Okay, I was planning on posting this at some point, and it probably will never be as hot of a topic as it is going to be fresh off of a UK victory. This isn't a post that will hate on the idea of One and Done, but one that will hopefully open the discussion for everyone else. Here are a few things I wanted to talk about: 1. Anyone who says that it's ruining the excitement of college basketball must be watching a different tournament than I am. An argument I often here is that the one-year rule sucks the best players out of college hoops and right into the NBA Draft. Well, if you look at three of the final four teams, they are comprised of players who (for the most part) won't have NBA careers. Which brings me to my next point... 2. Outside of Kentucky, the other few schools that have adopted the "One and Done" recruiting philosophy of getting better talent at (maybe) the expense of more experienced guys on the roster, are gone. Duke is gone. Kansas is gone. North Carolina is gone. It's probably fair to say the strategy isn't unfair, and that it doesn't give any kind of total advantage to a team. Kentucky may be a special case, because of how many star freshman they have been able to accumulate on a regular basis. There's a good chance that changes next year, as it's probably safe to assume Kentucky has at least five players gone after this most recent run (Randle, Harrison's, Young, and WCS are almost all certainly gone). Next year, they missed on a lot of top talent -- likely evening out the reward of this years crop of talent if they leave for the NBA. Point being, the risk-reward makes the philosophy a questionable one to adopt unless recruiting is consistently elite (UK's has been). 3. With that being said, I do think it takes a lot of reward out of the game for me on a personal level. As I watched Patric Young break down in tears yesterday, I realized something: There is no way in hell this experience for him would have been so powerful if he were a freshman. It just wouldn't have been. I see guys like Gordon, Randle, and the Harrison's after wins and I get a totally different vibe. Of course, they seem elated. Who wouldn't be? But they're used to winning, they've never had to know what its like to fail - what it's like to push through failure and succeed. And as I watch seniors tear up on the bench as they are taken down by the likes of Kentucky, my heart sinks. I don't like Kentucky (mostly because of their coach), but I like their players. Yet, I hate the fact that those seniors weren't rewarded for four years of effort that Kentucky will EVER have to put in to get to this elusive moment. It feels - for lack of a better word - undeserved. Of course that isn't true, and I wouldn't tell these UK players they don't deserve every ounce of excitement they will surely get over the next week or so. But why should I care that they are here? I will likely forget most of their names within the next couple of years, as %'s would tell me most of them won't be NBA stars. They were part of our lives as basketball fans for four months, and after they're gone, they'll get the reward of lots of money and getting to play the game they love for a profession. What about those kids that were there for four years? Nothing but heartbreak on a silver platter, for them. 4. The NCAA needs to establish new rules. A player shouldn't feel forced into a year of college basketball (and academics, if your university is actually into that) if they don't want it. But like everything in our lives, if they do choose to go to school, they should be held to their commitment. At the very least, two years of college basketball should be mandatory before moving onto the NBA if that's what the player decides he or she wants to do. That's how I feel, what about the rest of you?