[OC] How the NBA, aspiring NBA players, and NCAA basketball could benefit from moving the "1-and-done" rule up to a "2 years of college/20 year old in rookie season" requirement: Bring back the ABA

Right now almost every lottery pick is identified as an NBA-level talent in their freshman year of college, and they come to the NBA after a single season in the NCAA, often at 19 years old. Downsides of this:

1. Teams drafting the earliest rarely get an NBA-ready player, but rather a project player (that usually has too much potential to pass on in favor of a more developed one.)

2. A player that may be drafted top-5 with another year of physical/mental growth ends up going much later in the draft, and since his team has less invested in him, he gets less opportunity to prove himself, (in addition to less money over the course of his rookie deal.)

3. A player that has great measurables but isn't really a "basketball player" yet declares for the draft, believing he'll piece it all together while playing against pros, but in reality he'd probably be much better served developing his game and his confidence against NCAA competition, (guys like Noah Vonleh at the high-end, and guys that are now complete nobodies at the low-end.)

4. Highly touted recruits basically ignore academics in college because they know they'll declare for the draft in a year, and thus have little to no incentive to take academics seriously. (Even if they end up playing in the NBA for 15 years, having a couple years of college education under one's belt can be very useful to someone that suddenly finds himself with millions of dollars.)

5. College coaches only have one year to work with the top-level players, so they can't really do much to teach players how to operate within more complex schemes, or how to play fundamental team basketball. The quality of the college game suffers for it, but the players also suffer, and more than just losing a year of growth and maturity. They are used on the court according to the strengths they already have coming out of high school, instead of maybe accepting the growing pains that come in the short-run to ingrain habits that will help them in the long-run, (because their simply is no "long-run" for one-and-done players.)

6. There is probably less hype and excitement for fanbases getting new rookies, because the most productive and most recognizable players from college are often not the top draft picks, (e.g. Shabazz Napier.) Allowing the most talented players to play a second year means a greater chance of them being the stars of March Madness, and already having a personal brand built up by the time they become professionals.

...and other factors as well. The reason the limit hasn't been raised yet, despite everyone knowing the negatives involved with the things listed above, is pretty simple: the NBA isn't the only professional basketball league in the world. If players are able to get paid significant money to play in Europe or China, a lot will probably choose that option over staying another year in college. So what's the solution?

My proposal: Raise the age requirement one year, (so the player must turn 20 years old in his draft year rather than 19, and be at least two basketball seasons away from his high school graduation rather than one year;) and, allow players that wish to turn pro after one year to go straight to the D-League.

The D-League should be rebranded for marketability, which will be accomplished by bringing back the ABA (assuming there's no copyright infringement, which I don't think there would be since the leagues merged.) Red-white-and-blue basketballs, team names like the Virginia Squires instead of the Delaware 87ers, badass throwback jerseys, (that are already very popular among fans that haven't even heard of the ABA stars that once wore them,) and once again, the ABA will have the second best league in the world behind the NBA.

Project picks that won't make an active NBA roster can be kept in the US, and NBA coaches will be on-site or nearby at all times to help them develop, instead of sending them to places like Australia's NBL. High lottery picks can continue to be big-fishes in a small pond, and can improve their games against better competition than the NCAA has, (but not such great competition like the NBA, where they'd commonly get exposed and have their confidence shaken by veterans, and wouldn't get to play 36 minutes a night, and wouldn't be allowed the freedom to make plays outside their comfort zone (since almost every team is more concerned about "winning now" than letting young guys learn on-the-go.)

Money wise: players that stay two years in college will enter the draft and be NBA eligible immediately, with no change to the rookie-scale contract. Players that leave after one year will make 50% of the rookie-scale in their first year in the ABA, 75% of rookie-scale if they stay in the ABA for a second year despite being NBA eligible, and 100% of the rookie-scale salary corresponding with their draft slot as soon as they enter the NBA. The money saved against the salary cap won't go to the owners, but rather would be redistributed to players making the veteran-minimum, (which makes it feasible, because veterans have much more clout in the players association's negotiations for future CBAs than kids that are currently in high school.) The players' salaries in the ABA will be attractive enough for the top prospects to stay in the US if they want to turn pro after one year, but the contract benefits afforded to players that enter the draft after two years of college will make many top prospects give serious thought to staying in the NCAA for at least two years.

There are other factors and considerations as well, but basically: TL;DR - Allow players to turn pro after one year of college, but give players more incentive to stay for two years. This will help athletes make the best choices for their future and help struggling NBA teams have better basketball players to choose from on draft day. If players do choose to leave college after one year; 1) teams will be able to develop them better than they currently can, and 2) basketball fans will have a commercially viable game to watch on TV when the NBA isn't in season, (unlike D-League games,) and the most of the top non-NBA talent will be concentrated in one league playing against one other, rather than spread out across China, Europe, Turkey, etc.

Anyone like this idea, or has nobody brought a similar plan forward because it's idiotic and would never work?