RALEIGH However long the NBA lockout lasts - weeks, months, the entire season - the league has the chance to hit the reset button on the game and fix what's broken. The area the NBA ought to address first, along with the National Basketball Players Association, is the draft.

Players decide when to turn pro based almost entirely on their own personal reasons. The one-and-done rule has forced a group of talented players to spend an unwanted single year in college, making a further mockery of the phrase "student-athlete."

Change would benefit everyone: the NBA, college basketball and the players alike.

If the NBA used the baseball or hockey format, C.J. Leslie wouldn't have been forced to make a decision this spring. In a baseball model, he either would have turned pro straight out of Raleigh Word of God or committed to a few years of college; the way hockey does things, Leslie would have been drafted at 18 but could stay at N.C. State as long as he - or his NBA team - wanted. Players like Jeremy Tyler and Brandon Jennings, meanwhile, wouldn't have to cool their heels overseas until their draft year, an absurd state of affairs.

NBA Commissioner David Stern is working from the same lockout playbook as his protégé, NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman, which doesn't bode well for the season. While Bettman risked the future of the NHL, he did take the opportunity the lost season afforded to overhaul the on-ice product, with tremendous benefits.

The NBA now has the opportunity to do the same thing with the draft and examine baseball's in-or-out model and hockey's draft-and-follow model.

In baseball, players are drafted at 18 and have the option to turn professional immediately or attend a minimum of three years of college before re-entering the draft. This lets precocious players get their careers going while others at least can listen to a pro offer while preserving their college options.

It works for college baseball, because even though some turn pro, those who don't are committed for three years.

The minor leagues, meanwhile, have a century of experience in getting the most out of 18-year-olds and moving them along in their careers.

This could work for the NBA, if it's willing to put the resources into the NBA Development League and make it a legitimate development option for a high-schooler not ready for the NBA but not interested in college. The re-entry gap probably would have to be two years instead of three, but at least it would offer some stability for college basketball.

Or the NBA would be wise to follow, as it has in its labor relations, the NHL model. In hockey, every player is drafted at 18, and NHL teams hold junior players' rights for a few years and those of college players until they graduate.

The NHL, like baseball, benefits from a long-standing player development system in junior hockey. But it also lets slower-developing players proceed at their own pace, playing as much or as little college hockey as they need.

Removing the impetus to declare prematurely for the draft not only would restore continuity to college basketball, but also bring players into the NBA when they're ready to assume a role, not when they decide it's time to pursue that paycheck.

Imagine Al-Farouq Aminu working with the Los Angeles Clippers to determine the best time to leave Wake Forest, instead of coming out and coming off the bench last season. It would be better for college basketball and better for the players involved - and therefore better for the long-term health of the NBA.

A lockout isn't good for anyone, but it hurts the fans the most. The least the NBA can do is fix what's wrong with the game - and that should start with the draft.