A new baseball season is under way, the N.B.A. is headed toward another exciting finish, and yet the University of Kentucky's success in men’s basketball has sparked outrage that lingers a week after the national championship game.

Why is there such hand-wringing?

Later this month, college underclassmen who wish to enter the N.B.A. draft must declare their intention to do so. Five of those undergraduates are expected to come from the Kentucky team that helped Coach John Calipar win his first national championship. All of Kentucky’s starters — two freshmen and three sophomores — could be selected in the first round when the N.B.A. holds its draft in June, their next crucial step toward the realization of a cherished dream.

Yet Kentucky’s success has prompted critics to predict the demise of college basketball and the end of higher education as we know it.

In an ideal world, everyone would stay four years and graduate. But Kentucky’s basketball program is in fact a tribute to a real-world system that works, preparing young people for a viable profession — in this case, professional athletics.

Not only in basketball and football but also across the spectrum of intercollegiate sports, top-tier athletes are honing their skills for the pros. Tennis players and golfers often leave college after one or two years to turn pro. Baseball players are drafted out of high school; many of those who accept college scholarships play for two or three years before leaving for the pro ranks. In hockey, talented underclassmen leave college after the season and join the pro team that holds their rights.

Intercollegiate athletics feed and nourish the professional leagues. But they also doing what colleges are supposed to: preparing their students for a productive future.

Calipari and his staff have done this well. In his first two seasons at Kentucky, Calipari has had eight players leave early for the N.B.A. — five of them freshmen.

So why has the prospect of five U.K. young players turning pro unsettled so many people?

If the core of the Kentucky team had been made up of white players with phenomenal athleticism and acumen at every position — operating in the context of a largely black sport — we would not be hearing the complaining. Their success would not be seen as a debasement. The team would be celebrated and feted — as Butler was, as Gonzaga used to be.

Last week, I asked Tom Izzo, the basketball coach at Michigan State, if he thought a highly talented, highly athletic team of white players would be viewed differently.

“I want to answer that as honestly as I can,” Izzo said. “I think it would be different. I hate to say that.”

TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE:  CLICK HERE