Time For Quarters

It's March.  Which means the NCAA Tournament is right around the corner.  And, with conference tournaments set to begin, all eyes will turn to college basketball.  And, if this year's NCAA Tournament games are anything like recent seasons, they'll seem interminable.  The amount of replay reviews, especially at the end of games, are out of control, and they make games take forever when they really don't need to.

Jay Bilas lamented the abundance of replays during a game last night and acknowledged that there isn't really anything that can be done.  At least not right now.  The rules permit reviews either requested by the coaches or called by the officials themselves for any number of reasons, mainly clock situations or out of bounds plays, but also potential shot clock violations, whether a basket was a three or a two, and a number of others.  It's a great tool to get the call right, but Bilas thinks officials have become too reliant on the use of replay.  Especially at the end of games.

Bilas suggested a system similar to the one used in the NBA.  Coaches get one challenge per game.  If it's successful, they keep it.  If it's not, that's it.  Now, I'm not sure how effective that would be at the college level since most of the replay stoppages are administrative in nature and that likely wouldn't change.  Even if coaches had challenges, the officials would still stop the game and go to the monitor in those big moments, completely killing the pace of the game.  As those reviews add up, so does the amount of time wasted with everyone just standing around not playing basketball at the end of games.

And let's not forget that NCAA Tournament games are already longer because there are more commercials.  Which means media timeouts are longer.  Then you throw in all of the replay reviews and extra commercials at random 30-second timeouts, and the chances of an NCAA Tournament game taking two hours (the time actually allotted) are slim to none.  Slightly over two hours is considered short, and most games tend to be closer to two and a half hours.

Another topic Bilas touched on was moving the ball into the frontcourt after a timeout in the last minute.  They can advance the ball in NCAA women's basketball (which can make the last minute of those games painfully long...especially when teams save all their timeouts for the end), as well as in the NBA and internationally.  It's only in NCAA men's games where teams have to go the length of the court regardless.

The jury's still out on advancing the ball.  There are plenty of people who are for it, while there are just as many who like things the way they are.  If they want to get the ball into the frontcourt, make them earn it.  So, it seems unlikely there's enough support for a change.

However, there's another area where NCAA men's basketball is long overdue for a change.  It's beyond time to go to quarters.  The NCAA went to four quarters in women's games a decade ago, and they play four quarters in high school, the NBA and internationally.  It's literally only NCAA men's games that are still two halves.  It's past time to change that and have the college men's game match up with the way basketball is played everywhere else.

This was brought up a few years ago the last time the men were up for a new rules cycle, but they ultimately decided to stick with two 20-minute halves.  I would imagine it'll be revisited the next time men's rules are up for review (which I think is this offseason).  Whether it's changed or not is a different question.  Because I think, like advancing the ball, there are plenty of people who like things the way they are.

Count CBS and Turner among those who prefer the status quo.  And their reason for doing so is actually fairly simple.  With two halves, there are four media timeouts per half and an extra one in the second half.  That's nine media timeouts total.  In women's games, they only have one media timeout per quarter, plus the break between quarters.  Throw in the extra media timeout in the second half and that's seven total.  CBS and Turner obviously like having those two additional timeouts because that's two more commercial breaks.

There's no question that the strategy is very different with halves opposed to quarters, too.  The four media timeouts divide each half nicely into four-minute segments.  Women's games, meanwhile, are four five-minute segments, but those segments can end up being significantly longer if there's a timeout called.  And the women have two end-of-quarter situations that the men don't, as well as the alternate possession to start the second and fourth quarters.  In a close game, that could end up really mattering.

Perhaps the most significant difference between the men's halves and the women's quarters, though, is the fouls.  Once again, this is an area where men's college basketball is unique.  The college men are the only ones who still have the one-and-one.  The women haven't had it since they went to quarters.  Instead, it's straight to two shots on the fifth team foul.  Not having the one-and-one has made a huge impact on women's games.  Likewise, the men having it definitely makes an impact.  Especially when the front end of a one-and-one is missed.

That's the biggest reason why Bilas would like to see the men switch to quarters.  Not because he wants to eliminate the one-and-one, but because he'd like to see the team fouls reset at the end of each quarter.  There have been plenty of games where a team picks up seven fouls fairly early and their opponent is shooting free throws the rest of the half (another thing that makes games longer).  Going to quarters would allow them to go to five team fouls per quarter, which has worked well in women's games.

Most importantly, playing quarters instead of halves would match up with how basketball is played literally everywhere else in the world.  A good number of these players will end up going professional, whether it's in the NBA, the G-League or overseas.  Many of them have and/or will play internationally.  All of those games are quarters.  So, playing quarters in the NCAA would make for less of an adjustment to playing quarters at those other levels.

While there seems to be some agreement between fans, media members and even a number of coaches and players about a preference for quarters, I'm not optimistic the NCAA will actually make the change.  At least not right away.  There are too many purists out there who like halves, and we know TV needs a certain amount of commercial time (although, when they went to quarters, the women went to longer media timeouts to make up the difference).  I do think it'll happen somewhere along the line, though.  Cooler heads will eventually prevail, the NCAA will make the smart move, and men's games will be the same as women's games.  Four 10-minute quarters.  Not two 20-minute halves.

An Important IOC Election

Until recently, the year after an Olympics meant choosing the host city for the Games seven years later.  That timeframe has been completely revamped as a result of the new bid process that was instituted by IOC President Thomas Bach.  The upcoming Summer Olympics in LA and Brisbane were awarded more than a decade in advance, while we didn't find out the 2030 Winter Games will be in the French Alps until just before the Paris Games, only five and a half years ahead of time.

Voting for host cities has become nothing more than a formality, and many IOC members don't like how they've had that perk essentially taken away from them.  They haven't liked a lot of things about Bach's presidency, in fact.  That doesn't mean Bach's presidency hasn't been transformative because it absolutely has.  He's done a lot of good for the Olympic Movement and some of his reforms will definitely be lasting.

But, after 12 years, it's time for a change.  Which makes the upcoming IOC presidential election one of the most significant in history.  Bach is term-limited and IOC members will be choosing his successor later this month.  Each candidate has a very specific vision for the future of the Olympic Movement.  It's up to the IOC members to decide whose vision is the right one.

And, make no mistake, there will be plenty of issues that the incoming IOC president will immediately have to deal with.  First and foremost is what to do about Russia and Belarus.  It's not just a question of how you bring them back into the fold.  It's also a question of when.  And with the Milan Cortina Games less than a year away, the clock is ticking if they're going to participate in 2026.

There's also the question regarding the eligibility of transgender athletes, especially after the attention brought to the issue by the women's boxing tournament in Paris.  Whether to pay medalists prize money or not.  Doping has always been and will always be a problem the IOC must deal with.  There are even different opinions regarding which sports should be on the Olympic program and how host cities are decided (there are more than a few IOC members who want their voice back). 

So, yeah, it's a lot of things that they're deciding.  And, not surprisingly, the candidates themselves don't see eye to eye on every front.  They're seven candidates with seven different plans for the future of the Olympic movement.  Although, even though there are seven candidates, there are really only three contenders.

Sebastian Coe is the odds-on favorite.  He's an Olympic gold medalist who organized the wildly successful London Games.  Since then, he's been the President of World Athletics.  He's shown strong leadership at the helm of the largest Olympic sports federation and has been very forceful in his positions on Russia, doping and awarding prize money (he apologized after ruffling more than a few feathers for unilaterally deciding to pay track & field medalists in Paris).  Coe's age could be a factor against him, though.  He'll turn 70 next year.

If it isn't Coe, it very well may be Kirsty Coventry.  There's never been a female IOC President or an IOC President from Africa.  The seven-time swimming medalist from Zimbabwe would check both of those boxes.  She's been a rising star in the IOC for several years and has a number of things going for her.  Coventry is young, got her start on the IOC Athletes Commission and is now on the IOC's influential Executive Board, as well as Zimbabwe's sports minister.  She seems to be Bach's preferred candidate, so would she change much or keep the status quo?

Juan Antonio Samaranch Jr. is more of a dark horse, but I can easily see him sneaking in if Coe and Coventry split votes (the candidate with the lowest vote total is eliminated with each round of voting).  If his name looks familiar, it should.  Juan Antonio Samaranch Sr. is the most significant and influential President in IOC history, shaping the Olympic movement into the commercial powerhouse it's become during his 22-year tenure.  Samaranch Jr. is currently an IOC Vice President and was on the coordinating committee for three different Games.  And, while not nearly as influential as his father was, he wields a lot of influence in Olympic circles.

Moving on to the longer shots, Morinari Watanabe is currently the president of the International Gymnastics Federation.  He's the first Asian ever to hold that office.  Watanabe has some outrageous ideas, including having a worldwide Olympics with events going on 24 hours a day.  Frankly, that seems a little too out there.

Prince Feisal al Hussein is the brother of Jordan's King Abdullah II.  He's been an IOC member since 2010 and on the Executive Board since 2019.  Prince Feisal is also the head of the Jordan Olympic Committee and on the Olympic Council of Asia's Executive Board.  So, he's obviously got the experience.  The most important feature of his manifesto is that he wants IOC members to have more of a voice in decision-making, starting with the selection of host cities.

The last two candidates are the longest shots.  Frenchman David Lappartient is the president of the International Cycling Union, but has only been an IOC member for two years.  He's done a lot in that time, but it's still only two years.  Which is more than Johan Eliasch, the president of the International Skiing Federation who only became an IOC member in July.  That's simply not enough time to make enough of a mark to be elected leader of the organization and arguably the most powerful person in international sport.

Ultimately, I think this will be a two-horse race between Coe and Coventry.  They're the only Olympic gold medalists among the candidates, which is something both Bach and his predecessor Jacques Rogge were.  It feels like that will become a sort of unofficial requirement moving forward.  At the very least, having been an Olympic athlete will be the bare minimum.  Which is why I think they hold the edge over Samaranch.

Coe is the safer bet.  He's shown who he is and what he can do, and how the Olympic Movement can benefit from his leadership.  Coventry would be a historic selection.  For two reasons.  And she's been being groomed for the role for several years, so, even though she's young, she wouldn't be in over her head at all.  I can honestly see either one winning the election.  But, if I had to make a choice, I'd say they go with Seb Coe and Kirsty Coventry becomes the IOC President-In-Waiting for when Coe's tenure is up.