The next proposal on "Shark Tank," the only Friday night show I consider watching, should be a comprehensive plan to integrate the NBA's developmental league and the one-and-done scene that's pervaded the NCAA since American high school students (the same rule doesn't apply to foreigners, besides Canada) have been required to spend one more year in school -- because Mark Cuban's current proposal doesn't quite yet cover all of its bases.
"I think what will end up happening -- and this is my opinion, not that of the league -- is if the colleges don't change from the one-and-done, we'll go after the one," Cuban told ESPN, among other comments. "The NCAA rules are so hypocritical, there's absolutely no reason for a kid to go [to college], because he's not going to class [and] he's actually not even able to take advantage of all the fun because the first semester he starts playing basketball. So if the goal is just to graduate to the NBA or be an NBA player, go to the D-League."
To be fair to the Mavericks' owner, he, like an artist, was simply trying to stoke conversation rather than propose a full-scale solution. At its core, it was a good idea worth exploring further, especially if you're an official of the NBA.
Determining the viability of Cuban's proposal would be the amount of money straight-from-high school players would be eligible to make. Currently, players in the NBADL earn a maximum of $25,000 (some as little as $13,000), according to ESPN. Keep in mind, a division I scholarship is worth somewhere around $40,000 with a whole mess of perks like free gear, meal money, national TV exposure, and fans more likely to ask the awestruck question, "You play for Duke?" than "You play for the Rio Grande Valley Vipers?"
For such a system to work, high school players would have to be eligible for the draft -- and thus eligible for bigger contracts -- with a requirement of one year in the D-League. Those not drafted but extended a D-League invite would be stuck with the minimum salary options, while those drafted could be eligible for either a full rookie salary or something modified during their developmental year (like between $100,000 and $500,000). Perhaps even a more gradual accumulation of wealth rather than a straight shot to a million would create more fiscally responsible athletes.
More than the money, the D-League would have to make something of a case that it's the best avenue for developing NBA players, and not the last chance dance it currently is. An argument "for" is the difference between the college and NBA game. Every year, NBA scouts are left wondering how one's college performance will translate to the pro ranks. Why, they ask, do certain players expand their game from their rigid college system while others become half the players they once were? A year in the D-League will likely give a better picture of a player's pro potential than a year in college.
Even if a year in college is more appealing to most players, the NBA, if it shares Cuban's belief that a year in college is worthless from an academics standpoint, has almost nothing to lose in allowing high school players to be drafted again with the provision they spend one year in college. Perhaps they gain three or four high school kids per year under the new system and liven up D-League play across the country. Ideally, the reduced first year salary and one-year D-league committment would dissuade all but the best players most sure of their NBA chops -- and sure that they don't want to attend a year of salary-less college.
It would also be interesting to note how teams make use of players not eligible to help them for a whole season. In some cases, a minor league player could be viewed as an asset, for it allows the team to stay in the lottery and grab another high pick -- which they could then use on a college player and acquire two impact players in two years.
