argument is heavy on truthiness, rather than any hard evidence, but give him credit for not backing down.

As an aside, in my opinion (and Warren Buffett will back me), LeBron is a savvy, smart, responsible young man, despite the fact that he never attended college. By any measure, LeBron has been successful, both on and off the court. But he's a bad role model, according to Brand, because he was freakishly talented coming out of high school and because he will cause hundreds of other hoop hopefuls to have unreasonable expectations. Therefore, we must not allow 18 to 19 (and maybe one day 20) year olds to succeed -- or fail -- in any other environment other than the billion-dollar-a-year college basketball enterprise.

When people make the argument for or against requiring players to go to college, there are certain names that pop up. For every Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Tracy McGrady and Dwight Howard, there is MJ, Shane Battier, Grant Hill and Brandon Roy. And for every example used to support the benefits of college (Korleone Young, Leon Smith, Taj McDavid), there are players who screwed up in the NBA after attending college.

Two names off the top of my head: Latrell Sprewell and Jason Caffey. Collectively they spent 8 years on college campuses (I hope it was ironic that they both went to the same school). Did college prepare Sprewell and Caffey for life in the NBA? Both have had financial problems and both filed bankruptcy protection. Sprewell infamously choked his NBA coach. Caffey sadly has an assault on his record too. In the NFL, players must go to school for at least three years. Rae Curruth, Tank Johnson and Michael Vick did their time in college and then did time. For every good example why someone should go to college, there's a bad example. There's no one-size-fits all, as much as we'd like to there to be.

Is college a great place to develop as a person and as an athlete? Absolutely. But there are corrupting influences in college ESPECIALLY for those who have no interest in school, but are forced to attend against their will.

The NCAA has repeatedly told us college sports is a privilege, not a right. So I wonder what valuable educational experience did LeBron James not miss that helped him thrive so extraordinarily. In the final analysis, a college education does not guarantee success by any measure. Nor does lack of a college experience put someone on the fast track to flipping burgers.

Sure, Brand would like a system that forces the best players to go to college (and be real students and real amateurs) for one, two or even three years. But is that fair to the players? And how does forcing players to go to school support the NCAA's mission? Of course, if Brandon Jennings succeeds in Europe he might throw a wrench in Brand's vision to control the teen basketball market.