At least that is my conclusion from what I've seen over the last few days. I know, I just posted an article about how the college game is better than the NBA, but that is from my (a fan's) perspective. The players (ok, not all of them) obviously feel differently. Let me explain. If somehow you haven't heard, the NBA's new labor deal sets a minimum age-limit of 19 years for incoming players (with some exceptions). This age-limit has been expected for quite some time. Also in the news, the deadline has passed for for players with college eligibility to remove their names from the NBA draft. A whopping 49 players have applied for early entry to the draft. Considering that there are other people in the draft and only 30 slots are in the first round, which is where you need to be picked to get a 3-year guaranteed contract, many if not most of these 49 will not be getting a guaranteed deal. Yet, if a player goes back to school for a year and enters the draft next year, when there will be no competition from high school seniors, he will have a much better chance at sneaking into the first round. So why stay in the draft this year unless you detest college ball? You're not convinced? What about a guy like Pittsburgh's Carl Krauser, who has withdrawn from the draft and would be a senior next year, and yet is seriously considering playing in Europe instead of going back to campus? The issue, if you haven't figured it out, is that players want to get PAID. They don't care if it's in the NBDL or in Europe (or perhaps even Asia or somewhere else), they'd rather get paid to play basketball than receive nothing more than an "education" from an American university (while the NCAA rakes in millions of dollars from the players' efforts).

So if the NCAA was hoping that the NBA age-limit would positively impact the college game by forcing quality high school players to spend some time in college, they need to think again. High schoolers can and will play in Europe or go to a prep school to avoid being stuck at a college, even for just a year. and then those that actually decide to go to school for a year will do nothing to help the college game. how much did Trevor Ariza's one year at UCLA help the Bruins or the NCAA? Not very much. And in a sense, the Bruins were somewhat lucky, because Ariza's intentions to stay in the draft were known from the start, so Ben Howland was able to begin planning for life without him early in the off-season. What about teams that are just finding out now in late June that they are going to be without key players? This whole "testing the waters" process is really disruptive to college programs trying to improve for the following year.

So is the answer to pay college basketball players? I'm not going that far, but it certainly would help if the NCAA was less draconian in its policies toward these athletes. And if the college game cannot make itself more appealing to talented basketball players, perhaps it needs to return to having its athletes be students first. For example, the NCAA could institute a rule where if you decide to go to college, you must commit for three years (like college baseball). Yes, that would mean losing out on most of the best ball players, and I know that college baseball is not the best model to be chasing, but i'm afraid we're already headed down the path of lost talent anyway. at least a three-year commitment would allow college teams to develop together, remain cohesive, and plan better for future recruiting needs, which hopefully would improve the overall quality of the game (if not the individual players).