Proposed rules changes a start, progress can still be made
Jay Bilas and Seth Greenberg react to a number of rule changes proposed by the NCAA men's college basketball committee, including reducing the shot clock to 30 seconds.
Hallelujah!
The rules changes made by the committee (and communicated effectively by chairman and Belmont head coach Rick Byrd) are still subject to approval by the NCAA's playing rules oversight panel, but that should be a formality. These rules changes are a departure from the inertia and glacial pace of change the game has experienced over the past three decades, and they represent a great first step toward making men's college basketball more current and in line with the rest of the world. Given that the men's college game has consistently been five to 10 years behind in making such changes, it seems as though Neil Armstrong should have announced these changes from the surface of the moon.
Most of the focus will be on the reduction of the shot clock from 35 seconds to 30, which will theoretically increase possessions from approximately 68 to 80. The shot clock, however, is not a magic bullet and will not change the game or increase scoring. In my discussion with Byrd, he was quite clear that reducing the physicality of the game, on both offense and defense, was a real emphasis and one that will take continued vigilance over time.
In addition to the shot clock, the committee: moved the restricted arc from 3 feet to 4 feet (which will promote more drives and attacking of the lane); reduced timeouts, and timeouts in close proximity to a media timeout will be counted as the media timeout (instead of having back-to-back timeouts after little or no action); eliminated live-ball timeouts called by coaches; eliminated the five-second, closely guarded call on a dribbler; and gave officials the ability to assess whether a player flopped or faked a foul when the officials consult replay.
Changes to timeout rules are expected to be passed for 2015-16. Greg M. Cooper/USA TODAY Sports
More than anything, the NCAA needs a "freedom of movement" initiative, which will be an officiating issue. In order to reduce the physicality of the game, both perimeter and post, officials have to be empowered to call fouls and enforce the rules. Look, nobody is asking for officials to call "touch fouls" and make basketball into ballet. The officials have to be allowed to use judgment and sort out what is a foul and what is incidental contact.
But if officials do not have the consistent direction and support to call clear fouls, we will continue to have inconsistent results and a lesser product. This is a great first step, and a step toward a better game that is more in line with the rest of the world. Did the rules committee go far enough? No. But it went much further than anyone reasonably thought it would. My hat is off to Rick Byrd and his committee.
It will be two years before the committee will have the ability to make further changes to the rules. Next, it should move even closer to (if not outright adopting), the FIBA rulebook, widening the lane and moving the 3-point line back. College basketball is a great game, but it can be much better for the players, coaches and fans. The game has suffered from a lack of attention to the evolution and change in the game and, absent a change in structure that would centralize decision-making authority, it will take vigilance on the part of the rules committee, officials, supervisors of officials and new NCAA officiating supervisor J.D. Collins.
Scoring and flow in men's college basketball did not plummet overnight. They plummeted over time, while we watched in near-denial. The issues the game faces will not be solved overnight with a few rules changes. But this is a tremendously positive first step, one that should be applauded. I hope this serves to energize those in and around the game to remain vigilant and make the right decisions.
Jay Bilas and Seth Greenberg react to a number of rule changes proposed by the NCAA men's college basketball committee, including reducing the shot clock to 30 seconds.
Jay Bilas, College Basketball analyst/ ESPN INSIDER
Hallelujah!
The rules changes made by the committee (and communicated effectively by chairman and Belmont head coach Rick Byrd) are still subject to approval by the NCAA's playing rules oversight panel, but that should be a formality. These rules changes are a departure from the inertia and glacial pace of change the game has experienced over the past three decades, and they represent a great first step toward making men's college basketball more current and in line with the rest of the world. Given that the men's college game has consistently been five to 10 years behind in making such changes, it seems as though Neil Armstrong should have announced these changes from the surface of the moon.
Most of the focus will be on the reduction of the shot clock from 35 seconds to 30, which will theoretically increase possessions from approximately 68 to 80. The shot clock, however, is not a magic bullet and will not change the game or increase scoring. In my discussion with Byrd, he was quite clear that reducing the physicality of the game, on both offense and defense, was a real emphasis and one that will take continued vigilance over time.
In addition to the shot clock, the committee: moved the restricted arc from 3 feet to 4 feet (which will promote more drives and attacking of the lane); reduced timeouts, and timeouts in close proximity to a media timeout will be counted as the media timeout (instead of having back-to-back timeouts after little or no action); eliminated live-ball timeouts called by coaches; eliminated the five-second, closely guarded call on a dribbler; and gave officials the ability to assess whether a player flopped or faked a foul when the officials consult replay.
Changes to timeout rules are expected to be passed for 2015-16. Greg M. Cooper/USA TODAY Sports
More than anything, the NCAA needs a "freedom of movement" initiative, which will be an officiating issue. In order to reduce the physicality of the game, both perimeter and post, officials have to be empowered to call fouls and enforce the rules. Look, nobody is asking for officials to call "touch fouls" and make basketball into ballet. The officials have to be allowed to use judgment and sort out what is a foul and what is incidental contact.
But if officials do not have the consistent direction and support to call clear fouls, we will continue to have inconsistent results and a lesser product. This is a great first step, and a step toward a better game that is more in line with the rest of the world. Did the rules committee go far enough? No. But it went much further than anyone reasonably thought it would. My hat is off to Rick Byrd and his committee.
It will be two years before the committee will have the ability to make further changes to the rules. Next, it should move even closer to (if not outright adopting), the FIBA rulebook, widening the lane and moving the 3-point line back. College basketball is a great game, but it can be much better for the players, coaches and fans. The game has suffered from a lack of attention to the evolution and change in the game and, absent a change in structure that would centralize decision-making authority, it will take vigilance on the part of the rules committee, officials, supervisors of officials and new NCAA officiating supervisor J.D. Collins.
Scoring and flow in men's college basketball did not plummet overnight. They plummeted over time, while we watched in near-denial. The issues the game faces will not be solved overnight with a few rules changes. But this is a tremendously positive first step, one that should be applauded. I hope this serves to energize those in and around the game to remain vigilant and make the right decisions.
