Candid Coaches: Which on-court rule change should come next to men's college basketball?

[Halldan1]

Candid Coaches: Which on-court rule change should come next to men's college basketball?

Four quarters? Advance the ball past half-court? Six fouls? A 24-second shot clock? We got all of those answers and many more

www.cbssports.com

By Matt Norlander

Today's question is one we've come close to asking in the past couple of years. While there is usually a reliable offseason news cycle of rule changes impacting college basketball away from the court, what about the rules inside the lines?

The NCAA Men's Basketball Rules Committee makes official tweaks every two years (here are the upgrades coming this season), but some argue there's still plenty of room for Division I men's college basketball to better its game — and to exercise a bit more expeditiousness in getting there.

This is definitely a topic a lot of coaches have opinions on. So, we thought this would be the right year to ask:

If you could change one on-court rule, what would it be?​

Advance the ball in final two minutes (after a team timeout)	28%
24-second shot clock	21%
Four quarters	20%
Instant replay/coaches challenge/improve monitor reviews	7%
FIBA goaltend rule	5%
Change the flop technical	4%

Also receiving multiple votes: Go to six fouls; reward five-second call for defense; widen the lane; bring back more physicality/hand checking.

Quotes that stood out​

Advance ball past half-court after a TO​

• "I think it makes games more exciting. It's more exciting for fans, it gives teams opportunity to execute sideline out-of-bounds sets, puts more pressure for teams on defense. I think it puts a lot more emphasis on late-game execution, where you can get the buzzer-beater the length of the court, but it's so much more difficult."

• "More exciting, more strategies involved."

• "I don't have the ability to prove this, but if you measure over the amount of time the number of failed full-court (end-of-game) plays, the game would be far more exciting if you advance the ball. I've had a couple of moments where we've made some full-court shots, and they were just lucky. To me, it's completely bonkers that that's the product we're putting out there. I've lost so many more games not being able to advance the ball — and I've won so many games because the other team couldn't advance the ball."

• "I think it brings in more coaching, and an ATO (after timeout) can help win a game."

Move to 24-second shot clock​

• "A 24-second shot clock would make our game faster. And teach players how to play. Instead of set-happy micromanaging coaches."

• "FIBA and NBA, it's at 24. It will give teams more possessions and will help the pace of the game."


• "Faster game. Players have to make quick decisions. Players have to play. Practices mean more because you have to teach guys how to play. Skill development is more of a premium. Increase scoring due to more possessions per team. Much harder to sit on the ball. Have to initiate offense much quicker and more precisely. FIBA rules are awesome. Depth matters more. At our level, the media timeouts are outlandish."

• "I don't know if [college basketball is] ready or not, but what it does is it prepares our kids more for the next level which, at least at this level, it's their goal to play professionally. I say why not prepare our kids for that now?"

Ditch two halves for four quarters​

• "There needs to be uniformity across the game. I would go to quarters to get on the same page as all other organized basketball leagues."

• "Would allow for a reset of the team fouls at the end of every quarter. This would alleviate a lot of teams getting into the bonus for such long stretches, turning the game into a constant march to the free throw line."

Miscellany​

• Allowing coaching challenges: "I think we're coming into that age where you can change a rule or whatever, but you look at the NBA, the NFL, we're behind the times in using our technology to make it a better game. There's too much at stake for you not to be able, as a coach, say, 'That call is wrong, I want to challenge it' once or twice a game. It's part of other sports, it should be part of ours."

• FIBA goaltending rule: "Once the ball hits the rim, anyone can touch it. It's too difficult to officiate [the way it is] and [with the new rule] most times you're rewarding a player/ team that didn't check out."

• Six fouls: "We want to see the best players on the floor. The foul is overly penalized. You get a team foul, which leads to free throws, good players get taken off the floor and you let the other team set their defense after free throws."

• More on six fouls: "You want your best players to be out there and I think it messes the game up. There's just a number of reasons. We're the only sport that you can get taken out of the game for fouling, other than soccer. If we could have six fouls, it would be better."

• Semi-solution for end-of-game fouling: "I like the rule The Basketball Tournament did where fouls within the Elam Ending are one free throw and the ball. Cut down on some of these late-game extended situations with excessive fouling. Tighten the game up at the end and force action to happen in live play."

 

[Halldan1]

The takeaway​

To the top vote-getter of this question, allow me to submit ...

Danny Ainge to dash Notre Dame in '81. Tate George to stun Clemson in '90. Christian Laettner to beat Kentucky in '92. Tyus Edney's 4.8 blitz to history vs. Missouri in '95. Bryce Drew and Valpo over Ole Miss in '98. Drew Nicholas saves Maryland vs. UNC Wilmington in '03. Kris Jenkins FOR THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP in '16. Luke Maye saves Carolina's title-winning season in '17 against Kentucky in the Elite Eight. Gonzaga's Jalen Suggs' running 37-footer to keep an undefeated season alive vs. UCLA in the '21 Final Four.

Only some of the many — so many — indelible NCAA Tournament moments that were made possible because freely advancing the ball past half-court after a timeout has not been allowed.

Even the greatest miss in NCAA Tournament history — Gordon Hayward's halfcourt heave against Duke in the expiring seconds of the 2010 championship game — came as a result of the hold-your-breath crescendo of a full-court traverse in a race against time.

don't know if I'm prepared to die on this hill, but I'll sure as hell defend it with enthusiasm and vigor. Some of college hoops' most iconic moments have happened because of this wrinkle in the rulebook. And yet: coaches want to get rid of it.

I completely understand why.

With 1.3 or 2.2 or 3.7 seconds remaining, if you get to inbound the ball 35 feet from the hoop instead of nearly 94, the chances of a buzzer-beating shot go up exponentially. But nowhere else in major American sports does a team get to advance its possession/scoring objective without resistance from (or by fault of) its opponent. It is inherently a gimmick dressed up as a workaround. It's done for TV, most of all.

But TV's made magical moments out of not advancing the ball as is, so while there is some merit behind the concept, I think it should fall way down the list of priorities. It makes coaches' jobs harder, so obviously some are wanting it changed.

Now, a 24-second clock? I think college basketball will eventually get there, but not this decade. The game would be improved, and even if turnovers would go up, you'd see pace increase and a product that, on balance, is better. It would take time for adjustment, but guess what? Players have been getting better and adjusting for decades — they'll adjust here as well. And anyway: teams practice with 24-second clocks all the time. This can be implemented sooner rather than later. The sport is painfully slow to evolve with some things, and this is one of them. I think we will have a 24-second clock by 2033.

The four quarters pitch is the most logical of all, yet it's held back by the fact that conferences have television contracts with competing networks that overlap each other, so a sport-wide shift from two halves to four quarters comes with major logistical challenges in regard to media rights and how those off-the-court business matters impact the structure of the game. (If it was 1975, this wouldn't be an issue.) Commercial breaks help fund the sport, and this still seems like a problem that no one is determined to fix — even if men's college basketball looks a bit weird as the only form of post-high school basketball still played with two halves.

Safe to say there's a top-three that should be at the forefront of the rules committee's discussions over the next couple of years.

Outside of those, the coaches challenge is one I think has potential. Among the four coaches who brought it up to me, I asked if they would be willing to have two fewer timeouts overall (even before losing one if a challenge was wrong) if it meant they could challenge twice per game. Each one said yes. Let's look into that one a bit more, perhaps. The idea of each team having a maximum of three timeouts per game is enticing. I'd trade that off for two coaches challenges, absolutely.

Adopting the FIBA rule of having the ball be live/swattable when it's in the cylinder or sitting on the rim would add excitement. Let's get that in the rules by 2025, please.

As for some other suggestions we received ... one coach wants to bring back the jump ball and ditch the possession arrow. (I agree.) Another wants to move the 3-point line back again. (I disagree.) There were calls to ban the charge (popular in theory, impossible in practice) and hold officials more publicly accountable when necessary (room for growth here, yes). If given the power, one coach said he'd have a universal ball to play with instead of the myriad brands used across D-I. (Not a bad one, honestly.) Someone else voted for stools on the court to be banned during team timeouts. (What.)

There were a lot of good ideas, a few strange ones, but it's a nice peek into the priorities of coaches. D-I men's basketball is in a healthy spot but it could still be better. Fear of change has held the game back in some regard over the decades. While all of its rules don't need to entirely match what happens at the professional level, voting for a few more of them to get there will help college basketball's watchability, marketability and overall viability.

 

[shu09]

LOL. It's almost like they're trying to ruin the game even more than it already has been.

 

[Seton75]

6 fouls, not too pretty when the Big East did it. Wonder if anyone remembers that.

 

[Burnsly]

I hate it when an offensive player is called for a charge after he passes the ball. Really wish they would eliminate that.

 

[Section112]

Not in favor of any of those changes at all in college. Might as well switch to NBA rules where you have to take 5 steps to get called for a travel.

 

[Halldan1]

My opinion

24 second clock - No
6 fouls - No
Change the charge rule - Yes
FIBA goaltending rule - No
4 quarters - Yes
Advance ball at end of the game - No
Move the 3 point line - No

 

[rdefabri]

None but the charge rule. For the life of me, I can't understand why college basketball wants to emulate the absolutely tepid NBA. Once we moved from the 45 second shot clock, it was all down hill.

Train the referees to stop calling ghost fouls at the end of the game, that will improve the product 1000%.

 

[CaptBob]

Other than the charge call leave it alone. Couple the rest of the Bullsh*t ideas with P4P or NIL & you've have a total disaster.