tbrandel If you're Derrick Rose, would you rather grind it out in obscurity for a year in Europe, or play in the Final Four before cashing in for his millions? Sure, the Final Four isn't a guaranty, but obscurity is.

Point taken elsewhere about rookie marketability, but it's only obscurity in this country, and only for a year or two, and probably less and less so as more and more American players do this. They'd have fans and adulation over there, and they certainly wouldn't be forgotten by NBA teams.

ucantmakeitup The point of getting a "higher" education is to be on track for a profession that will open up job opportunities.

I believe this is a false statement.

The problem many athletes face, especially younger ones whose bodies are still growing and whose brains are still rewiring, is what will they do if they become injured and can no longer make a living playing their sport. What then? It is a serious question and one that youth rarely takes seriously, well, because of their youth.

But that's a true one.

So if the choice is one or two years of B.S. pretending to get education, and no money, before getting injured, or one or two years of making a few hundred thousand or even low seven figures per year, I'd say go for the money. College will always be there and now, look, no student loans.

So it is the managers, coaches, trainers and parents that really need to look out for their future--just in case.

We're not talking about kids who are really interested in education here. Those kids go to college. But I would advise my kid, who I presume would be somewhat academically oriented even if he can play ball, to go to Europe. Go to college later. There's time.

1. If he struggles in Europe, maybe he hurts his draft chances. But smart scouts will see the deficiencies (can't defend a bigger point guard, doesn't have a midrange shot, slacks on D) in the college game just as clearly. I think the point is that you get paid while you improve, and you don't have to put up with bullshit which arises out of pure PR considerations. So what if it takes a couple of years? The money's still better than what the kid's made all his life. And I'll bet it's easier to fly your mom to Milan than it is to fly her (legally) to Syracuse, especially in the winter.

2. If he's halfway awake, he'll gain more education from living abroad than any university in the U.S. (I say this as someone who teaches at a Big Ten school.) Even if he doesn't pick up the language, he'll see things done differently.

3. If it turns out that he can't make the jump back across the Atlantic, he could, in theory, make a career abroad. Again, if he's not a knucklehead, he could save the money to go to college. He could, in the very long run, play in the Olympics, even if he isn't one of the NBAs faces.

4. Teaching at a university as I do, anything that reduces the huge pile of hypocrisy that is college sports strikes me as something we should do immediately.

5. If Carmelo is the face of one and done, you've got a problem. He's a nice player, don't get me wrong, but if he's the face of one and done, and Kevin Garnett and Kobe Bryant are the faces of none and done, well....

... only one semester. After fall term this kid will never have to pretend to set foot in a classroom. I suspect any kid can fake his way through one semester. And let's face it, Arizona needs this guy!

Picking up from Texas PI Lawyer,

This gets to the heart of the reason for the one-and-done rule: it has nothing to do with "seasoning" or concern about a youngster's education, but with *exposure*.

The NCAA provides two great services for the NBA. It trains young players (and gives the PT). But just as importantly, it provides a forum where the nation can learn about these young players - which is why the draft is now a marketable TV event. A player who jumps to Europe quickly undermines this exposure, to both his own, and the league's, detriment.

3pointshooter finally got to the point. The problem is that if he goes to college, he can dominate and will still probably be a high draft choice. If he goes to Europe, he faces a much higher level of competition night in and night out than in the U.S. college game. So if he doesn't really shine, his stock may drop and suddenly, he's yesterday's news and doesn't get drafted.

Personally, I think the NBA's one year in college rule is foolish. Players don't progress in college because the level of competition is too low, coaching isn't as good, and it's really a different game in any event (and an inferior game, I would argue). Why waste time when these kids could be really learning in the NBA. But if they truly have talent, they would be better off in Europe. But they had better be sure that they can cut it, because the European game is a lot more difficult than they think.

Let's see how much he makes. There is no way he's on the money the kid in KK's dream is pulling.

I can just imagine it. 'An 18 year old American kid straight out of high school, here on a years sightseeing; we are not worthy! Let's give him the biggest contract in the league'.

Our King recently wrote about the idea of using Instant Replay in Major League Baseball, to determine home runs. Just now, Tuesday evening, Tigers versus Cardinals, Tiger Miguel Cabrera hit one off the upper part of the right field wall. It bounced back onto the field.

The ump called it a homer. The problem is that wall has a railing just above the top of the wall. The ump thought it bounced off the railing, but the replay showed that it bounced off the wall.

Unless they change the railing to some soft, no-bounce-back material, or until they build a new ballpark about 2070, there is no solution short of undesireable Instant Replay. Better to let the umps blow a few calls. This call probably will not make the difference in this game, anyway.