Arne Duncan and the NCAA Age Dilemnas

Duncan also tackled the controversial 19-year-old age minimum in the NBA. Instituted in 2005, this rule requires prospective players to spend one year out of high school before becoming eligible for the NBA. The NBA defends the rule as promoting maturity. They say that by waiting a year, players are less likely to collapse under the pressure of being an 18-year-old professional athlete, making them less likely to get into trouble (financially, criminally or otherwise) once they're in the big league. They've also pointed to the fact that not every teenage prodigy is capable of being a near-instant all-star; for every LeBron James or Kobe Bryant who succeeded in their jump from high school to the pros, there were many who faded into obscurity.

In the few years since the rule's inception, many players have chosen to cruise through one year of college, focusing minimally on academics while honing their skills for the pro scouts following their every move. If they don't play as well as predicted or -- even worse -- get injured, their basketball careers and fortunes could be washed away.

Some opponents of this policy say that if our nation's 18-year-olds can choose to enter countless other professions, including serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, they should not be barred from the NBA. Duncan proposes abolishing the 19-year-old minimum while requiring at least a two year commitment from players who choose to go to college so that they receive a more substantial collegiate experience.

Duncan also wants to reign in the NCAA's tendency to reward "renegade coaches." The coach of a prominent team is often one of that school's most public figures. Many coaches take part in ad campaigns and receive multi-million dollar salaries. Prospects with an eye on the pros frequently make school commitments based on coaches instead of academics.

As Duncan noted, "far too often . . . coaches will run a program into the ground, get it in trouble, but bounce to the next institution, leaving chaos and disarray in their wake." College basketball coach John Calipari, who's in his first season as men's basketball coach at the University of Kentucky, might have been on Duncan's mind during his speech. Calipari left two different programs in ruin before moving on to better jobs. Secretary Duncan proposes that coaches should be punished for such behavior through year-long suspensions or even life-long bans.

The reforms suggested by Secretary Duncan will be difficult to implement. The NCAA has not officially responded to his speech. The NBA remains a formidable obstacle to changing the "one and out" rule, and 18-year-olds won't be able to play until they do. The Secretary's speech was very well received, but some who supported the speech are skeptical that it will lead to any change.

ESPN.com's Scoop Jackson, for instance, praised Duncan's initiative but stated that "no one, I repeat, NO ONE, will follow Duncan's lead." Duncan will no doubt face an uphill battle in the fight for these reforms; the best route may be to take his case to the fans, whose pressure may be the only way to see these propositions enacted. Given the recent NCAA scandals and the PR disasters they cause, these reforms should be presented as a way to finally eliminate the greed, opportunism, exploitation that plague much of competitive college athletics.

There are clear benefits to allowing students to choose schools for the right reasons, at the right time in their athletic and personal development, and to making athletic programs invest in their university's academics and overall reputation. It remains to be seen whether the NCAA is committed to such reforms, or whether fans who desire every advantage for their beloved programs will support such changes. But only once every student athlete is truly prepared to "go pro" can the truly pressing issues be addressed -- like the national BCS crisis.