NBA draft: Why the One-and-Done Rule Needs to Go
I’m Vince Douglas Gregory of VDG Sports, and in my latest breakdown I make a simple, blunt case: the NBA draft‘s one-and-done restriction is outdated, unfair, and ready to be retired. The rule was born out of a different era — meant to protect players and the league — but times have changed. With the G League, two-way contracts, and international pathways, the NBA draft system should evolve with the times.
Table of Contents
- What’s wrong with the one-and-done approach?
- G League and two-way contracts: proof the system works
- International play and alternate routes
- Why opening the NBA draft benefits the league
- Conclusion: Time to innovate, not inhibit
What’s wrong with the one-and-done approach?
The original intent behind restricting entrants to the NBA draft was protection: to prevent the league from being flooded with players who weren’t ready and to shield young athletes from crashing and burning. But that protection has become a cage. It tells promising players, “You can’t try here yet,” even when there are built-in development channels that didn’t exist when the rule was created.
“NBA, that one and done, it needs to be done. It needs to be over.”
That line sums it up. Forcing prospects to sit out of the draft or funnel through a single, college-driven path ignores the reality of today’s game. It limits options, creates artificial bottlenecks, and in many cases crushes dreams that could otherwise be nurtured with the right support.
G League and two-way contracts: proof the system works
The G League is not an afterthought — it’s an NBA-affiliated development system built to sharpen skills and prepare players for the big stage. Two-way contracts, affiliates, and improved scouting mean teams can develop talent internally without risking the overall product. If a draftee isn’t ready, they don’t have to disappear — they can grow within the system.
- G League provides paid, professional development at home.
- Two-way contracts bridge the gap between league and prospect.
- Teams can protect franchise value while investing in long-term talent.
So why keep a rule that bars entry when there are mechanisms designed to solve exactly that problem?
International play and alternate routes
Some will argue prospects can always go overseas and come back. That’s true, but why force that detour? International experience is valuable, but it shouldn’t be the mandatory alternative to the NBA draft. Allowing more direct access to the draft acknowledges diverse development paths — college, G League, international — and trusts teams to evaluate readiness responsibly.
Why opening the NBA draft benefits the league
Allowing more flexible entry into the NBA draft isn’t just about fairness to players — it helps the product. When talented players are given a chance to enter the league and develop within its ecosystem, the overall entertainment value improves. Fans choose where to spend their limited time and attention; the NBA should be the place they pick because it showcases the best and brightest, developed and polished.
Think long-term: developed players add to team success, attract eyeballs, and build the league’s brand. The NBA prides itself on innovation and forward thinking — lifting outdated entry rules would be another step in that direction.
Conclusion: Time to innovate, not inhibit
The NBA draft should be about opportunity, not gatekeeping. With the G League’s growth, two-way contracts, and international alternatives, the league has the tools to responsibly admit and cultivate young talent. Stop forcing prospects into one path and start trusting development systems that already work. The NBA is an innovator — it’s time the draft rules reflected that.
If you’re with me on this, push for change: advocate for more flexible eligibility, support developmental pathways, and demand a system that puts talent and opportunity first.