In 2005, many high school stars were being drafted to the NBA and ended up not being fit for the NBA teams they were selected to. Commissioner David Stern then created “Article X” also now known as the “One and Done rule.” This rule stated that all high school players had to attend at least one year in college before entering the NBA draft. In the beginning of this new project, the numbers were turning out well–especially for NCAA teams, who earned new bright talent at least for one year on a team. This project did not turn out well, because some players struggled in college, needed the NBA to help provide for their families momentarily and injuries shut out chances for NBA.

In a study, the busts before the rule and after the rule for NBA draft picks are still very slim in difference. Many NCAA players lost their top spot due to injury and slim recovery chances in college, which is now gone forever. The only known beneficiary of this rule is David Stern and the NBA because it allowed picks to be slimmed down by watching players in the NCAA. Since teams are still receiving busts out of college, David Stern are talking about increasing the rule to two years of college at least. After the busts of the one and done rule proved evident, the new rule seems as if it will be a huge upset. For some high school kids, they excel at sports in order to remove college from the option and make it pro. Many high school students looked to be like top prospects Lebron James and Kevin Garnett and head straight to the NBA from high school. Some students are just not made for school and create struggles for families and the athlete. I personally believe the rule as it stands is unfair. It is unfair because if the athlete has proven himself, he should be sent into the NBA D League. If the player proves himself, then he should  taken out to play in the NBA. As athletes receive a career in the NBA or D League, they are able to help support their families and ultimately have a better way of living. Adding another year of college to the one-and-done rule would make many more complications for athletes, and I believe the same amount of picks would turn out as busts. In a study from the Blecher Report by Grant Hughes, the number of picks that did not turn out well before the rule and after the rule was enforced the numbers contained a very slim difference. When choosing players for a team it is always a gamble: some talents may show and some may not, but isn’t it right to at least give the athlete a chance to show his talents?