Will Anything Change With the Recent Men’s College Basketball Rules Changes?

Progress and change are often hailed as intrinsically positive, and if this is the case, then the men’s college basketball game seems to have just made a few steps forward. However, it is only through the lens of time that one can determine if progressive measures are effectual, and right now, opinions are mixed about how much of an impact will be seen as a result of these changes.

To recap what is on the table, rule makers have proposed limiting timeouts, lessening physicality of play, and shortening the shot clock from 35 to 30 seconds. It is also important to remember that these propositions are just that and are not law. Final decisions will not be made until June, when a panel will come to a conclusion.

The impetus for these alterations is the current state of men’s college basketball. Described recently as a “joke” by Connecticut women’s coach Geno Auriemma, men’s basketball has seen pace of play slow and offensive production fall, two sins in the eyes of modern sports fans. Although still setting unprecedented viewership numbers each fall for its D1 tournament, policymakers are obviously wary of the game’s regular season becoming an undesirable prelude.

Unlike baseball, which could have been faster in combating over-long run times, men’s basketball officials are being proactive now to try and stymie the slide into low-scoring, long-running games before interest wanes greatly. This seems like a wise course of action on the surface, but many wonder if the right moves were made. SMU head coach Larry Brown decried the change, stating that it will make the men’s game, which is already “ugly” according to Brown, “uglier with a shorter clock.” On the other end of the spectrum, ESPN’s Jay Bilas wishes the shortened clock had been slashed even more so, but is excited about the freedom of movement new defensive rules might allow.

More offensive possessions, lessened defensive physicality, and fewer timeouts are all supposed to add up to a faster paced, higher scoring game that won’t drag in the final minutes. However, as with most changes, it is hard to predict what effects there will be. Perhaps Larry Brown will be proven right, and these alterations will have a negative outcome, making an already “ugly” product even worse. Naturally, due to stylistic difference, particular teams will be able to adapt to the faster speeds more successfully than others. Will this encourage more teams to adopt a faster paced system, or simply force coaches to tweak already-installed schemes? Or will there be no change seen, as some are predicting, as the changes did not go far enough in scope?

Regardless of the outcomes of the proposed alterations, which will take seasons to determine, officials should be commended for wanting to fix what is perceived by many to be a flawed offering instead of simply relying on a successful March tournament. As other sports have realized, resting on laurels and not taking risks can cause those seasons of success to disappear all too rapidly.