Thon Maker Exposes College Basketball’s Biggest Issue

Following the announcement that he’d entered the 2016 NBA Draft, Thon Maker inadvertently exposed one of college basketball’s biggest issues.

In what could prove to be one of the most influential decisions in sports history, high school basketball star Thon Maker announced that he will apply to enter the 2016 NBA Draft. Generally received as an impossibility, Maker’s eligibility is gaining plausibility by the hour.

Whether or not the NBA accepts his application, Maker has inadvertently exposed college basketball’s biggest issue—and it’s much deeper than money.

Debating whether or not collegiate athletes should be paid is a topic for another day. What Maker’s decision presented both the NCAA and NBA with, however, is an opportunity to evaluate what may be serving as more of a distraction than a facilitation of growth.

According to Jonathan Givony of DraftExpress, Maker made startlingly honest comments about why he’s choosing the NBA over the NCAA.

"When I had the chance to enter the Draft, I started of thinking about College vs Pro. The NBA game, talent, spacing, rotations, terminology, clock and practice time is so much more different than college. I watch a lot of ball, both games and practices. I felt that if I could do this full time, it would be great."

And here comes the big one:

"If I went to college I could not see myself not taking my academics seriously. I would want to take serious classes and do well in them. I would have to split time in my focus. My approach is to always go all out and try to be the best if I’m going to do something."

Therein lies the reality that must be acknowledged.

For players of Maker’s caliber, the NBA is the end goal. A backup plan is ideal, and forces on both sides of this pressing issue acknowledge that reality due to the short lifespan of a career as a professional basketball player.

Before one throws stones, however, they should answer a question: what was your backup plan when you decided what you wanted to do? How many hours did you dedicate to Plan B on a daily basis?

Chances are, not as much as a college athlete is required to with Plan A in sight.

Did You Have A Backup Plan?

It’s ideal to have a backup plan, but once someone is committed to a career, they’re expected to—in Maker’s words—go all out. Whether they’re teachers, scientists, or otherwise, optimal success is achieved through dedication and resiliency.

Other courses provide structure for those hoping to determine their career, but why haven’t we acknowledged that most of these players have already chosen a major: basketball?

The current requirement is spending hours in a classroom, finding time for schoolwork, and still spending hours of every day in the gym, at practice, and/or playing in games.

That’s a lot to fit into 24 hours, especially when sleep is vital for an individual who makes a living with their physical and mental preparedness.

With so many athletes spending just one year in college, going to the pros is their senior thesis.

So why not allow them to work exclusively on their major when they’re already good enough to work for their dream employer?

Why penalize someone for already knowing what they want to do when so many don’t?

One-and-Done Hurts

One-and-done exists as a precaution for the NBA, but what exactly is being accomplished through two semesters in college? I personally didn’t declare my major until I was a sophomore, and I certainly wasn’t alone.

According to a 2013 article by Liz Freedman of Butler University, a vast majority of students change their major during their tenure at their respective schools (h/t Penn State University).

"An estimated 20 to 50 percent of students enter college as “undecided” (Gordon, 1995) and an estimated 75 percent of students change their major at least once before graduation (Gordon, 1995)."

Freedman cites, “The Undecided College Student: An Academic And Career Advising Challenge” by Virginia N. Gordon.

One could argue that college athletes should be required to remain in school for a longer period of time, but that may be the issue unto itself. Players like Maker are receiving scholarships from major programs because of their athletic ability.

Why are we so afraid to acknowledge that these athletes aren’t attending a college or university to take courses? Why are we even calling them student-athletes?

Accepting that college athletes aren’t there for the scholastics calls into question why they’re at the school in the first place—and that’s exactly what should be happening.

Not everyone knows what they want to be when they go to college, but these athletes do. The realistic nature of their dream of playing in the NBA is not for us to decide, but instead something that they must be able to do under their own volition.

Playing basketball is not a hobby, but instead a full-time job—at any and every level. Practice on the court is time-consuming enough, but everything a player eats, does, and says will go a long way towards determining how successful they are.

Between time in the gym and time on the court, not everyone is built to handle 15 credits per semester.

Unnecessary Sacrifice

One could easily make a case that athletes should make time like students do, but Maker’s comments perfectly summarize the struggle. Individuals who become superstars in the NBA are doing so because their work ethic matches or exceeds their natural abilities.

While the average profession offers the luxury—or burden, depending on who you ask—of spending time in college and retiring at an older age, most athletes are lucky to play until they’re 30.

Just as we all need to combine our natural abilities with hard work to achieve our goals, so must athletes—in a much smaller window.

While the average student aims to complete their mandatory courses during their first two years, thus committing the final four collegiate semesters to their major, elite-level basketball players don’t have time to do so.

For players of Maker’s caliber, the longer they stay in college, the more unpaid strain is being placed on their body—their key to employment and financial gain.

Whether or not you agree that college athletes should be paid, it’s quite clear that one-and-done players are solely focused on playing in the NBA. Splitting time between their career choice—basketball—and their academics only limits their preparedness, which thus hurts the product on the court.

Maker’s comments illustrate just how serious of an issue this is.

Maker’s Not Alone

Maker’s decision follows in the footsteps of LSU Tigers star Ben Simmons being ruled academically ineligible for the Wooden Award. Simmons, who’s projected by many to go No. 1 overall in the 2016 NBA Draft, is not incapable of academic success.

Simmons, like Maker, is simply more focused on his career than taking courses that he currently has no interest in.

It’s not that these kids don’t want to learn. The issue is that they have a realistically attainable dream, but are being sidetracked by academics that aren’t yet valuable to their long-term goals.

It’s understandable to want athletes to earn their degrees, but making millions of dollars and then going back to school when academics can be their singular focus seems significantly more beneficial.

This may not be the most ideal of situations for purists who believe that athletes must learn to balance academics and sports. It may even concern those who recognize how much more goes into a successful NBA career than merely practicing, training, and working out.

Maker’s comments simply represent a generation of players with realistic NBA dreams and a one-year restraint from achieving what they’ve dedicated their life to.

More hoops habit: Jamal Murray has declared for the 2016 NBA Draft. How good can he be?

Perhaps it’s time the NCAA and NBA both reconsider and restructure the current draft eligibility rules to acknowledge how the one-and-done is hurting more than just the universities.

It’s hurting the players, too.